Sitting of 11 June 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered tomorrow.

  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time

  BRITISH RAILWAYS(TROWSE BRIDGE) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Crown Immunity
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about removing Crown immunity from workplaces covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act; and what consideration he has given to the matter.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The General Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union has sent my right hon. Friend a report on this subject. This followed our meeting with the trade union, the right hon. Member and other right hon. and hon. Members on 17 April. We have asked the Health and Safety Commission for its considered view of the case set out in the report.
    Mr. Ashley: I welcome that request to the Health and Safety ▸Commission. However, is the Minister aware that Crown immunity protects from criminal prosecution so-called Crown institutions, such as hospitals, when they break the law under the Health and Safety Acts and that this is gravely damaging to patients? Can he give one good reason why a hospital which food-poisons its patients should be immune from prosecution when a hotel which food-poisons its visitors can be prosecuted?
    Mr. Bottomley: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the food hygiene regulations are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I cannot give him a good reason, but I can give him a true reason. It took two years, from 1977 to 1979, for the Labour Government to take no action. I therefore believe that we are pursuing the right course in asking the commission for its advice, and we shall then consider the advice that it gives.
    Mr. Gregory: Does my hon. Friend realise that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that inactivity in this regard is quite shameful? Frankly, the deaths from food poisoning at the Stanley Royd hospital in Wakefield cannot be tolerated. At present, patients going into hospital face possible danger. However, there is no question of environmental health officers being entitled to go into hospitals—they go in by invitation. I therefore urge my hon. Friend seriously to hold talks so that Crown immunity is stripped away to ensure that patients enjoy the same privileges as they do if they dine in a hotel or restaurant.
    Mr. Bottomley: As I have said, we shall give serious consideration to the advice for which we have asked. Although there are differences between Crown and non-Crown premises, there is a shadow procedure for Crown notices similar to statutory notices, which ought to have a great effect.

    Disabled Persons
    2. Mrs. Clwydasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the quota system for the employment of disabled people.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): The Government have been concerned for some time about the working of the quota scheme. I have recently received from the Manpower Services Commission a report on the scheme by a working group representing all interested parties. I am now considering its advice and recommendations.
    Mrs. Clwyd: As only 30 per cent. of employers reach the 3 per cent. quota, will the Minister use the code of practice on the employment of disabled people as a means of strengthening the quota? If the code of practice does not work, will he give statutory backing to it?
    Mr. Clark: As the House knows, the hon. Lady has long and valuable experience of this subject. From our evidence to the all-party disablement group six weeks ago, she will be aware that the principal difficulty is the reluctance of disabled people to register. However, the DROs in the employment service are doing their best to persuade employers the advantages of employing disabled people. I am glad to say that this is reflected in the figures for placings, which have gone up from 69,000 to 71,000 against an extremely disappointing general employment background. We hope that this trend will continue. If it does not, and in the light of research which the special MSC report recommends, we shall consider what further action to take.
    Mr. Holt: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is at last beginning to tackle the problem. What does he intend to do about the certification of exemption, which is all too readily available to employers? Does he agree that the regulations for exemptions should be much stricter and stiffer?
    Mr. Clark: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. The reluctance of disabled people to register means that only 32,000 registered disabled people are eligible and available for the quota scheme, so, even if every one of them were taken into employment, the total would still be less than half that required by the Act.
    Mr. Boyes: Does the Minister agree that Government Departments could set a good example by fulfilling the

    739
    quota themselves? Is he aware that data made available earlier this year show that only five out of 44 Government Departments reached the 3 per cent. quota, and that, even more disgracefully, the DHSS, which ought to be well above the quota, accounts for only 1.5 per cent.? Will the Minister ask his colleagues to do something about that?
    Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. The Government should set an example. As I have explained, the sheer mathematics of the problem makes it virtually impossible to comply, but I take his point about the poor figures for the majority of Government Departments. I have written to them once about this and I shall be writing again. I am glad to say that by Department has the best record of all with a figure of 2.5 per cent.

    rade Unions (Postal Voting)
    3. Mr. Meadowcroftasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now introduce legislation to make compulsory the use of postal voting in ballots for trade union political funds.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): No, Sir.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: If the Secretary of State will not go so far as legislation, will he at least authorise the certification officer to grant exemption from postal balloting based on the case put to him by individual unions?
    Mr. King: The rules have been agreed by the House and the ballots are now taking place. One has been a fully postal ballot; two have been conducted on a part workplace and part postal basis. I am encouraged by reports of the efforts being made to conduct the ballots in the appropriate way. The House will remember this in the future and will expect the same standards to be observed by all unions.
    Mr. Cockeram: Does my right hon. Friend accept that irregular and corrupt practices regularly take place in union elections, not just in relation to political funds, but in the election of union officers and when strike decisions are taken at mass meetings? Does he agree that it is time those practices were brought to a halt in the interests of the average union member?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend helpfully supported legislation which has effectively outlawed mass meetings and removed immunity from them. We welcome the procedure increasingly being followed in any question of strike or industrial action whereby there must be a secret ballot if immunity is to be retained. That is a most important and successful reform.
    Mr. Golding: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ballots on political funds that have taken place so far have been extremely successful, not just in their results, but in the way in which they have been conducted? Is he further aware that more discussion and interest is shown by trade union members in workplace ballots than in postal ballots, as the turnout figures show?
    Mr. King: I confirm that my information is that in the one fully postal ballot the turnout was 20 per cent., whereas in the two part workplace and part postal ballots the figures were 57 per cent. and 67 per cent. Despite all the opposition from Labour Members about monstrous and
    740
    impossible impositions on trade unions, I note and welcome the observance of our legislation by the unions. We shall note the efforts made to ensure fair balloting, and we shall expect that to be the practice in all future ballots in the interests of union members.
    Mr. Merchant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that far too much money is donated to and by trade unions without ballots and proper consultation? Was that not illustrated last weekend by the unfortunate donation of £16,000 by the rock star, Bruce Springsteen, to support miners who were sacked during the strike, which probably also illustrates a lack of proper consideration and advice?
    Mr. King: With regard to the legislation and the steps that are being taken, I welcome the important development that if a ballot for political funds is conducted, and is successful, it is the duty of that union to notify each of its members under the 1930 legislation, which was repeated in the 1984 Act, of their right to contract out of that political fund. If the ballots are to be correctly conducted, the House would expect that step to be implemented.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that we do not want lectures from Conservative Members of Parliament, who get money from companies which are members of the CBI—which would not know a ballot if it stared them in the face — and that we do not need hypocrisy from the Liberal party, which has just received the biggest-ever political donation of £188,000 from the British School of Motoring and for which no ballot was conducted? Would it not be a good idea if everyone who has paid through the nose for lessons at the British School of Motoring were given the chance of a ballot to decide whether the Liberal party should have received that money? Is it not the height of hypocrisy?
    Mr. King: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has still not learnt the important lesson. As a Member sponsored by a union that must bitterly regret the fact that it did not dare to consult its members before embarking on such a disastrous strike, I should have thought that even he might have begun to understand the merits of ballots.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that postal balloting must be evaluated in the much wider context of an improvement in the general industrial climate? Therefore, will he join me in welcoming the recent decision by British Rail to end the closed shop?
    Mr. King: I noted that announcement. My impression was that the closed shop in British Rail ended about two years ago, and I am surprised at the excitement about the announcement. Following our legislation, the British Gas Corporation, the Post Office, British Telecommunications and all the water authorities have notified all their unions that the closed shop is ended.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the Secretary of State make it clear that he rejects the scurrilous charges that are made about irregularities in ballots without the production of evidence? If no such evidence is available, we should treat those charges with the contempt that they deserve. Does the Secretary of State accept, after three political fund ballots, that a combination of workplace and postal ballots produces twice as many participants as does a pure postal ballot? Will he make that clear to the Prime Minister, who is considering new legislation for the trade unions in pursuit of her vendetta against them?
    Mr. King: It is incredible that, so recently after the serious events in the Transport and General Workers Union, the hon. Gentleman can allege that there are no malpractices in trade union elections. If anything could clearly underline the importance of our legislation and of the emphasis that we have given to fair and secret ballots, those recent events have done so.

    Youth Training Scheme
    Mr. Sheermanasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he will next meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss the second year of the youth training scheme.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): My right hon. Friend and I frequently discuss the progress and development of the youth training scheme with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, and did so yesterday.
    Mr. Sheerman: At one of his meetings, will the Minister of State make sure that he gives a very strong lead on the second year of the youth training scheme? If the second year of YTS is not planned as a proper foundation stone for a real training programme for our young people, YTS and all the Government's temporary training measures will fall totally into disrepute. We must have a foundation stone for real training in the 21st century, not cheap job experience.
    Mr. Morrison: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. It is absolutely crucial that the second year of the youth training scheme should be real training, with qualifications at the end of it, so I am delighted to have his support. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is precisely what my right hon. Friend and I and the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission are saying.
    Mr. Lawler: Following the launch of the Genesis programme, when my hon. Friend sees the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission will he discuss how greater advice and encouragement can be given to trainees to use their skills to set up their own businesses?
    Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the enterprise courses are part of the youth training scheme. I agree that many trainees should consider setting up in business on their own. In fact, that has already happened.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Yeoasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will arrange for equal prominence to be given by his Department in the publication of numbers of people employed at the same time as the release of statistics showing the numbers unemployed.
    Mr. Tom King: We seek to give equal emphasis to employment as well as to unemployment, since clearly both statistical series are important to obtain a clear perspective of what is happening in the labour market. The figures are released at different times in the month as soon as they are available.
    Mr. Yeo: I share the concern that is felt by all hon. Members about unemployment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to succeed in securing wider publicity about the number of people employed that would
    742
    not only recognise the steps that the Government have already taken to create more jobs, but offer some hope in an otherwise rather depressing scene for those who are still unemployed?
    Mr. King: I understand my hon. Friend's question. I have been seeking to emphasise that point. Hon. Members know that during the past 18 months there has been a rapid increase in the working population. That has made the task not only of providing more jobs but of reducing unemployment more demanding.
    Mr. Leighton: In view of those bullish remarks, does the Secretary of State think that by the time of the next general election there might be a return to the same number of people in employment as there were when the Labour Government left office? If that is too optimistic, does he think that there might be a return to within 1 million of that figure?
    Mr. King: The challenge that is being faced not only in this country but in every other country of the Western world is very tough. I have never concealed that fact and I have never sought to put forecasts before the House. I take encouragement from the rapid increase in the number of new jobs being created and from the fact that the most recent forecast of the Confederation of British Industry is the most optimistic for many years. I hope that at last there will be the scale of improvement that every hon. Member wishes to see.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are parts of the country—for example, not far from my own—where the number of jobs available is much greater than the number of people applying for them? Does he also agree that one of the disincentives to people seeking employment in those areas is that it is too easy, for young people in particular, to move into employment which is some kind of cul-de-sac? Can he give an assurance that he is taking that point on board?
    Mr. King: There is no doubt that the overall figures show a considerable improvement in the number of vacancies, but I am the first to accept that they are not evenly distributed around the country. In many areas there are frequent complants about skill shortages and the difficulty of getting labour for jobs, but that at least shows that there is an improvement. We hope that the improvement in the economy will help to reinforce it.
    Mr. Foot: Since the right hon. Gentleman is so interested in the employment figures as opposed to the unemployment figures, will he now answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and say what were the employment figures in 1979 and what are the employment figures now.
    Mr. King: The figures are known to the House. There is a later question on this subject. Between 1979 and March 1983 there was a net fall of about 1.8 million in the employed labour force. Since March 1983 there has been an increase of about 600,000 in the employed labour force.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Liverpool research group estimates that the black economy is now worth about £45 million a year? Does he think that people registered as unemployed are contributing towards that vast sum? If so, what can be done about it?
    Mr. King: I am under no illusions. It is a substantial figure. The chairman of the Inland Revenue has on occasions tried to make an estimate of the scale of the black economy. I have no doubt that it is substantial and that some unemployed people are taking advantage of the situation. However, I am well aware that there are many parts of the country with substantial problems of unemployment which are not met by explanations of that kind.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures would be more realistic and would give us a better ability to interpret the situation if they included whole-time equivalents?
    Mr. King: There is obviously something in that. I have made it clear that there are a number of part-time jobs. However, some hon. Members have an illusion that the increase in the employed labour force, to which I have referred, is entirely part-time. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is an increase in full-time male employment, in full-time female employment, in self-employment and in part-time employment.
    Mr. Lilley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is growing interest in the employment figures, for two reasons: first, because the CBI has forecast that by the end of this year there will be 1 million more people in work than there were at the last general election; and, secondly, because of the embarrassment that that will cause to the alliance parties, which, in their manifesto at the last election, said that the biggest increase that could be expected over the same period would be far less than one million jobs — about 650,000 — if their policies were pursued?
    Mr. King: I do not know how much of an embarrassment it would be. I suppose it would depend on how many people actually read their manifesto. I was not aware of the point as stated by my hon. Friend, but I note what he says. Certainly there is considerable optimism about the creation of more jobs. I do not conceal from the House the challenge that we have to face, with the substantial increase in the working population. We may be meeting that challenge better than other countries in Europe, but not well enough to achieve a real reduction in unemployment.
    6. Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the numbers of people who have been unemployed for over 12 months; and what this is as a percentage of those registered unemployed.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: On 11 April 1985, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of claimants in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for over 12 months was 1,334,000–41 per cent. of the total.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister recollect that in April 1980, 334,000 people, or 23 per cent. of the total, had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks? Is he aware that eminently respectable people, such as Hywel Jones, director of the Henley Centre for Forecasting, have estimated that unemployment will continue to rise year by year until the end of the century? Will the hon. Gentleman look at the facts of the case rather than at dogmatism and produce a policy for employment?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman should recall that at the time to which he refers the community enterprise
    744
    programme was in existence and had 30,000 places. Since then, under the community programme for the long-term unemployed, that has been expanded to 130,000 places. Now, with the Chancellor's announcement in the Budget, it has been increased to 230,000 places. That is a practical example of what the Government are doing and how we care for the long-term unemployed.
    Mr. Forman: As the most notable aspect of the plight of the long-term unemployed is their lack of any formal or educational qualifications, will my hon. Friend pay close attention in any extension of the community programme to the training content of the programme and the prospects for remedial education?
    Mr. Morrison: That is precisely what we are doing. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that about 50,000 places in the programme will have a training element.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister's weekend statement that there will still be about 3 million people unemployed at the time of the next general election? Do not the figures mean that the overwhelming majority of over-50s who are currently classified as long-term unemployed have no reasonable chance of a full-time job so long as the Conservatives remain in office?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has probably seen the outturn statistics for the community programme.
    Ms. Clare Short: What do they show?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Lady is right to ask. They show that one in three get a job and that their opportunity of getting a job is greatly enhanced as a result of the community programme, which, as I explained, has been expanded substantially by the Chancellor's Budget proposals.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: The Minister has told us that there are now 1,200,000 fewer people employed than there were in 1979. How many of those who have been unemployed for more than 12 months are young people who, training schemes apart, have never had a job?
    Mr. Morrison: I cannot cite the precise statistics. The hon. Gentleman has rightly put his finger on a key area. Many of the 21 to 24-year olds did not have the opportunity offered by a youth training scheme. If the last Labour Government had bitten the bullet in 1978, those people would have had that opportunity. Because of that lack of action, their position has been made rather more difficult.

    Young Persons (Langbaurgh)
    Mr Holtasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make further arrangements to cater for the high unemployment rate amongst young people in the Langbaurgh region in view of the fact that the youth training scheme will not be available to all those eligible in the area.
    Mr. Alan Clark: There has been no shortage of places in the Langbaurgh area under the present youth training scheme; and young people there will benefit substantially from the expansion of the scheme.
    Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the reassurance that, despite the rumours in the area, there will

    745
    not be a shortfall. The major consideration is, however, about the national average of a 60 per cent. take-up of full-time employment after YTS is completed. In Langbaurgh the figure is about 20 per cent., or even less, despite the hard work of the staff. What encouragement will there be for young people to embark upon YTS for one year if their chance of obtaining full-time employment following that scheme is less than 20 per cent.?
    Mr. Clark: The rumours to which my hon. Friend refers are always regrettable because they lead to a great deal of disillusionment and to uncertainty about whether it is worth going on to the scheme. I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the expansion of the scheme and the fact that the number of places provided for in Langbaurgh is larger than the number of projected applicants. Subsequent entry into employment must necessarily depend upon the level of economic activity where the scheme is situated. The scheme's extension to two years has been widely welcomed. The extension will give a higher level of skills and training to those participating in the scheme and will further enhance their employment prospects.

    Wages Councils
    Mr. Lofthouseasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received any further representations regarding the proposal to abolish or reform wages councils.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there is little evidence that the abolition of the wages councils will create any real jobs? Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the Government would be better occupied in creating real and lasting jobs than in destroying the wages councils, which action will remove the protection for all trained workers?
    Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir. I take this opportunity to point out that the movement of wages and costs, especially unit labour costs, throughout the economy makes a very substantial difference.
    Mr. Favell: Has my hon. Friend read the recent survey of members of the Institute of Directors, which showed that 54 per cent. of those interviewed would employ more people if wages councils were abolished?
    Mr. Bottomley: I am delighted to hear that. Most of those members already have the opportunity of doing that because they do not all operate in wages council industries.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Are statistics available for each travel-to-work area giving the number of people covered by wages council awards?
    Mr. Bottomley: I think that the answer is no.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the United States had had wages councils, it would not have been able to create 10 million new jobs during the past 10 years? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Bottomley: I wish that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) would stop answering my questions for me. As she has rightly pointed out, the United States has a national minimum wage. It is
    746
    important to start looking at the real effects of minimum wage legislation, how it operates in this country and the age groups it most affects.
    Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm, or deny, that his Department is thinking about attacking the minimum wages paid to people under 21 so that their wages will be about the level paid to people under youth training schemes?
    Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman should pay a little attention to the motives and success of the people in the electrical contracting industry, who freely negotiated a reduction in the starting pay and raised the number taking part in traineeships by three times in 18 months. So, the simple answer to his question is no.
    Mr. Nicholls: If evidence is being called for, is my hon. Friend aware of the work done by Mr. Stanley Siebert of Birmingham university, who has estimated that there are about 230,000 jobs lost for teenagers because of the minimum wage structure established by the wages councils?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes. The important thing is to put people on the bottom rungs on the ladder and ensure that more have a chance to move up the ladder.
    Ms. Clare Short: Given the large number of press leaks that we saw over the weekend, will the Minister tell the House what the Cabinet decided last week—if the Secretary of State has told him? Will the Minister confirm that it means that the current consultation is something of a sham? In reply to a large number of representations it was said that the system should not be weakened in any way. Those assurances have obviously been ignored because of the Cabinet's decision to legislate in the next Session either to weaken or to abolish the wages council system.
    Mr. Bottomley: The difficulty in answering the hon. Lady is that hers is the only question to which she does not give the answer. The only person to whom I offered advice wrote an article that was exactly the opposite of what I said.
    Mr. Cockeram: Will my hon. Friend accept that one of the defects of wages councils is the abnormally high rate fixed for school leavers, usually 60 per cent. of the rate for an adult trained worker, and that that precludes the employment of many school leavers?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes. It is worth recognising that most school leavers, or people of school leaving age, face four choices. They can stay on at school, getting no income whatever; they can try to get one of the jobs that are available, in a wages council industry or some other industry, at a fairly high rate of pay; they can stay on in education, at a college of further education, where they get less money; or they can use the youth training schemes, where they can get training to make them better qualified for employment. It is better to make sure that the wages that they get in wages council industries are not so high as to stop most of them getting their feet on the bottom rungs of the ladder and moving upwards.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Fatchettasked the Secretary of State for Employment, on the latest available figures, what is the total number of unemployed under the age of 25 years.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: On 11 April 1985 the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom under 25 years of age was 1,213,000.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does the Minister realise the depressing nature of that figure? Have not the Government, through their economic policies, written off a large proportion of the generation under the age of 25? When will the Government act on their behalf? What hope can there be for those people in the future if there is continuation of the same miserable policies?
    Mr. Morrison: As I said in answer to a previous question, the Government have not written off the 18 to 25–year-olds. The Government have expanded the community programme to almost double its size. As the hon. Member will be aware, about half of the people on that programme are under 25.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is it not time that we had a significant drive to get more young people to take jobs in the service industries? In view of the high unemployment figures, is it not ludicrous that restaurants and hotels throughout the country are staffed almost exclusively by foreigners?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree in part with what my hon. Friend said. There are many opportunities available in hotels, restaurants and the retail industry. As he will no doubt know, there are large numbers of youth training scheme places aimed at precisely those parts of the economy.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister know that, as the end of another school year approaches, the prospects for school leavers throughout the country—certainly in my constituency in Leicester—are very bleak indeed, and that many of their school friends who left at the end of the last school year are still unable to find jobs? The youth training scheme may be admirable, but it is no substitute for a job.
    Mr. Morrison: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows well, in Leicester, as in other parts of the country, every one of this year's school leavers will have the opportunity of taking part in a quality youth training scheme. That is more than ever happened under the last Labour Administration.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: One regrets the large number of unemployed people under the age of 25, but is my hon. Friend aware that in the city of Leicester, because of a dispute within NALGO, the community programme has not been agreed as an agency agreement with the city council, and that, therefore, 400 jobs cannot be confirmed? Will my hon. Friend arrange for the jobcentres to publicise the number of jobs going begging, numbering about 1,600 in Leicester? If those jobs were filled, it would reduce the number of unemployed and would be of help to the rest of the country.
    Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend will know, I am aware that NALGO in Leicester has, for the moment, not approved the community programme. One must, therefore, assume that it is not worried about the long-term unemployed. At present I am looking into that matter.
    Mr. Haynesasked the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of those in employment are in full-time work; and what the proportion was in May 1979.
    Mr. Alan Clark: The labour force survey conductec in the spring of 1984 found that 79 per cent. of employee; regarded themselves as working full time. That compare; with 82 per cent. in the survey conducted in the spring of 1979.
    Mr. Haynes: Does the Minister realise that that reply and those figures mean that there is a growth in part-time employment, which means that there are fewer full-time employees? Is he further aware that those part-time employees are represented in the main by the council—I mean, by wages councils? Bearing in mind that the Government have a policy to abolish wages councils, is the Minister aware that bosses and employers will walk all over those people? It is obviously a typical Tory party policy.
    Mr. Clark: I am certain that the House will feel thai the hon. Gentleman's question lost nothing in the briel interval during which he rehearsed his punchline. If he examines the figures, he will see that the difference between 1979 and 1982 is small. Indeed, the proportior has hardly altered. There is nothing disreputable about part-time work. It is generally accepted that future patterns of employment in industrial societies will include an element of job-sharing and splitting, and flexible early retirement. Government policies and special employment measures are directed towards that.

    Skillcentres
    Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently attending skillcentres; and what were the figures for 1984 and 1983.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: During April 1985, the latest month for which information is available, on average 8,800 people attended skillcentres at any one time. For April 1984 and April 1983 the numbers were about 10,600 and 12,100 respectively. Overall, however, skillcentres plan to train 35,000 adults in 1985–86 compared with 33,000 in 1984–85 and 31,000 in 1983–84.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does the Minister recollect the words of the Secretary of State, who recently said that the shortage of skill in Britain represented a time bomb which, if not remedied, would blow the whole economy to pieces? Why, then, has he changed his mind and decided to keep open only two skillcentres out of all those that have been closed? The two that have been re-opened are in Twickenham and Southampton, and members of the Conservative party in those two areas knew that their centres would remain open before the Minister announced publicly the new decision.
    Mr. Morrison: I recollect well what my right hon. Friend said about skill shortages. Surely the hon. Gentleman was not listening to my answer. I pointed out that in the year ahead 35,000 people would be trained in skillcentres, compared with 31,000 in 1983–84. Furthermore, thanks to the rejigged adult training strategy, 250,000 people will be trained next year, as opposed to 125,000 in the past year.
    Mr. Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree that it does not matter whether the physical building is called a skillcentre, a technical college or a training centre; what matters is the quantity, quality and cost-effectiveness of the training?
    Mr, Morrison: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is precisely why the adult training strategy has been adopted.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister come clean and accept that the so-called re-jigging hides the fact that throughout the country short-term "cheapo" courses are being substituted for genuine year-long skills training in our skillcentres? Is it not a surprise that the two skillcentres that the Minister has saved are in Tory marginal seats? Is he aware that men and women in other areas will take that lesson hard, they having had their skill-training opportunities taken away from them?
    Mr. Morrison: The decision as to which skillcentres to keep was made entirely by the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission. The hon. Gentleman will know that the leader of the CSU pleaded with the chairman of the MSC to retain the Southampton skillcentre. He will know also that it was the Labour-controlled council which guaranteed money for the Southampton centre. Those are the facts.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. John Townendasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was present at Victoria station to meet President de la Madrid of Mexico at the beginning of his state visit to this country. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending a state banquet given by Her Majesty the Queen in honour of President de la Madrid.
    Mr. Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing resentment in the country over the activities of the European Court of Human Rights? Is it right that a court dominated by foreign judges should dictate who enters Britain, should prevent naughty schoolchildren from being caned and should discuss the future of Myra Hindley? Is it not time that these decisions were brought back to the House and the Government? Will my right hon. Friend give notice that we shall terminate our membership and recognition of this body?
    The Prime Minister: I can understand why my hon. Friend feels deeply about some of the judgments that have been given. However, we have signed that declaration and we must abide by its rules. The court held, for example, that the immigration rules applying to the admission of husbands had the legitimate aim of protecting the domestic labour market. It is worth noting that Myra Hindley has tried previously to get her case before the European Court and has failed. It was ruled inadmissible.
    Mr. Steel: Will the Prime Minister join me in deploring the concentration of television interviewers and Conservative Central Office on something called the TBW factor? Does she agree that it is merely a pathetic excuse for the failures of the Government's economic and social policies?
    The Prime Minister: I note that the right hon. Gentleman cannot find a more effective and more important supplementary question than that.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the victory of Barry McGuigan was a great victory and one which symbolised the capacity of the different communities in Northern Ireland to live together when they have the will to do so?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend and I congratulate the winner most warmly. We are all delighted at the reception that he received in both parts of Ireland.
    Mr. Evansasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: How many people will have to pay increased national insurance and pension charges if the state earnings-related pension scheme is abolished, which apparently the right hon. Lady is determined to do?
    The Prime Minister: Any increases will be nothing like those that would have had to be paid had SERPS continued. There will be a certain number of increases, because SERPS will continue until the end of the century for those who are entitled to it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the money that is paid out in pensions this year has to be met by contributions, a factor which I wish he would remember more often.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if she decides to intervene in the current moves to find a peace settlement in the middle east she will have the wholehearted support of the House, and no one will criticise her for visiting Cairo, Amman and other centres in that area, or suggest that she should take a holiday instead?
    The Prime Minister: We cannot intervene directly, as my hon. Friend knows, but we keep closely in touch with these matters, both with the parties concerned and the United States. I have often been asked to visit Egypt and Jordan as Prime Minister, and by the time that the long recess comes it will be about time that I accepted those kind invitations.
    Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Lady gave an evasive response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans). Is it not the plain truth and the plain fact that every worker, whether contracted in or contracted out of SERPS, will have to pay more as a consequence of any abolition of the scheme? Why does she not come out and admit that?
    The Prime Minister: As long as SERPS carries on, yes, more contributions will have to be paid to meet the liability. The right hon. Gentleman must be well aware that the contributions paid so far towards SERPS are not being accumulated to pay out SERPS but are used to pay out existing basic pensions as well as increments on former graduated pensions that have built up. The situation will be far worse under the system that he proposes. If SERPS were fully in operation for the period in which it was arranged for it to be in operation it would cost £661/2 billion, compared with the £15 billion now on the same price terms.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister wants us to forget that not only did she vote for the scheme but that she endorsed it at the last general election. Setting that aside,

    751
    how does the abolition of SERPS meet the problems about pensions that are bound to be encountered? We know that contributions are going up because of the right hon. Lady's deliberate act trying to abolish SERPS. Is she now saying that there will be a real cut in pensions in 20 or 30 years' time, and that she favours that? Is the alternative that extra payments will go in extra subscriptions to private pensions, without any particular advantage for anyone now having to pay for pensions?
    The Prime Minister: No, and if the right hon. Gentleman read it all carefully, he would find the answers for which he is asking. SERPS goes on, for all those entitled to it, up to the end of the century. The outgoings on SERPS have to be met by incoming contributions. As to beyond the century, the contributions that people will make to new occupational pension schemes will be accumulated and will therefore be there, saved and ready to be paid out. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Labour's proposals for pensions alone at the last general election would have already added—[Interruption]—£10 a week to the national insurance contributions of the working population. The right hon. Gentleman never thinks of the working population, which has to pay for all his promises.
    Mr. Kinnock: Why does the Prime Minister never want to talk about her pensions policy now or in the future? What is she trying to evade now? What does she have to hide about the future? Is she in favour of a real cut in pensions in the future simply because she will not bear the obligations, through a state scheme, that people are willing to bear?
    The Prime Minister: SERPS could not be delivered, in spite of all the right hon. Gentleman's promises. At the next general election, at any time, I will stand on our record and on our proposals compared with his. He is proposing to quadruple spending on pensions in real terms over the next 50 years, but he is refraining from saying that the majority of his constituents, the working population, will have to pay for his extravagant promises.
    Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when the earnings-related pension scheme was introduced, its actuarial value was far too optimistic? Does she further agree that, whereas the working population is today paying 9 per cent. of its earnings in national insurance contributions, if SERPS were not altered, some 15 per cent. of every worker's gross income would have to be paid out? The working population could not sustain such a burden.
    The Prime Minister: I do not believe that the working population could sustain the burden. What is more, the figures on which SERPS was calculated took no account of the number of pensioners after the year 2010, which will now be 3 million higher than the figure taken account of in SERPS.
    Mr. Hirst: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the bizarre background to the secrets trial currently in progress at the Old Bailey? Can she assure me that when the verdict is announced—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman's question may well be sub judice.
    Mr. Hirst: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Fatchettasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fatchett: Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to read the article prepared by supporters and members of the Federation of Conservative Students, for publication in the Aston university student newspaper? The article is so outrageously offensive that it can even express pleasure at seeing black people die in the fire at Bradford City football ground. Will the Prime Minster repudiate such vile rubbish which comes fom members of her party? Will she take this opportunity to assure the House and the country that that rubbish in the Federation of Conservative Students will be cleaned out? Does she agree that the article represents a true sickness in the FCS?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will send me the evidence that he has to support his assertions—
    Mr. Fatchett: I have sent the right hon. Lady a copy.
    The Prime Minister: I do not know who prepared the alleged article. I do not know whether the alleged article, which the hon. Gentleman has sent me, was published. Perhaps he will send me supporting evidence for his contentions. If the article was published, that is disgraceful, whoever wrote it.
    Mr. Nichollsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nicholls: Although the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill has now been effectively killed off, the fact remains that the House of Commons has voted overwhelmingly against experimentation on human embryos. As it was possible to deal with surrogacy in isolation, does my right hon. Friend agree that experimentation on human embryos is also a matter that could be dealt with in legislation soon? Does she further agree that, if it is true that we must wait at least two years, and probably longer, for a Government Bill, that would be unacceptable to many hon. Members and reflect grave discredit on the Government?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend said, we introduced a Bill to deal with commercial surrogacy, which we felt had to be dealt with urgently. We intend to bring in a comprehensive Bill with regard to the Warnock proposals as soon as it is practicable. As my hon. Friend said, there will be a good deal of contention about the Warnock proposals and it is as well that that should be resolved before we bring forward a Bill. I am well aware of the strength of views expressed by hon. Members during debates on the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). Indeed, I share many of those views.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: Although I welcome the visit of the President of Mexico, was it really necessary for the streets of London to be snarled up for two hours? Traffic was unable to move and constituents were unable to get into the House. Is it really necessary to plan visits in this way?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that it is the habit and custom for those on a state visit to

    753
    be met at Victoria, or sometimes at Windsor, and for them to proceed through the streets of London. I think that most of the populace of London would wish that to continue.
    Mr. Robin Squireasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Squire: In the light of my right hon. Friend's interview on Sunday, can she now produce a word that
    754
    would describe an Opposition party more interested in analysing the reason for past military success than in producing a defence policy designed to avoid future military defeat?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that my hon. Friend will think that I showed great restraint in not quoting the remark in full, since it has a great pedigree. In full, it would have been "stark staring bonkers."

Legal Profession Reform
3.30 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the development of a more unified legal profession by enabling solicitors, as of right to exercise rights of audience in all courts and tribunals, civil and criminal, in England and Wales; to regulate and provide for advertising of pupillages and tenancies in barristers' practices and to enable barristers to establish practices anywhere in England and Wales with direct access to those seeking legal advice and when appropriate, representation, there being no mandatory intervention of any solicitor's or barrister's clerk or any other person whatsoever; to enable barristers and solicitors to practise together in any mutually acceptable form; to enable barristers to litigate for professional fees; to enable barristers to advertise; and to abolish the rank and title of Queen's (or King's) Counsel and the two Counsel rule
The first thing that we must do is summed up in the words
"let's kill all the lawyers",
as Dick said in Henry VI, part II. Ever moderate, and because some of my best friends are lawyers, I am not proposing to take that extreme course, but I am proposing to save the lawyers from themselves, and to save the consumer from them.
My Bill deals with three problems. The first is the ever-escalating scale of legal costs. In the BBC libel case it is estimated that of £900,000 of legal costs, £650,000 were fees. It worked out at £1,149.42 per day for QCs and £574.71p for their juniors. Secondly, the processes are slow, arcane, cumbersome and inefficient. Thirdly, the system is characterised by monopolies and restrictive practices that are at variance with the competitive ethose of the times. Too much is regulation by barristers for barristers.
Therefore, the first thing that my Bill does is give solicitors rights of audience in every court, thus ending the barristers' monopoly of the higher courts, which will be welcomed by most customers. After all, there is no point in having a Rolls-Royce when a Mini will do equally well. Most people prefer to be represented by someone who knows them, and knows their problems and their case, rather than by a total stranger who is thrust on them at the last minute, all too often on the day of the case itself. The rich can buy the barrister of their choice, but the poor get Murphy's law, and all too often Murphy himself.
The Bill will be welcomed by most solicitors. It allows those who want to specialise in advocacy to do so. Indeed, on 27 March last year, the Law Society launched a campaign to end the Bar's monopoly of advocacy. It said:
"citizens should be entitled to retain the advocate of their choice and not to have to employ more lawyers than are necessary for the case."
I say, "Hear, hear," to the Law Society, for once. I am afraid that the Law Society has gone a little quiet about it probably because of the threat by barristers that conveyancing will be handed to banks and building societies unless the Law Society lays off. I have to tell the Law Society that conveyancing will go to banks and building societies anyway, and the principle of equal access to the courts is right.
Secondly, the Bill abolishes the distinction of QC, a title conferred by the Lord Chancellor in his doubtless idiosyncratic and wholly undemocratic way, behind closed doors, with no appeal. It is essentially a mark of status. As one QC wrote to congratulate a newly appointed QC:
"You'll talk the same rubbish—but now they'll listen to you."
756
If people are going to charge higher fees, as QCs do, it should be for quality as designated by the market place, not for status. They should not be able to charge for a junior on half fees to milch the customer at the same time.
The third and most important part of my Bill will democratise the Bar. How wrong it is that we should have a self-selecting, self-regulating elite of some 4,800 barristers whose training is shorter, more amateurish and less adequate than that for solicitors. The profession is exclusive and amateurish, and there are rich rewards. I am talking of incomes of up to £250,000 a year, and even higher. Such incomes are showered on the top, while at the bottom penury prevails. There is a struggle for survival so intense that one has to have either private means or well-placed connections to get in and survive the starvation years.
The right hon. Lady the Prime Minister has testified to what a struggle that is. I was deeply moved in her biography by Penny Junor to read what a struggle the right hon. Lady had to get into chambers, and how much prejudice there was against a woman, just as there is now prejudice against blacks, and how Sir John Senter promised her a place in his chambers and then threw her out at the end of her pupillage, together with the present Secretary of State for the Environment. It was the right hon. Gentleman's first experience of abolition.
Many are called, but few are chosen, and especially not working-class provincials. Mr. Norman Lloyd, the careers officer at Manchester university, quotes one barrister as saying:
"My advice to working class students would be to avoid the bar at all costs."
Mr. Lloyd says:
"The entry route is an obstacle route so elaborate and so bizarre that it might have been invented by the producer of It's a Knockout."
He is right. That is why my Bill regulates pupillage to ensure that it is a proper training and that it is paid. That is why it regulates tenancies to ensure that they are advertised openly, encourages the co-operative pooling of fees, as in Lord Gifford's chambers, and stops exploitation by the head of chambers.
The Bill allows barristers to set up practices wherever they please even in co-operation with solicitors—as the Royal Commission on legal services recommended — without the intervention of barristers' clerks.
Barristers' clerks have been variously described as an untrained legal mafia or as barristers' pimps. They have been described as a "unique and disturbing breed" — unfortunately I forget where that quotation comes from —who manipulate the monopoly power of barristers, all too often for their own purposes because clerks take between 5 and 10 per cent. of all fees. They can earn from £30,000 to £100,000 a year, much of it from public money. Their power must be restrained, and my Bill proposes to do so.
The Bill allows barristers to set up anywhere without the necessity of having clerks. It allows barristers to take customers without going through the intermediary of a solicitor, as they can already take cases from abroad. It is interesting to note that barristers have girded their loins and revised their practices to deal with Common Market competition, but they will not give customers in this country the same benefit. The Bill allows barristers to advertise—something that solicitors have now begun to do, with great benefit to the profession and to the public.

757
Most other countries have a unified legal profession, and it works well for them. It would here. I see no reason for our obsession with keeping two or even three legal taximeters ticking over, shuffling papers and people to and fro, aggregating dramatis personae in cases, and with not setting up a common training for barristers and solicitors.
It is important to note that my Bill only opens the way to unification. It allows solicitors and barristers to work together in any way that suits them and their purpose. It does not enforce a unified profession.
The Bill keeps specialisation, but it eliminates its excesses. What is most important is that it opens the gateway to change at the Bar. It ends the rigidities and inflexibilities. It paves the way for a more democratic, open and efficient profession which can adjust to the times, because this Government of barristers have made a gospel of competition.
I am not seeking to inflict the same damage on the legal profession as the Government have on manufacturing, by the misguided application of competition. I am saying that the test of restrictive practices, wherever they are, must be public interest and not the convenience of a dreadfully complacent, conservative profession.
On that test, barristers need to be brought kicking, struggling and, no doubt, pleading into the 20th century if we are to have a healthier and more open profession and a better and cheaper service to the public. We want not a closed, proud, restrictive and exclusive profession, but one which serves people and protects their rights and liberties. That is what my Bill will provide for.
3.39 pm
Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South): I wish to oppose the Bill, but before doing so I wish to declare an interest. In a strange reversal of roles which may appeal to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), I am able to say for the first time in my life that I am a solicitor briefed to appear on behalf of the Bar. Having said that, I must also say that many members of my branch of the legal profession must be surprised to see that a measure which at first glance may appear to benefit them should come from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. After all, following his single-handed effort to break the solicitors' monopoly of conveyancing, his achievement may well be popular in certain quarters, but he is hardly the most popular toast at the annual dinner of my local Law Society.
The core and essence of the Bill is in the very first sentence, which says that solicitors should have the same rights of audience as barristers in all the courts. I freely accept that, if the House was minded to accept that part of the Bill, the other parts within it fall naturally into place. It would be quite illogical and unfair to give solicitors an equal footing with barristers in courts while at the same time imposing restrictions on barristers in relation to fee collection, partnership and access to the public.
I shall devote my main attention to that part of the Bill, except to say — en passant, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) might also say — that the last sentence in the Bill, which calls for the abolition of the two-counsel rule, is just a tiny bit out of date, as I understand that it was abolished some years back.
There are three principal reasons why I invite the House not to extend the rights of audience which solicitors presently enjoy. First, when the last Labour Government set up a commission to examine the legal profession, they rightly framed its terms of reference to incorporate this
758
very question. When the commission finally concluded its judgment—it had 15 members, of whom only two were barristers — its decision was very clear. Even more important than its clarity was the fact that it was helped in its deliberations by a wide process of consultation, not just with solicitors, barristers and the judiciary but with many organisations and people with connections in litigation. The commission concluded that the restriction of the rights of audience in the legal profession underpinned the profession and was in the public interest. That is why this Conservative Government accepted those recommendations.
I have heard nothing since that commission reported, and certainly nothing in the arguments of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, which leads me to think that Parliament should now take a totally different course.
The second reason is that, paradoxically, I believe that the Bill will be detrimental to those whom it is apparently designed to assist — solicitors and members of the public. You, Mr. Speaker, may be aware of the dramatic changes that have occurred in solicitors' practices in the last few years. Those changes were well set out in a recent article in the Financial Times. We have seen the growth of major City of London firms which have concentrated to themselves an expertise almost exclusively in certain types of legal work. At the same time we have seen a tremendous extension of scope in the law and its practice.
All these developments have made it increasingly difficult for the average solicitor in the small and medium-sized firm to perform his vital role in his service to the community. That they are still able to do so is caused by a variety of factors. One of the main ones is that in this country there exists an independent and experienced Bar which is available to all solicitors, and hence to all clients, throughout the length and breadth of England and Wales.
The Bill would destroy that independent Bar and, in the wake of that destruction, would destroy many of the small and medium firms to which I have referred, driving their clients into the arms of the bigger firms. The vital role of the independent smaller solicitors practising in every constituency would become a thing of the past.
Finally, I ask the House to reject the Bill because I believe that it perpetuates a disturbing trend in our society —to attack, disparage and ultimately destroy excellence in our professions. No one in the House, not even the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, would dream of promoting a Bill to abolish the distinction between general medical practitioners and medical consultants. No one would deny that both those professions perform equal but different roles for their patients. The same is true of the legal profession. By and large, it serves the community well, with trust and integrity—something that cannot always be said of legal professions in other parts of the world.
Members of Parliament who are barristers can be expected to oppose the Bill and those who are solicitors are likely to view with suspicion a Bill about their profession which comes from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. It should also be expected, however, that members of the public, who should be our prime if not our only consideration, will feel on mature reflection that they will be ill served by this measure. It is in their name, in their interests and on their behalf that I invite the House to reject the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 151.

Division No. 234]

[3.49 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Leighton, Ronald

Atkinson, N (Tottenham)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Barnett, Guy

Litherland, Robert

Barron, Kevin

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Beith, A J

Loyden, Edward

Benn, Tony

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

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

McKay, Allen (Pemstone)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

McTaggart, Robert

Boyes, Roland

Madden, Max

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Marek, Dr John

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

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Bruce, Malcolm

Maynard, Miss Joan

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Mikardo, Ian

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Canavan, Dennis

Miller, Dr M. S (E Kilbnde)

Cartwright, John

Mitchell, Austin (G't Gnmsby)

Clay, Robert

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

O'Neill, Martin

Cocks, Rt Hon M (Bristol S

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Coleman, Donald

Park, George

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Patchett, Terry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Pavitt, Laurie

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Penhaligon, David

Crowther, Stan

Pike, Peterv

Cunliffe, Lawrencev

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Dalyell, Tarn

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

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

Prescott, John

Deakins, Eric

adice, Giles

Dixon, Donald

Randall, Stuart

Dormand, Jack

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Eastham, Ken

Robinson, G (Coventry NW)

Edwards, Bob (Wh'mpt'n SE)

Rogers, Allan

Ellis, Raymond

Rost, Peter

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Rowlands, Ted

Ewing, Harry

Ryder, Richard

Fallon, Michael

Sedgemore, Brian

Fatchett, Derek

Sheerman, Barry

Fisher, Mark

Sheldon, Rt Hon R

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Shepherd, Richard (Aldndge)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Fraser, J (Norwood)

Short, Mrs R (W'hampt'n NE)

Freud, Clement

Skinner, Dennis

Gould, Bryan

Steel, Rt Hon David

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Stott, Roger

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Hamilton, W W (Central Fife)

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Hancock, Mr Michael

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Thurnham, Peter

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Torney, Tom

Haynes, Frank

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Heffer, Eric S

Wainwnght, R

Hogg, N (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Holt, Richard

Welsh, Michael

Hoyle, Douglas

Wiggin, Jerry

Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham

Winnick, David

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Woodall, Alec

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Jessel, Toby

Tellers for the Ayes

Johnston, Russell

Mr Michael Meadowcroft and Mr. Ken Weetch

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Kirkwood, Archy

NOES

Adley, Robert

Anderson, Donald

Aitken, Jonathan

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Alexander, Richard

Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Vall'y)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Baldry, Tony

Ancram, Michael

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

760

Batiste, Spencer

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic

Lord, Michael

Best, Keith

McCrindle, Robert

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Maclean, David John

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Major, John

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Malone, Gerald

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Bottomley, Peter

Mates, Michael

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Mather, Carol

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Maude, Hon Francis

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Mellor, David

Browne, John

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Bruinvels, Peter

Monro, Sir Hector

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Moore, John

Budgen, Nick

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Burt, Alistair

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Butler, Hon Adam

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Needham, Richard

Cash, William

Neubert, Michael

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

Nicholls, Patrick

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Norris, Steven

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Onslow, Cranley

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Osborn, Sir John

Colvin, Michael

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Coombs, Simon

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Cope, John

Pawsey, James

Cormack, Patrick

Pollock, Alexander

Corrie, John

Powley, John

Crouch, David

Proctor, K. Harvey

Dicks, Terry

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Dorrell, Stephen

Rathbone, Tim

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Renton, Tim

Dunn, Robert

Rhodes James, Robert

Durant, Tony

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Dykes, Hugh

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Farr, Sir John

Sims, Roger

Favell, Anthony

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Fox, Marcus

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Gale, Roger

Speed, Keith

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Steen, Anthony

Glyn, Dr Alan

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Ground, Patrick

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Stokes, John

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Stradling Thomas, J.

Harvey, Robert

Sumberg, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Terlezki, Stefan

Hayes, J.

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Hayward, Robert

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Henderson, Barry

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Hind, Kenneth

Thorne, Neil (llford S)

Hirst, Michael

Thornton, Malcolm

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Trippier, David

Irving, Charles

Waddington, David

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Waldegrave, Hon William

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Wallace, James

Key, Robert

Watts, John

King, Rt Hon Tom

Wheeler, John

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Winterton, Nicholas

Lamont, Norman

Wood, Timothy

Lang, Ian

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Lawler, Geoffrey

Younger, Rt Hon George

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Lee, John (Pendle)

Tellers for the Noes:

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Sir Ian Percival and

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Mr. Nicholas Lyell.

Li I ley, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Opposition Day
[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Developing Countries (Famine and Debt)
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Before I call upon the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, I have to announce that no fewer than 15 Back Benchers have indicated that they would like to speak in the debate. I hope that will be borne in mind by both the Front and the Back Benches.
  3.58 pm
  Mr. Stuart Holland (Vauxhall): I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the Government's continuing and substantial cuts in overseas aid and its failure to provide an effective response to the crisis of drought and debt afflicting Sub-Saharan Africa; and calls on the Government to double the official United Kingdom aid programme, both advancing our assistance to developing countries towards the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product and generating employment opportunities in Britain, to take urgent and new measures to increase food, fuel and aid for agricultural development to famine areas, and to promote joint international action to re-schedule and, where possible, write-off the debts of the poorest countries.
  There are three main parts to the motion: first, the aid programme in general; secondly, the call for new measures; and, thirdly, the demand for rescheduling and, where possible, writing off the debts of the least developed countries.
  The House is aware that the Minister likes to give the appearance of being a well-meaning wet corralled in a hard Cabinet. However, a recent Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on famine in Africa shows that the Government have made no additional resources available for famine relief. The funds have been taken from other ODA development budgets, and in one case, which we raised earlier on the Floor of the House, food aid, which would now be highly welcomed in Bangladesh, was reallocated to Ethiopia instead of extra aid being provided.
  One of the major recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee was that extra funds should be added to the aid budget to cover Government contributions to major disasters such as we are witnessing today in Africa. It is scandalous that at a time when long-term development needs have never been so clearly urgent, Britain is contributing much less to those needs, because £100 million in the 1984–85 financial year was transferred from the development budget to emergency relief.
  The Government argue that the ODA's contingency reserve is adequate. We recommend that from now the Government should calculate average annual contributions to emergencies — for example, over the 1980 to 1983 period—and should add into the aid budget for this year a sum equal to the difference between this figure and the planned emergency contributions to Africa. It is time that the Government started to account for emergencies and mobilised the net resources needed to meet them.
  The House has also widely noted that the Conservatives have cut the total overall aid programme since they came to office in 1979. But it is not clear by just how much it has been cut. In practice, the total net aid budget has
  762
  increased from £1.099 billion in 1984–130 billion in 1985–86, a 2.8 per cent. cash increase, but, taking inflation into account, representing a real decrease of about 3 per cent.
  The aid contribution of the United Kingdom is now 0.33 of 1 per cent., which represents nearly a 20 per cent. cut in aid spending by the Conservatives since they came to office. As a proportion of GNP, therefore, the Government have not only allowed the programme to fall to under half of the UN target of 0.7, but Britain's record compares badly, for example, with a Government who are much criticised by Conservative Members, that of the French, with 0.76 per cent. of GNP; Germany, 0.49; Belgium, 0.59; the Netherlands, 0.91; Norway, with over 1 per cent; and with a dramatically rising share in the aid programme of Italy, under a Socialist Prime Minister, especially to Sudan and Ethiopia.
  Not only are we behind in the overall aid stakes—not only have there been cuts in the overall aid programme — but it has been authoritatively reported that the British Government have been foremost in the Council of Ministers, in the Budget Council of the EEC, in recommending cuts in food aid spending for 1985– from the figure proposed by the Commission, of 65 million ecu to 26 million ecu. That is a difference of over £22 million in what the Commission wanted to spend next year and what the British Government recommended should be spent, even though those sums were scheduled simply to maintain the real value of food aid in the 1985–86 period.
  It is double standards, therefore, for the Government to claim that they are seriously concerned to defend, far less to extend, the aid budget. In reality, they have not only been cutting it, but cutting it in the European Community.
  The Government also say that they are concerned about the quality of aid. Clearly, aid quality is vital in projects such as in the Indian Orissa family welfare project and the fertiliser education project covering six eastern states. It is clear that good models of official aid can help the poorer 50 per cent. of the population.
  However, this type of poverty-focused aid represents a small percentage of ODA funds. In particular, only about one third of United Kingdom bilateral aid to Africa goes directly or indirectly to agriculture and related sectors, and only a small proportion of that goes to peasant agriculture and especially towards helping to improve traditional crops such as sorghum and millet.
  Perhaps the Government now share a relative distate for large scale prestige projects. But even, for example, expenditure of perhaps £10 million on an individual dam could provide extensive supplementary irrigation to about 300,000 acres, benefiting up to 100,000 families, without doing damage to the environment in the way in which big projects have done. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister is prepared to make a statement today about that type of project.
  Further, on the double standards of the Government, when in a recent television interview relating to the film "African Calvary" the Prime Minister was asked what the United Kingdom could do to help famine victims, she listed among her three priorities one which was designed to help to develop improved varieties of drought-resistant crops. In reality, the Government have taken steps which have resulted in funds being withdrawn from precisely that kind of project.
  For example, Oxfam is now funding the arid land seed research project at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, after

  763
  the Government discontinued funding for it. Oxfam's field director in Ethiopia has pointed out the sad anomaly that the excellent Addis-based international livestock centre for Africa, which works mostly in connection with the problems of poor farmers, now contributes more to the United Kingdom in the form of goods and services purchased here than it receives in EEC aid.
  Then there is the issue of the replenishment of IFAD —the International Fund for Agricultural Development — which is one of the most effective organisations in helping to improve peasant farming and which is funded both by Governments of the Western world and OPEC. The OPEC countries have seen a substantial loss in their real revenues with the weakening of the world price of oil, and it is understandable that OPEC feels that it cannot continue to fund IFAD in the way in which it has in the past. The result of the cuts in IFAD's budget will be terrible. As opposed to an injection of $1 billion to last for three years, the agreed three-year replenishment is likely to be only $600 million.
  Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury): If the hon. Gentleman intends simply to read out the Oxfam brief, I can perhaps help him by saying that most hon. Members, at any rate on the Conservative Benches, already have copies of it. We should, however, be interested to know how the Labour party would deal with the crisis of famine and debt if they were in government, rather than have the hon. Gentleman tell us what Oxfam proposes, because we know that.
  Mr. Holland: The Labour party is committed on aid to achieving 0.7 of 1 per cent. of GNP within the lifetime of a Government. It is also committed to aiming towards 1 per cent. What we are urging on the Government—it is well publicised by Oxfam; I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that — is that precisely for those reasons the Government have no excuse either for continuing their cuts in the aid programme or for claiming that their hands are tied and that they are doing the best that they can.
  The Minister—for example, in the case of food aid distribution in the Horn of Africa—has paid lip service to the difficulties caused by the civil war in Eritrea and Tigre, and he has made minor resources available through some of the agencies which may reach either Eritrea or Tigre from Port Sudan. But those resources are minuscule. Eritrea and Tigre need about 20,000 tonnes of food aid per month, whereas only 2,500 tonnes is reaching them. The Government's claim to recognise the problem is not matched by anything like a sufficient scale of food aid allocation for the voluntary agencies at Port Sudan.
  Further, the exodus of refugees from Eritrea and Tigre underlines the current crisis in the Sudan. One of the relief centres, Wad Kowli, is now the third largest city in the Sudan. Senior Sudanese officials made it plain earlier this year that they were disappointed with the Minister's visit in January and with his failure to realise that transport and fuel would be needed by the end of April if there was to be any way effectively of distributing food aid to the areas where it is most needed, especially on the borders with Eritrea and Tigre and in west Sudan. It is clear that the Government have relied almost entirely in west Sudan on American agencies taking responsibility for food aid distribution. But now there is a major tragedy in that area.
  764
  On 22 March and 5 June the Minister referred to transportation. On 5 June, he claimed that "large numbers of trucks are already available in Sudan, which has a strong private enterprise trucking agency." — [Official Report, 5 June 1985; Vol. 80, c. 306.]
  In reality, because of its debt problem of between $8 billion and $9 billion, Sudan has not been able to buy the fuel needed to ensure that the private trucking sector is available for food aid distribution.
  In December 1984, the Sudanese Government asked for tenders to renew railway rolling stock and equipment in west Sudan. British firms responded magnificently to that request, and some went out there within three or four days. On their return, they immediately submitted tenders— that was by mid-January—but it was only last week that the Minister was able to tell the House that approval for the £6 million project had finally been given by the EEC.
  It is quite wrong for there to be such a delay in ensuring that the railway is in working order. Only one fifth of the food that is needed in west Sudan is getting through via the railway. The rains have come. They may not be sufficient to sustain a future crop, but they certainly will wash roads away. Road transport cannot possibly cover the whole of the Sudan. It can be used only on a limited basis in food distribution — for example, around Darfur. Because of the delay in approving the railway project, 1.5 million people in west Sudan are now at risk.
  The Minister has repeatedly said to the House, "What can I do? My hands are tied. It takes time for the multilateral aid agencies to operate. Very difficult decisions must be made." In reality, if the EEC would not approve that project, why did the Minister not do what the Germans did? It appears that the German project for refurbishing the railway was not an integrated part of the EEC programme. There is no reason why the British firms which were ready to meet the orders for repair of the railway should not have been able to do so.
  Fuel is a similar issue. On 22 March, I put it to the Minister that there was a desperate shortage of fuel in Sudan. Again, he told us that his hands were tied by the EEC. He said that the EEC was examining the issue and that he was foremost in the EEC in arguing the case. I said to him, "Britain is a shipping and oil-producing nation. Why do you not commission a tanker, fill it with fuel, send it to the Sudan and then send the bill to the EEC Commission?" Had that tanker gone to Sudan and had the fuel arrived in April, the food aid distribution problem would have been very different.
  In contrast to what the Minister told the House last week, nearly half a million tonnes of food intended for famine victims is said to have piled up in ports in Ethiopia and Sudan because of the lack of transport. Some of that food has been spoilt. A United States official, Mr. Peter McPherson, who is the administrator for the agency for international development, has blamed Ethiopia and Sudan for the hold-up. He has said that neither of those Governments has given transport the priority that it deserves. In Ethiopia's case, the lamentable tragedy of the civil war and the Ethiopian Government's failure to ensure the safe passage of food aid or to allocate sufficient vehicles for food aid distribution are much to be deplored. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House deplore this. The Government in Sudan should not, however, be blamed. In January, that Government gave the message clearly to the international community and to the Minister. The Minister failed to react.

  765
  The cyclone in Bangladesh has directly affected almost 3 million people—more than 1 million seriously—and caused substantial damage to livestock, homes and crops. The Government of Bangladesh have appealed for $50 million to cover the immediate—not long-term—need for food, medicine, shelter, and so on. So far, the United Kingdom has pledged £750,000 from its aid budget. That is probably less than the VAT that the Government have managed to collect from the £8 million raised by the Band Aid project. It shows the lack of priority that the Government are giving to the problem.
  Conditional aid and the political refusal to grant aid are also of concern. It is transparently obvious that the so-called technical reasons which the Minister claimed for not granting aid to Nicaragua through the Inter-American Development Bank or the World Bank are entirely without foundation. The Nicaraguans showed me the projects that they have submitted for aid. It is clear that the proposals have been admirably vetted and are technically excellent. There are no essentially technical reasons for blocking aid to Nicaragua; the reasons are political. They reflect the fact that the British Government are prepared to coat-tail the United States rather than concern themselves with a basic needs programme of the type that Nicaragua has already shown it can pioneer—in health, education and food production—and, with resources, deliver.
  Mr. Geoff Dennis, a junior civil servant in the ODA, has been suspended without pay and may face charges following allegations that he was involved in the release to hon. Members of information which showed that the technical reasons for denying aid to Nicaragua were implausible. I am sure that I speak for both sides of the House in saying that few of us believe that civil servants should release material to hon. Members in any circumstances, but this case is directly comparable with the Ponting case, where a Minister misled the House. The jury expressed its views on that matter by dismissing the charges brought against Mr. Ponting by the Government under the Official Secrets Act.
  We understand that, while Mr. Dennis has been suspended without pay, he is still technically employed by ODA and therefore cannot sign on for unemployment benefit. The Government have already penalised him by his loss of earnings. We suggest to the Government that no charges should be pressed and that Mr. Dennis's salary should be post-dated and paid from now until he is reinstated, or dismissed, by the ODA. We shall carefully watch the Government to ascertain how they choose to handle the matter.
  The third part of the motion concerns debt. The scale of the financial crisis is recognised internationally as overwhelming. Mr. Tom Clausen, the head of the World Bank, warned that the future would bring "more Ethiopias" unless action is taken now. It appears, however, that that view is not shared by the Chancellor, who told an IMF meeting that world economic conditions are the best they have been in six years.
  Yet between 1980-82 and 1985-87, annual average national capital flows to sub-Saharan Africa fell from $11 million to $5 million. That represents a drying up of private capital aid flows. Official international development funds from the West and the East are stagnant at S9 billion. Many of those loans will have to be repaid shortly. An extra $2 billion is needed to keep the official aid flows to sub-Saharan Africa at the 1980-82 level. That is why the World Bank, in its project for Africa, recommended
  766
  a $2 billion target. It appears to be clear, unless the Minister says otherwise, that this target will in no way be met. In fact, it is probable that between only a quarter and a half of that sum will be allocated.
  Further, the sub-Saharan countries are suffering from crippling debt servicing. Their debt service bill alone in 1981 was $4.1 billion. That is projected to increase on average from 1985 to 1987 to $11.7 billion, in other words, there has been an almost threefold increase in debt servicing in sub-Saharan Africa.
  The interest rates are extremely high. While 4.5 per cent. may well not be considered high for official interest rates, they are 12.5 per cent. for private loans. When the United States Administration are recommending more market forces within the African sub-continent, and when they are recommending that the forces of supply and demand should make a contribution to development, what is the development difference between interest rates of 4.5 per cent. and 12.5 per cent? It is not merely 8 per cent; it is the difference between viability and financial bankruptcy. That is what is now facing the sub-Saharan countries.
  In the sub-Saharan countries, overall debt service is now rising to about 27 per cent. of total export earnings. That is twice the ratio of 1977. Therefore, even if there had been no drought, there would be a development crisis in Africa today. The measures that the international community is taking in relation to the crisis vary substantially. There is the obduracy of the United States and the unwillingness of our Government to pioneer and press for increases rather than cuts in EEC programmes, so the position is getting worse.
  It is relevant to make a comparison with the cost of intervention storage and export subsidies of the food programme in the CAP. It now amounts to about $10 billion in a total EEC budget of $16 billion. Against that, the Government were pressing that the spending on the food aid programme for next year should be reduced by £22 million.
  In reality, who are the real debtors? The biggest debtor in the world at the moment is the United States. The biggest creditor in the world at the moment—although it may shortly be Japan—is the United Kingdom. We are lending all right—the Government do not have a bias against lending—but we are lending to the rich and to the most developed countries. We are not lending on a sufficient scale to the lesser or least developed countries.
  There are other issues that the House has addressed on other occasions concerning the deteriorating terms of trade of Third world countries, the practice of IMF conditionality, and other matters, but in reality the three main parts of the motion are crucial.
  Have the Government any target whatever for increasing official development assistance over the lifetime of this Parliament? Will they undertake substantial new measures to remedy drought in sub-Saharan Africa, rather than the minuscule measures which are a fraction of the debt needs and development needs of those countries? What action will the Government take internationally either to reschedule or to write off the debts of the poorest countries? I am not talking here about the conversion of loan into grant, because we appreciate that the Overseas Development Administration has a record for doing that with the least developed countries. It is the overall financial debt that is crippling those countries.

  767
  The Government have acted too late. They have failed to respond to warnings. They are, with other EEC Governments, directly culpable for the fact that a railway in the Sudan is not now functioning, and that another 1.5 million people are now suffering in addition to the 10 million migrants and the 100 million other people affected by the drought. The Government must learn the lessons of the famine and act urgently along the lines recommended in the motion. It is for that reason that I commend it to the House.
  4.24 pm
  The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to adti instead thereof:
  'welcomes the effectiveness of the Government's action in tackling the famine in Africa; endorses its policies to promote long term development in Africa; supports the present approach of the Government and the international financial institutions to the severe debt problems of the day; and recognises that Britain's aid policy confers real benefits not only on the developing countries but also on British industry and employment.'.
  The Opposition motion focuses on a number of topics, but especially on sub-Saharan Africa, and that is as it should be. It is there, after all, that the famine has been so devastating. It is there that the long-term development problems seem most formidable. It is also there that we have special responsibilities.
  We cannot do everything across the world; we have to concentrate to some extent. Quite rightly, we do a great deal in the Indian subcontinent. We are active in other areas of Asia, such as Indonesia. We have important programmes in the Caribbean and the south Pacific. We have to sustain and develop our own dependencies. There are other useful things that we do across the world, not least in English language training and technical co-operation in many countries. But Africa presents the greatest challenge to us. We are heavily involved there and we are contributing heavily.
  As we all know, the famine has highlighted in the most terrible way a profound and long-term problem. I shall look first at the immediate crisis and then at the long-term crisis.
  Many people have said—rather glibly—that nothing was done until the television cameras aimed on Ethiopia and then the Sudan. That, of course, is false. As it happens, Ethiopia was the biggest recipient of aid under the Lome 2 convention and the biggest African recipient of food aid from Britain over the three years before last autumn.
  Sudan has not, in the past, been so big a recipient of food aid. Although we provided 45,000 tonnes of wheat in 1983 and 1984 to help the UN refugee programme there, the Sudanese themselves have not normally needed or asked for food aid. But Sudan has one of the biggest British bilateral development programmes, and we have been involved there for many years. Sudan was also, like Ethiopia, one of the largest recipients of European Community aid under Lome 2. So it is far from the case that we or other donors have been doing nothing. Nevertheless, the famine has come with a dreadful impact, and no one can possibly be complacent about what happened or say that enough had been done by the world as a whole.
  768
  The motion alleges that we have not provided an effective response to the drought crisis.
  Mr. Tarn Dalyell: I should like to put a question to the Minister before he leaves the problems of the Sudan. I am not quarrelling with him, but in the statement last week he was a bit dismissive of my question about trucks. Yesterday, Mr. Prattley and other senior officials of the United Nations said that trucks and fleets of lorries were needed, above all else. The Minister knows my interest in relation to trucks at Bathgate and I do not press that too strongly. It has been widely said in my constituency, "We have all these trucks lying around. Why cannot some of them go to the Sudan?" What is the answer to that question?
  Mr. Raison: I have not left the problems of the Sudan, and I am about to say something about trucks. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stay and listen to what I have to say. I am sure that he will.
  I want to tell the House what we have been doing in Ethiopia and the Sudan, two countries to which we have specifically directed our relief efforts. Of course, I recognise that other countries are badly affected, but our help to them is mainly carried out through the European Community and other multilateral organisations.
  In Ethiopia, since October 1984 we have provided over £40 million—£28 million bilaterally and more than £12 million through our share of Community actions. We have provided a wide range of assistance, including food aid. As I said yesterday, I am ready to offer more when we are satisfied about proper arrangements for its transport and distribution. We have provided transport itself, including lorries, Land Rovers, semi-trailers and mobile workshops and spare parts. We have provided medical equipment, tents and blankets, seeds and tools.
  The RAF and Army detachments have done a marvellous job since last November. They have flown 10 hours a day every day since then, including over 300 airdrop missions. To date, they have successfully delivered over 4,500 tonnes of grain and other supplies. I must also mention that we have provided two men for the world food programme team monitoring the distribution of food supplies. They have been working in Eritrea and Wollo.
  The overall position is now broadly as follows. The recent widespread rains have favoured the secondary belg crop to be harvested shortly and land preparation for the main crop, which is scheduled for planting in the next few weeks. However, those rains have also impeded the distribution of supplies in some remote areas. The main rains, which we hope will come during the next three months, will make road transport more difficult.
  Of the 1.1 million tonnes of food aid pledged, some 60 per cent., that is 680,000 tonnes, has been shipped. About 185,000 tonnes are now in the three ports and 135,000 tonnes are in store or being distributed. The main problem now in Ethiopia is the shortage of transport, which is seriously hampering distribution. The Ethiopian authorities have recently provided 350 lorries to increase the daily offtake at Port Assab to 3,000 tonnes, but they need to do more. Yesterday I announced the further assistance that we shall be providing — £750,000 for land transport, the extension of the airlift to the end of September, and 10,000 tonnes of grain to be used when it is needed and can be used effectively.

  769
  Finally, although the position is desperate in many respects, one redeeming feature has been the effective co-ordination between the donors — typified perhaps by West and East co-operating on the airdrops — and the Ethiopian authorities. Great credit for that goes to Mr. Kurt Jansson, the United Nations' co-ordinator, who is doing an excellent job in difficult circumstances.
  Mr. Stuart Holland: The Minister will be as aware as anyone that air transport is expensive. We are not saying that the Hercules aircraft should not be there. Indeed, we would even say that at this stage there should be more of them. Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to why the railway is not working, and why there was a six-month delay in approving the project, which means that the bulk of the food aid cannot get through?
  Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman is confusing Ethiopia and the Sudan. I have just been talking about Ethiopia, where the Royal Air Force has been operating. I now come to the Sudan.
  Our efforts in the Sudan have also been considerable. We have provided a total of £17 million for famine relief since last October. That is all additional to our normal substantial development aid programme in Sudan. Our contribution includes the cost of 62,000 tonnes of food aid, all of which has now been delivered to Port Sudan. When I was there earlier this year, I formed the strong view that we must get our food aid there before the rainy season. I said that on my return, and we have succeeded in that objective.
  We have also provided more than £5 million to the voluntary agencies, including assistance to Save the Children Fund for overland distribution and an airlift to western Sudan. I welcome the appointment of Mr. Winston Prattley as the United Nations' Secretary General's representative to do a similar job in the Sudan to that done by Mr. Jansson in Ethiopia.
  Food is now arriving in significant quantities in Port Sudan. More than 700,000 tonnes have been delivered, and pledges now cover the estimated requirement of 1.4 million tonnes to October. Distribution is a critical problem, especially, as the hon. Gentleman fairly said, in Darfur in the west. It is right that attention is focused there at present. The monthly cereal requirement there is more than 30,000 tonnes. The airlifting of medicines and supplementary foods will be invaluable, but airlifts cannot cope with these tonnages of cereals.
  Overland trucking is difficult in desert conditions. It has been averaging 100 tonnes a day. Efforts are being made to mobilise more lorries, but the key is the railway. Its performance has been weak, and has averaged 200 to 300 tonnes a day. Our expert advice is that that could be at least doubled through a system of so-called block trains devoted exlusively to transporting food and relief supplies. We have provided technical help for that from British Rail, and I have pressed the Community into funding the emergency rehabilitation of locomotives. It is hoped that the system will begin operation between Kosti on the Nile and Nyala within the next week, although it is primarily in the hands of the Sudanese authorities. However, we shall continue to do everything that we can to support efforts to improve this vital rail link.
  The problems will not be over when the grain reaches Nyala. Rains will undoubtedly make distribution even
  770
  more difficult. However, we have already provided considerable support for the Save the Children Fund logistics effort in Darfur.
  Today I can announce further assistance. We are providing a grant of £1.2 million to Save the Children Fund to purchase 60 Leyland trucks and to hire an additional 50 lorries in Sudan. The trucks will be used to move food supplies from Kosti and Omdurman to Nyala in western Sudan. Leyland Trucks has offered to loan Save the Children Fund free of charge an engineer to service the new trucks for a period of 12 months.
  I am also providing a grant of £150,000 to the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development to buy 12 four-wheel-drive vehicles and spares, which will be used by the Church organisation, Sudan Aid, to distribute food to more than 100,000 families in western Sudan and the greater Khartoum area.
  I have also approved a further grant of £1 million to the 1985 Africa appeal of the International Committee of the Red Cross and a donation of £250,000 to the United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation appeal to enable cereals to be distributed to villages affected by drought in Niger.
  We also continue to respond generously to refugee appeals. I have now agreed to provide £3 million in response to three 1985 appeals from the United Nations high commissioner for refugees. We shall contribute £1.5 million to the Africa emergency appeal, £1 million for Sudan and £500,000 for Somalia. Our contributions to the Africa emergency and Sudan appeals will help with UNHCR programmes for the 700,000 refugees in Sudan both for short-term needs and longer-term settlement schemes.
  Our £500,000 for the Somalia programme will help with the UNHCR provision of food, medical and water supplies, transport and education. Since 1 April we have committed £5.85 million in response to various refugee appeals for Africa.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: Was any of that new money?
  Mr. Raison: The money comes from our aid budget. I shall come back to that subject in a moment.
  Throughout, I have taken the view that it is not merely gestures that are wanted, but effective action specifically targeted at priority needs. That is why so much of our effort has gone on transport and distribution, and why both in Addis Ababa and Khartoum our embassies have worked so actively and effectively to that end. There is absolutely no doubt of the value of our contribution in the countries concerned, and I am proud of what is being done in the name of Britain in these desperate circumstances.
  The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) asked about our attitude to European Community food aid. On 7 May I wrote to him about that and explained that in the April Budget Council we had supported a Presidency which increased by 25 million ecu, or £14.5 million, the level of food aid appropriations over those in previous draft budgets. On 22 May my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury accepted further increases worth a total of £52.8 million above the original figure.
  I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is wrong to equate the level of EC food and the size of the famine relief effort. The two largest recipients of food aid are India and Egypt, and this year some food aid has gone

  771
  to Malta. Most food aid is sold by recipient Governments, which is perfectly legitimate in terms of their agreement with the Community. Only a comparatively small but growing proportion of the budget is spent on sending food to famine victims.
  During the past months my whole object in the EC has been to get the Community to focus its food aid primarily on those areas where the need is greatest. We have had considerable achievements in that respect. The House knows very well that indiscriminate food aid does not do any good, but is a way of using up surpluses. The effect can often be detrimental to the proper indigenous agriculture in the countries concerned.
  Mr. Stuart Holland: In relation to the 25 million ecu, will the Minister confirm or deny that the Commission's proposal was for 65 million ecu? The difference in today's prices is £22 million. Did the Commission propose the higher figure or not?
  Mr. Raison: There were proposals for higher figures, but I repeat that our objective, which has been successful, is to get food aid in the Community focused much more on areas of actual need. The hon. Member for Vauxhall knows that at the Dublin summit the Prime Minister took the lead in ensuring that the Community would retarget its food aid on areas where famine relief was most desperately needed. We were successful in that and we have been successful in continuing the campaign to get food aid properly targeted. The hon. Gentleman is talking about an indiscriminate increase in food aid, which he knows would not be helpful developmentally in many instances.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to fuel supplies in the Sudan. After I went there earlier in the year I, too, was concerned. However, it appears that the situation appears to have eased. The United States and Saudi Arabia have guaranteed the financing of fuel imports for four months from April. The world food programme and the United Nations high commissioner for refugees have set up their own fuel and storage arrangements. Britain contributed $272,000 for the distribution of our most recent consignment of food aid, which arrived at Port Sudan on 17 May. I do not deny that there have been apprehensions about the supply of fuel, especially diesel, but, as I found, the situation has not been as desperate as was feared.
  Questions have been raised about the source of the resources that we have put into famine relief. There has been some added money on top of the aid programme. The Ministry of Defence has provided the greater part of the cost of the Hercules operation in Ethiopia. That will amount to an extra £10.5 million by the end of September. As we know, the public have responded with great generosity. If people feel that more should be spent, this is an area where they can do exactly what they feel, through our admirable voluntary agencies. For our part, we have consistently worked closely with the agencies, often placing our aid through them.
  What about the Government's own response? I fully accept that we have had to operate within the limits of our overall aid budget. We are committed as a Government to the firm control of public expenditure. Nevertheless, we have provided very substantial resources towards dealing with famine in both short-term relief and long-term development.
  772
  In the last financial year, which ran to the end of March 1985, we spent, directly and indirectly, about £95 million on famine-related operations in Africa. To achieve this we drew on the contingency reserve, because that is what the reserve is for. We drew also on our bilateral food aid. We contributed through the European Community and we utilised some funds which became free as a result of slippages elsewhere in our programme. No country or multilateral programme suffered enforced reduction to achieve this. By flexible management we have succeeded in concentrating on the greatest needs. As for this financial year, I have announced that we expect to spend £60 million bilaterally and multilaterally as a minimum planning figure. If we have to find more, we shall.
  These are very considerable amounts, but it is not only the quantity of our response that is significant. The quality and effectiveness of the response is similarly significant, as is our lead in stepping up and accelerating the Community's response at Dublin, in the Foreign Affairs and Development Council and in Coreper in Brussels.
  Mr. Reg Prentice: My intervention is directed to the way in which development aid is funded. The contingency reserve and the other sources to which my right hon. Friend has referred are all very well in most years for short-term emergencies, but the scale of what is happening in Africa and the likelihood that the problems will continue for some years are factors which present a new dimension and require that something should be added to the figures which would otherwise be available in the next few years. Will the Minister ask his colleagues to take that on board in the context of the next public expenditure review?
  Mr. Raison: I respect my right hon. Friend's views, and I am aware that he has the courage of his convictions because of his past actions. I hope that what I have said already and what I am about to say about long-term development will show that we are able under our present aid budget to mount an effective programme in the short term and the longer term.
  I shall address myself to the longer term. Confronting the short-term disaster must not distract us from tackling the challenge of longer-term development. If we had to cut short our plans for this to provide relief, we should be sacrificing the future to the present. It is important to press on, especially with aid which will help our African friends to put their own house in order, and to reshape their development plans in the light of the lessons learnt during the present crisis. This means searching for ways to make our aid both speedier and more effective.
  Within all our memories, the large and poor countries of south Asia faced similar difficulties in feeding their rapidly growing populations. There were terrible famines in India. Pakistan was a major food importer. Malnutrition was widespread in Bangladesh, especially after floods or cyclones. The plight of these countries was widely regarded as desperate and likely to remain so—fragile economies balanced on the knife edge of the Asian climate.
  Less than a generation later the picture is transformed. All these countries now have the capacity to feed themselves. Food grain production is at record levels. Even in Bangladesh, and even in a year of floods and cyclones, the grain stored in earlier years is finding its way through the food distribution system to those in need. And

  773
  India is emerging as a food aid donor in its own right: it has already given 10 times as much to Ethiopia in the past six months as the Russians have given.
  These countries are still dependent on good weather, and they still need development assistance, but they show what can be achieved. They have had Government policies, which have encouraged food production. They have harnessed the technology of the green revolution. They have had support from the donor community in the early years and in the bad years. And they provide an encouragement to all of us who are concerned about today's desperate famine in Africa.
  Mr. Max Madden rosex2014;
  Mr. Raison: I must press on.
  Mr. Madden: I wish to intervene on the Minister's last point.
  Mr. Raison: No. I must press on. Mr. Deputy Speaker has asked us to show restraint.
  In 1984 we spent £234 million on direct bilateral development aid to sub-Saharan Africa. We have changed the emphasis of what we do to meet the changing needs. First, importance is given whenever possible to manpower aids of all kinds. All too often, poor management has led to poor maintenance, inefficient operation and the decay of expensive and important investments. In particular, we have to give help not only in the field but to administrations.
  Secondly, we have gone over to supplying much more fast-spending programme aid. This is to keep existing assets going and to provide spares and other items which so many countries can no longer afford to buy for themselves. Last year, I agreed major allocations for nearly £39 million of this kind of aid for seven countries, chiefly to back up sectoral or macro-economic reform programmes. The bulk of this aid went directly or indirectly to support agriculture and other natural resources. In the same spirit, we have set aside £75 million over the next five years as untied grants for commitment alongside the World Bank's new African special facility.
  The third element in our aid is to look much more closely at what can be done to revitalise peasant agriculture. Together with this, we have to work out ways of more directly reinforcing attempts to reduce population growth and to protect the environment, and especially bush and forest cover. These things cannot really be separated. To the farmer himself, or herself, they are all aspects of the struggle for existence. On the agricultural side, one major task is to rebuild national research systems in a way which actually seeks to answer the farmer's own problems, and to find ways of encouraging agro-forestry and the growth of woodlots which people can see as being of early and immediate advantage to them.
  Indeed, the longer-term answer to famine and drought lies not in food aid and emergency relief aid but in lasting answers to the underlying problems. Research and development work, especially in the renewable natural resources sector, will therefore continue to have a high priority within the aid programme. I wish that I had time to describe all the different things that we are supporting in this sector, because the quality of the scientific work that we are backing both here and overseas is recognised as being of outstanding excellence.
  These various facets of our aid reflect common perceptions among many donors and, I am glad to say,
  774
  increasingly among African Governments. They also lead naturally to greater importance for the so-called policy dialogue, which is the fourth strand in our thinking. If we are to provide fast-spending, fast-consumed aid, or manpower aid, it can be most effective only within a policy framework discussed collectively with the donors. This will ensure proper, co-ordinated use. It is particularly encouraging that many African Governments are making real efforts to change their agricultural policies, and systems so as to give the enterprise of the farmer room to flourish. The best recent example is the astonishing performance of peasant fanners in Zimbabwe. Thanks to good incentives and good marketing, despite last year's drought, they produced two fifths of the country's marketed grain — and did so from generally less productive land.
  All in all, a new strategic approach to development in Africa is emerging. It is an approach which will stress, on the one hand, good research and ecology and effective population policies, and, on the other, not only effective co-ordination and dialogue, but the need for proper incentives to farmers—including adequate food prices, realistic exchange rates, a determined drive to escape from deadening and incompetent parastatals and bureaucracies, effective control of public expenditure, and real scope for the private sector. In the development of this strategy, the World Bank has played a leading part—so, on the more short-term side, has the IMF. It is our general policy to work alongside them towards the same objectives.
  Let me move now to the problem of debt. The motion asks us
  "to promote joint international action to re-schedule and, where possible, write-off the debts of the poorest countries".
  The problems of many countries are severe and long term, and the level of indebtedness and the debt service requirements will remain heavy. Recovery so far has been uneven and the need for further widespread efforts of adjustment remain. None the less, some progress has been made. For instance, the combined current account deficit of the indebted developing countries, excluding middle east oil exporters, in 1984 was only one third of the level in the peak year of 1981. In addition, there has been an overall improvement in growth rates, but this conceals wide discrepancies between countries.
  Nevertheless, as the Bonn summit communique noted, the problems of indebtedness
  "though far from solved, are being flexibly and effectively addressed".
  The number of reschedulings has risen rapidly from less than four a year in 1970 to 1980 to some 31 in each of the last two years. Official debts and guaranteed export credits are rescheduled through the Paris club, where a standard approach has evolved. Central to this approach is consideration of the problem of each country case by case, rather than by the blanket method favoured by the Opposition. In this way, a programme of adjustment to tackle the fundamental economic problems, and to secure a return to sustainable long-term growth, can be worked out, supported by co-ordinated financing arrangements. For this reason a conditional IMF programme has been a precondition for Paris club rescheduling.
  Terms have become easier, maturities and grace periods are generally longer and re-scheduling fees have declined. In addition, we remain willing to consider multi-year rescheduling arrangements where programmes of adjustment are being implemented successfully — as

  775
  recently in Ecuador. ECGD is now allowed greater flexibility so that cover may be restored where appropriate at an earlier stage after the rescheduling of officially guaranteed debts. Of course, all debt rescheduling involves costs for the creditors. It has to be set against the Government's public expenditure plans or, for aid debts, against competing claims on limited aid resources.
  We do not believe that wholesale writing-off of debts is the right answer. However, all the poorest countries are eligible to be considered for retrospective terms adjustment. We have a good record here. We have already cancelled the official aid debts of 12 African countries, amounting to some £211 million, most recently to Mozambique, Ethiopia and Ghana. In total, some £987 million has either been written off, or, in the case of India, local cost aid is provided up to the level of official aid repayments due each year. Largely as a result of this policy, 44 of the 50 poorest countries have no official aid debts to the United Kingdom.
  We remain ready to consider applying the same measures to any other eligible countries which so request. Overwhelmingly, our aid to the poorest countries is given, not lent. It does nothing therefore to generate debts—a sharp contrast to Communist bloc practice.
  Mr. Madden: Will the Minister say more about the Government's attitude to Bangladesh? I am sure he will be aware that there is considerable concern in many parts of the country — not least in Bradford and London, where there are large Bangladeshi communities—about the scale of our response to the disaster. Can the Minister say anything more about what contribution we shall give and what will be the main emphasis of our longer-term aid programme to Bangladesh?
  Mr. Raison: That is a vast and important subject, and I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest. We have recently provided an immediate and substantial response, but, more important than that, Bangladesh is one of the two or three biggest aid recipients in the world. We continue to give Bangladesh large resources, and we focus them on dealing with such real problems as those exposed by the recent cyclone. Bangladesh appreciates our aid efforts.
  I hope that in what I have said I have shown that Britain is making a very effective contribution to the problem of famine and agriculture, above all in Africa. We are bringing skill, determination and resources to bear, and these problems can be tackled. After all, in Asia we have seen in countries like India — and perhaps even Bangladesh—the threat of famine recede as production and skills develop. Aid plays an important part in this process.
  I believe that our approach to debt is sound. We have to work constructively in the world that exists—not in some kind of drearnland El Dorado. At the same time, of course, we are concerned with British interests. We want to develop good relations and see stability increase and potential markets grow. We do not apologise for the fact that a high proportion of our bilateral aid is tied—that 73 per cent. of it returns to Britain in the form of goods and services. The aid trade provision enables us to respond flexibly to commercial opportunities and to counter the mixed credit practices of our competitors. Over the last few years some £350 million of aid trade provision has
  776
  resulted in British firms winning contracts overseas valued at more than £1,400 million. Those who say that we are idle in this regard should take notice of those facts. We want to help our people too. Nor do I apologise for our stress on effectiveness and policy dialogue. Too much aid has been wasted in the past, and a 10 per cent. increase in effectiveness is as good as a 10 per cent. increase in resources.
  Our commitment remains clear. We are not out to promote bad commercial ventures, any more than we are out to prop up bad bureaucracies. We want to see real development—in our own interests, certainly, but above all so that we can see an end to the terrible suffering which, with the aid of television, has so drawn the sympathy of ordinary people.
  The motion is sheer Opposition rhetoric. I ask the House to reject it and to support our amendment.
  4.58 pm
  Dame Judith Hart: I have one small question for the Minister, on which I should appreciate an answer at the end of the debate. As he will know, yesterday I tabled a question to him about aid for Nicaragua. I tabled a previous question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on the same subject. I tabled the questions because I understand that the European Community is requesting that all EEC members double their aid to Nicaragua. What response will the British Government make to that? The issue may not arise until the next Development Council. Has the Commission made its proposals, and, if not, when is it likely to make them? What do we propose to do to respond, and how far does it look as though we shall turn in the direction of the EEC's more generous and more politically realistic policies towards Nicaragua than those of the United States? I should be most grateful for some information on that matter, as I have failed to elicit anything through my parliamentary questions.
  I note what the Minister said. Most people, who have been extremely generous, understand well that there has been no extra money from the Government to meet the crisis in Africa. We should be foolish not to welcome what the Government have done. They have done a good deal, but the expenditure which the Minister mentioned came out of the 1984–85 programme and the Minister's contingency reserve. The concept of a contingency reserve is slightly new to me—for at least a couple of years, we did not have an underspend on the aid programme.
  Mr. Raison: The contingency reserve is not a description of underspending, but simply a sum which is set aside to deal with emergencies and special needs as they crop up. I should be extremely surprised if the right hon. Lady did not have one when in office.
  Dame Judith Hart: I am well aware of that. We somehow found ourselves able to provide whenever we were asked for additional help, without having to set aside money and thus depriving the bilateral aid programme.
  Last week, the Minister was good enough to receive a deputation from the social and economic affairs committee of the United Nations Association led by my noble Friend, Lord Ennals, and me. He told us, as I am sure he would be ready to tell the House, that this year, with the crisis in mind, he has increased the contingency reserve from

  777
  £45 million to £60 million. In a programme which is not increasing, that represents a cut of £15 million in bilateral or multilateral programmes.
  It is scandalous that the aid programme is not increasing to take account of these needs and that money has not been taken from the Government's contingency reserve. When the pop concert with Bob Geldorf, which is hoping to raise £10 million, takes place, I hope that those who attend decide to write to the Prime Minister asking for £ 10 million to £100 million more on the aid programme to match what those individuals are putting in.
  I am glad to hear about the special assistance being given for trucks and other vehicles in Ethiopia and Sudan. I recognise the political problems that are wrapped up in these matters. However, like the Minister, I know that Mali, Niger, Chad and Mozambique, for example, are suffering. The crisis affects a high proportion of Africa.
  I should like to consider the inadequacy of the present capacity to respond. The Minister talked about the longer term. The civil servants who provided his brief are knowledgable about the best means of promoting agricultural development. Local peasant farmers need money, but none will be forthcoming from the present aid programme, at least not on the proper scale. Sources of water, roads, fuel costs and the planting of trees require direct development assistance and no amount of getting together with other donor countries and working out what is best is a substitute for them.
  The Minister has set his heart on bilateral aid as far as possible. He does not want to join the World Bank multilateral programme, but would far rather provide British help which links in with it. Programmes are being worked out by the World Food Council and we have the United Nations development programme. There must be more development aid expenditure if we are to achieve anything for sub-Saharan Africa in the longer term.
  Spending on up-country roads, tree planting and water points, whether for hydro-electricity or tube wells, does not fit the Government's criteria for commercial and political spin-offs. I doubt whether there will be much political spin-off from assisting in the longer-term development of sub-Saharan Africa. Those countries do not carry a tremendous amount of weight in the world arena. I doubt whether there will be more than a fractional commercial spin-off because such spending does not yield large orders for British firms. It involves a high element of local cost and does not involve enormous inputs of machinery.
  Long-term development aid to avoid crisis is not compatible with the philosophy of the Government's aid programme. The Minister will have to face that and tell us where he stands. Which will win—the philosophy of the Cabinet Office or the philosophy of development assistance necessary to help the poor in sub-Saharan Africa? He cannot have it both ways. He will have to tell us, because we shall continue to probe him about which way he is going.
  The Food and Agriculture Organisation warned the world for about four years about the crisis which was made apparent in the autumn, but nobody listened. The Government, the EEC and the donors of food aid did not listen, but those who knew had given a warning. They continue to give warnings and they are now telling us that matters are likely to get a good deal worse in the next few
  778
  years. This is not a sporadic 1984-85 crisis which can soon be forgotten. It will go on because of what has happened to the ecology of sub-Saharan Africa.
  There is no easy solution. I agree that the green revolution has resulted in massively increased food production in India and Bangladesh, but it can occur only when the new technologies in food production are applied to the right climatic conditions. The right climatic conditions do not exist in sub-Saharan Africa. There might be a considerable population movement from areas incapable of supporting people. Some communities might be saved by the right injection of assistance, but the prospects are not good.
  Year by year, for the next five, six or 10 years, will we have the saga of money and food being found a little too late, taking a long time to get there, and incapable of being delivered because of the shortage of transport, trucks and so on? Are we not capable of devising a better approach to meeting what clearly will be a deep need in sub-Saharan Africa for some little time to come? That period will stretch over the next couple of years.
  We have available to us the following. There are forecasts and intelligence reports, not just the global or African predictions of FAO, but a highly sophisticated method by which it is possible to forecast a few months ahead when a food crisis will hit a particular area because of what happens on the market, what people are selling and what they are doing with the food that they take to the market. All that is well known. Forecasting is possible. We can know three to six months in advance exactly in which area a food crisis will arise. Therefore, we have the intelligence.
  We have the organisations. There is the office of the United Nations disaster relief co-ordinator. There is our own disaster unit here in Britain. I do not have such a terribly high regard for the EEC's capacity to integrate its various departments, so I do not know whether the European Commission has devised a similar disaster unit that brings together transport, money and food. I very much doubt it. If not, it could have such a unit.
  I do not know how far it is possible to link forecasting and planning with the effective provision of what will be needed, near the points where it will be needed. I suppose that we all read the leader in The Times yesterday. It is not often these days that I am able to quote with any approval a leader from The Times on anything to do with the Third world, but this leader was probably an agricultural correspondent leader rather than a Bauer-dominated aid leader. The Minister quoted some of the things that it said about the increase in world food production. It also stated:
  "the debate nevertheless will take place in a world which is awash with food surpluses. Since 1964 world-wide production of wheat and food grains has doubled and kept ahead of population growth … While the Commons debates these matters … EEC agriculture ministers are also meeting.
  " So is the world food conference.
  "If the world is awash with grain, it is also awash with words about grain."
  Again in The Times there is a report about the world food conference that is taking place now. It states:
  "Algeria, now to be 'bombed' with a million tonnes of very cut price American surplus wheat, is only the first target of the US Department of Agriculture in its new $2 billion offensives against what it says are 'unfair trade practices' — notably the EEC's Common Agricultural Policy."
  The EEC agriculture commissioner
  "made it clear the EEC meant to defend itself."

  779
  In my view, there is something totally obscene about a world that has more than enough food supplies to feed everybody, in which such a dialogue is going on between two of the surplus producers, and in which there is no concrete co-ordinated effort to plan for the future.
  I do not mind under which auspices it is, but a strengthened UNDRO linked up with FAO and the EEC might be the right thing—it does not really matter who. Why can there not be a massively strengthened international disaster organisation which not only has the capacity to co-ordinate, which is all that UNDRO does at the moment — it initiates and co-ordinates national responses—but has the money to organise and pay in advance for the surpluses that are likely to be needed, and has the storage and depots, which are not hundreds of miles away, so that months go by while things are being shipped to the countries that need them? The depots, storage and staff should be near the places that are likely to experience crisis.
  I do not want to suggest the detail of the countries with which one negotiates a United Nations building for storage, staff, transport—trucks and vehicles of all sorts —medical supplies, tents and all the things which, at the moment, are being shipped or transported. The Minister is spending £10 million on flying such things over by Hercules. How much more sensible it would be if those things were near at hand to the Sudan, Ethiopia, Mali, Chad and Niger. That is more likely to be saving money than spending money.
  I see no reason why that could not be done. It will need an initiative. It can be an initiative that links up with the voluntary agencies. They too can use the storage facilities and organise their vehicles and staff from such centres. However, an initiative will be needed, and I am very much afraid that it is the sort of initiative that can come only from the Minister. I am also very much afraid that the Minister's attitude is just a little too complacent to permit him to take such an initiative.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. Julian Amery: I think that we would all agree with the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) about the obscenity of the glut of food in some parts of the world and the famine that is prevailing in large parts of Africa. However, I think that we can all recognise, although we often criticise the European common agricultural policy, that it is thanks to that policy that we have an abundant surplus and can make a great deal of grain available at present. Before that policy was introduced, we might have been hard put to do so.
  The right hon. Lady recognised—I think that we all do—that Africa is dying—not just the people, but the land. The crisis ahead is serious. Some of the causes can be attributed to what, without blasphemy, one could call an act of God—the drought. However, there is another aspect, which is man-made, and I should like to concentrate on it.
  The drought is a major cause, but it is not the only one. War is almost as important. Two horsemen of the Apocalypse are famine and war, followed closely by pestilence. When people are weakened by famine and the consequences of war, they can no longer fight back against the natural disasters that confront them. Therefore, the four horsemen are having it pretty good in the sub-Sahara.
  780
  We need to focus on the man-made aspects, because we can make a greater contribution there than we can make to solving the problem of drought. Perhaps we could do more. Let us take Ethiopia for a start. A civil war is being waged by the central Government against Eritrea and Tigre. When I was in the Sudan some months ago, I went to some of the refugee camps in the east, near Kassala. Part of the refugee population was escaping from the famine but an even larger part was escaping from the bombing and the excursions of the Ethiopian army. The people came bringing such wealth as they had — their livestock—half of which had perished on the way. Even if the weather had been better in Ethiopia, there could be no agricultural reconstruction in Eritrea and Tigre while the civil war went on.
  There is not the same degree of famine in the Ogaden, but about 1 million Somalis have left that region to pour into Somalia because of the incursions of the Ethiopian Government. The southern Sudan is in insurrection against Khartoum. I shall not go into the rights or wrongs of that, but the dissident action is actively supported by the Ethiopian Government. According to the latest report that I have, famine is now occurring in what should be a naturally rich region of Sudan.
  There is a problem there upon which we should focus a little. The chances of lifting Sudan out of its historical poverty were the discoveries of oil in the south and the development of the Jonglei canal. All that has been stopped by the civil war in the south. Until that civil war is ended, in whichever way, it seems that famine will continue there, and the chances of Sudan recovering and establishing itself and developing its economy will be greatly retarded.
  In the Darfur region of the Sudan, which has been mentioned, there is a growing element of local famine. It is nourished additionally by the influx of refugees from Chad. I am no expert on the position in Chad, but I cannot believe that those refugees are migrating to the Sudan exclusively because of the drought. I cannot help thinking that the war in Chad is a major element in pushing them out.
  There is the political factor of civil war or war encouraged in southern Sudan by Ethiopia or in Chad by Libya. The effects of war are plain enough. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development told us yesterday that shortage of transport is the main problem in Darfur. I believe that he said that the Ethiopians have 4,000 trucks and had made about 1,500 available so far. Of course the Ethiopians cannot make more available when they are fighting a war. Those of us who have been involved in military operations know how much transport that requires.
  We are reaching a point where, given the extent of the aid that we provide, we should be insisting on a ceasefire in all those wars. It is not fair that our people, through taxation or voluntary donations, should be contributing to the relief of the famine which the Ethiopian Government — it may be other Governments as well — are exacerbating, not by neglect or inefficiency—we could accept that in an African country — but by their deliberate prosecution of military measures.
  I shall be asked what leverage we have and what we can do about that. We plainly cannot cut off aid from people who are dying or from the starving, even for political reasons; but long-term aid is another matter. If I am right —my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—

  781
  we do not have any bilateral long-term aid arrangements with Ethiopia, but we contribute substantially to European aid to Ethiopia through the Lome convention. I believe that that is the biggest aid package that Ethiopia receives.
  I understand that it is a principle of the European Community that political strings are not attached to the aid that we provide as a Community. It is time that we reconsidered that. This country is a major donor through the European Community and we have a strong voice within the European Community. It is high time that we insisted that there should be a change in the political attitude of Ethiopia to its regions and towards southern Sudan if further long-term aid is to be given. I am not talking about short-term aid to save the dying.
  Normally, one does not want to interfere with the internal affairs of a sovereign state, but this is not a normal situation. As it seems to depend upon Europe and the United States for the aid that it receives, we are in a strong position to talk to Ethiopia about future long-term aid.
  If that approach does not succeed, we should seriously consider whether we should concentrate our aid in the future on those countries whose Governments are more or less co-operative, such as Sudan and Somalia.
  I should like to say a word before concluding on the subject of foreign debt. It is a different subject and one which is much less emotive. It is dry as dust. We have learned to live with the problem, but it will not go away. It is a time bomb under the international financial system. The heavy debts incurred by Third world countries are dangerous for them. So long as they are in debt and cannot meet their obligations, they will find it difficult to obtain new loans on any investment from the industrialised West. Their development will therefore be hampered. The debts are also dangerous for the creditors.
  The American banks have a curious regulation which I shall not seek to justify. They show their loans as an asset in their balance sheets. Everyone is aware that many of the Latin American debts are non-performing, but they are still shown as assets in the balance sheets of American banks. If there were a major default or a cartel of defaulting debtors, many of the banks might have to close their doors. I am not worried about the banks, but I am worried about the international repercussions.
  In 1929, at the time of the Wall street crash, the dollar retained its value because it was tied to gold. The dollar is now tied to nothing. It has become the only source of wealth which is recognised by all the central banks. What is the answer to the problem? The International Monetary Fund, of course, has come up with the correct and logical answer — debtor countries must pursue policies of deflation, tighten their belts and so on. That is all right up to a point, but if they do that too far there could be dangerous political repercussions. Is there any other way? I shall take an analogy from Marshall aid. When Marshall aid was given, most of the recipient countries realised that they could never repay their obligations to the United States. They therefore set aside what were called counterpart funds. It was their local currency guarantee against inflation. The money was available for investment or for the purchase of local assets by western countries on terms to be agreed by the Government of the country involved. Could we do something of the kind again?
  Could the debtor countries make available in their own currency — guaranteed, as I say, against inflation — a proportion of their debt which could be taken up by the United States, Great Britain, Japan or other interests to
  782
  open banks or insurance agencies or to buy a stake in the country involved? If that is put, as I have put it, to Latin American debtor countries, they say that they cannot part with the national patrimony. They talk about "patrimonia nacional" with great emotion. They see a colonialist threat in parting with their assets. Yet the Chinese People's Republic — Communist China — seems prepared to do just that, despite its experience of foreign investment under imperial China. I would have thought that that was a less painful operation than the one which the IMF is otherwise bound to recommend. If it were carried out, it would give confidence to western investors generally to invest in those countries, and it would also give confidence to the banks to lend again.
  I am glad to say that we are not as much involved as the United States, but we are sufficiently involved to make it worthwhile for our Government, in their discussions with the Americans, the IMF and the World Bank, to raise this question more seriously than it has been raised so far.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: As this is an extremely short debate, I shall be brief. However, it gives us an important opportunity to look at the Government's response to the present famine crisis. Although the Minister diagnosed the problems which the suffering parts of Africa are now facing and spoke of the long-term need for a new strategy, he gave very little evidence of how he saw the present British Government contributing to the solution of those problems.
  The right hon. Gentleman was right to speak of the need to bring about the effective rescheduling of debt, but there was no recognition in what he said of the considerable difficulties that face us in bringing about that effective rescheduling. In particular, there was no recognition of the probability that the position will get worse rather than better if the United States, as seems likely, goes into recession over the next two years.
  In fact, the Minister's attitude was somewhat complacent. It was defensive, and intellectually honest enough to diagnose the problem, but it was cribbed and confined by the Government's mistaken policy — for which the right hon. Gentleman has only a limited responsibility—for curbing public expenditure.
  If the British Government, as part of the European Community, encourage their European partners to continue to proceed with this restrictive policy, we shall fail to tackle the problems of the less-developed world. Indeed, we can only expect that those problems will get worse, and it is not just a question of the level of overseas aid, even though that is important.
  I wish to consider not merely the effectiveness of what the Government have done in the short term to come to the relief of those countries whose plight has so forcefully been brought to the attention of our citizens, whose generous private response has enabled the voluntary aid agencies to make a quite unusual contribution aimed at stemming the worst consequences of this immediate disaster.
  It is important to emphasise that the crisis in Africa is not a short-term weather failure. The Minister spoke of a problem that had got worse, and the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) said that the problem had been recognised for four years by the Food and Agriculture Organisation. In reality, food production in Africa has

  783
  been declining for at least 10 years, and there has been a process of desertification and deforestation which has progressively undercut Africa's agricultural base.
  It is to that question that the British public are increasingly directing their attention. They recognise that although the short-term assistance that we are able to give to improve the distribution of food that we ship in is necessary, it is not enough, and that we should address ourselves to the transformation of Africa's rural economy.
  What has gone wrong in this great continent? First, we must recognise that farming methods have contributed to the problem, and in particular have undermined prospects for the small farmer. The Governments of many of the African countries affected have foolishly but understandably invested less in agricultural development than in urban development. Indeed, that urban development has all too often taken place on the back of the small peasant, who is responsible for the greater part of Africa's potential wealth.
  A part of the blame must also be shared by external countries, in that our international aid programmes have not ensured that our long-term aid has gone to those who need it most—the rural poor. That is why I wish to stress the importance of a proposal that has been made by the independent commission on international humanitarian issues — that we should focus more directly on the provision of assistance to the rural poor through the provision of credit in amounts that will assist those who are unaffected by the larger programmes.
  This has already been done with striking success in some countries on the initiative of some of their banking institutions. I particularly cite the example of the Grameen bank—the rural bank—in Bangladesh. Since 1976 that bank has provided a substantial amount of money—$6.2 million—to 58,300 people, almost half of whom are women. That is important in an African context, where the bulk of agricultural activity has traditionally been carried on by women.
  Under the Grameen scheme the beneficiaries are the poorest of the poor. There is a cut-off point, so that a person who possesses more than 0.2 hectares is not eligible for assistance. Similar schemes exist in Nepal and Pakistan. The most striking feature of these schemes which should commend them to the Government is the repayment rates, which have been as high as 98 per cent. Only the building societies in this country can boast of such a level of success.
  The scheme depends on the provision of credit to a small group of individuals, not members of the same family, who are seeking help in the form of sums from as little as £20 to £200. Collateral is not provided, but each member of the group undertakes to bring pressure to bear on the others to repay. The remarkable success of such schemes has led the independent commission to recommend that financial institutions should examine this example and the lessons which it may have, particularly for the continent of Africa.
  Africa has a growing population and the problem of feeding that population with a declining productive capacity is stark and cannot be tackled with present forms of relief. Mr. Edgard Pisani has said that the help that we need to provide for Africa is not to build cathedrals in the desert, but to help with low-cost credit, and I urge the Government to take that course. That is a specific and
  784
  important contribution which could be made by this country, with its financial expertise and its partnership with other European countries. Such action could bring about a remarkable change in agricultural practices, building up the capacity of the poorest of the poor to adapt to the needs of the situation. The Government shojuld do this in conjunction with, rather than in substitution for, the present aid programme, the restrictions of which have understandably been the main focus of today's debate.
  I condemn the Government's action on the level of overseas aid. The Government have simply recycled an amount which is limited by their budgetary policy. It is unacceptable that we should rob some of the world's least well-off countries whose predicament has been less highlighted but is no less real. The Minister claims that his hands are tied, but he must recognise that the specific proposals that I have described for credit aid to small agricultural developments are consistent with the kind of policy which the Government ought to be able to espouse.
  5.42 pm
  Viscount Cranborne: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to the enormous public interest in this vital issue, and the House owes the Opposition a debt of gratitude for enabling us to discuss it today. I am especially grateful in view of my interest, which I should declare at this point, as chairman of an organisation which, among other things, endeavours to provide food aid for the victims of Soviet policy in Afghanistan; a policy which is purely directed at trying to subjugate that unhappy country by starving its population and destroying its crops and cattle. I therefore have almost daily contact at long distance, and sometimes at closer quarters, with those tragic events.
  I am perhaps a little less grateful for the terms of the Opposition motion. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) has been notorious in the past for his somewhat dismissive attitude to the United States Government and to Americans in general, and some may feel that he almost delights in scoring easy runs off them, so I hope that he will not be insulted when I say that in some of his comments today he reminded me of the type of American who believes that difficulties can be solved merely by throwing megabucks at them.
  Mr. Stuart Holland: It often helps.
  Viscount Cranborne: Despite a few nods in the other direction, that seemed to be the approach of the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members today. I am the last to decry the importance of resources, but in the sphere in which I have experience I would rather see £50,000 well spent than £500,000 ill spent, however much the provision of a greater sum might increase the outrage and rhetoric in which the Opposition take such delight.
  As those of us who have had the misfortune of seeing it know, famine can strike with enormous speed. Very often, those who study these matters can predict the threat of famine, but once it has occurred it is extremely difficult to put it right. The help that we provide, however great, very often proves inadequate, because of the nature of the beast, and it also tends to be extraordinarily expensive. How much better it would be—I am delighted to have heard this several times from both sides of the House today —if we could concentrate on the long term, on trying to prevent famine; an approach which is not only cheaper but more effective.

  785
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) observed with some justice that we cannot do anything about the weather. As a rather better historian than I am, he may care to reflect that the granary of the Roman empire was destroyed largely by the irruption of Semitic peoples bringing huge flocks of sheep and goats in their wake, thus destroying the vegetation which once enabled what is now a desert to feed the greatest empire of the ancient world. So perhaps the weather is not entirely an act of God, but has been brought about by mankind over the course of many centuries.
  I am delighted that there seems to be a consensus in the House about the need to consider the long term, but if we are to do that we must pay particular attention to the quality of our aid and the influence that we can bring to bear on that quality by eliminating the human causes of some of the disasters that we see with such horror on television and which some of us have been unfortunate enough to see on the ground with even more effect, dare I say it, than on the little screens in our living rooms.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion said, the human factor is all too often very largely to blame. I have already referred to the extraordinary events of the past five years in Afghanistan. I do not know whether any Opposition Members have seen a Russian MI24 helicopter gunship. It is an enormous and frightening machine and it can be seen any day of the week in the valleys of Afghanistan. Let us imagine one of those machines wheeling over a valley in which large herds of cattle, sheep and goats are guarded by a young boy. Near the flocks are fields of corn. The gunship comes down over the valley, which is undefended by anti-aircraft weapons. Its first act is to shoot the boy. Its subsequent act is to shoot the sheep, the goats and the cattle. It goes round to make sure that none of them is moving. After that fairly long process, it devotes attention to setting fire to the crops.
  It is hardly surprising that there were indicators of famine in Afghanistan. To a lesser degree, the same has occurred in parts of Africa. The nations of the West and public opinion in the Western world can expose what is happening and shame the perpetrators of those ghastly acts into desisting.
  Many hon. Members could itemise other factors that are part of the human cause of famine. The list is long, but three items are especially worthy of consideration. During the past few weeks, The Economist has addressed itself, with admirable pithiness and understanding, to the way in which so many developing countries produce policies which encourage a drift to the towns. Many inhabitants of those countries already feel that they would like to follow that drift. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister consider the possibility of trying to encourage the recipients of British aid to reverse those policies so that we can encourage the growth of a rural rather than an urban economy?
  The Minister knows that that is not always an easy task. Many dictators find it attractive to encourage an urban population rather than a rural one because it tends to be easier to control and easier to bribe. My right hon. Friend is already well seized of the problems in making sure that financial aid is directed where it can be of most use. In the past, far too much money has found its way into the Swiss, and perhaps even the British, bank accounts of Government officials who had no right to it in the first place.
  786
  I wonder whether the right hon. and hon. Members who have referred to the human factor this afternoon have got their priorities right. Above all, we should consider the small farmer as an individual, not as part of a collective or a traditional tribal society. Those of us who have seen the dust bowls of Africa, as I have done during the past 20 years, know that a tribal society can lead to too many crops and cattle, the destruction of the soil and the appalling erosion that follows. Equally, we know of the dangers of collective farming and the adhesion to ideologies which may be attractive in theory but which lead to under-production in practice.
  I am delighted to have had the opportunity and privilege of taking part in the debate. I congratulate the Minister on what he said this afternoon, and I hope that he will ensure that the human factor, over which we have some control, is not far from his mind when he formulates the important policies to which he referred, and that he will not be swayed by fear or fashion from considering the realities of life.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Guy Barnett: The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) mentioned Afghanistan twice in his speech. He may be interested to know that, before the Russian involvement in Afghanistan, that country was about the lowest recipient of aid in the Third world. We may learn some interesting lessons from that.
  The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who has left the Chamber, mentioned the effect of war in Ethiopia, and I can only agree with him about the damaging effect of war and civil war in the Third world. I believe it is correct to say that more than 140 wars have taken place there since 1945. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me about the need for peace and development programmes under the authority of the United Nations as a solution, on a regional basis, to some of the problems that he raised.
  I shall confine my remarks to a few general observations, having considered with great interest the recent Select Committee report on famine in Africa. I am sorry that it has not yet been mentioned in the debate. I begin by committing myself to the statement that the tragedy of human suffering and death which occurred in Africa should never have happened. It is a bitter reflection on the world community that it did happen. No one, least of all no one who followed the growing crisis in Africa during preceding years, should have been in any doubt that we were heading for a major disaster, and this Government, with others, must accept their share of responsibility for that. It is not as though we were not warned.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) said, the FAO-OAU publication in 1982 went by almost unnoticed. In April 1983, just before the general election, we debated famine, and again in the autumn of the same year. The matter received attention in countless conferences. I recall taking part in a very valuable conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in Nairobi in October 1983. People were concerned then with malnutrition—the sapping of the will to live effects of malnutrition which have inhabited the Third world for so long. I said at that conference that the trouble was that starvation is news while malnutrition is not.

  787
  We must use this debate and the evidence that has been gleaned in the Select Committee's report to learn lessons. The Select Committee rightly pointed out that the cause of the famine was not just the drought. There were short-term causes, but I believe that there were deep-seated and long-term causes for what has occurred.
  The fact is that the rains failed in Africa. They have done so since time immemorial. Pre-colonial societies knew that, and many of them knew the necessity of maintaining buffer stocks against the possibility of drought in the next season. The hon. Member for Dorset, South played down the importance of the wisdom of tribal societies, but I hope that he will take the fact into account. I hope that he will also realise that those tribal societies, because they had to do it for their very survival, recognised the prime importance of growing enough food to meet the needs of their people.
  We are inclined to underestimate the explosive revolutionary impact of the European incursion into Africa which came with colonialism. African people, many of whom did not even have the use of the wheel a century or more ago, were understandably overwhelmed by the technology of the West. The people of the West have encouraged Africans to believe that they knew better and that the West possesed a technological solution to every social, environmental and political problem. The expert has often been treated, therefore, as though he were infallible. He feels, perhaps too easily, that he has nothing to learn and that therefore he has no need to listen, even if he understands the language of his potential informant in Africa. When his chosen project fails, he holds up his hands and exclaims, "Africa wins again."
  In fact, Africa has lost heavily because our all too frequent failure to take into account the experience and wisdom of centuries has had the effect of devaluing it. If one wants to know why agriculture and husbandry are held in low regard in Africa—thought of as primitive, almost as degrading for the person who engages in it — I suggest that one should examine the impact of white people during the past 100 years as well as the industrial-based technology that they brought with them.
  I said at the outset that the African tragedy ought never to have happened. The pain, misery and deaths which have afflicted hundreds of thousands of people and which will continue to do so were preventable if action had been taken in time. The cost has been colossal, not just in terms of loss of human life and suffering. Famines are disruptive. The resultant distress migrations mean the uprooting of families and whole communities who often travel miles on foot in search of distribution centres. The question arises: how will the people who survive be successfully resettled and enabled to become productive again?
  As we have been reminded this afternoon, famine relief is hugely expensive. Famine almost invariably occurs in remote areas where there is an appalling lack of infrastructure development, so the cost of getting food into the mouths of those who need it and medical and other supplies to where they are required is prohibitive.
  It is extraordinary that the cost of all this effort should be set against the aid budget. Millions of ordinary folk, both in this country and elsewhere, have dug deep in then-pockets and are still doing so, many of them making enormous sacrifices. But not so, apparently, the taxpayer. For one thing, as Oxfam points out in its brief, the
  788
  proportion of total Government expenditure going to aid has fallen from 1.01 per cent. in 1979-80 to 0.87 per cent, which is the estimate for the current year. Even so, the taxpayer's contribution is unchanged by this massive human disaster.
  Can the Minister say that, as a consequence, people who might have received technical assistance will not now be denied it, or that countries which might have received project or sectoral aid will not now get as much as they might otherwise have received? The fact is that under this Government so far the taxpayer has not been required to make any sacrifice. Our aid programme in percentage terms compares poorly with that of most other Western countries. If we cannot persuade the Government to raise the figure, the House must persuade them to restore the principle of aid to the poorest.
  The majority of people expect our aid programme to concentrate upon that, not upon the matters which the Minister for Overseas Development mentioned at the end of his speech — commmercial self-interest and other similar objectives. That means a larger and more relevant contribution to the needs of the peasant farmer and the rural community, restoring the funding that has been taken away from the scientific units, which can make an enormous contribution, and making a larger contribution to the International Fund for Agricultural Development. These, and other changes of direction, are urgent. I hope that the Government will at last recognise the need for change.
  The subject of this motion should be debated more frequently. It is a matter of great concern to every section of our community. I do not believe that the Government have reflected that concern in the resources that they devote to the aid programme.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Colin Moynihan: Recently I had the privilege of visiting the Sudan and Ethiopia with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), whose contribution, insight and participation were greatly appreciated by me and the all-party parliamentary group on overseas development under whose auspices we went to those countries.
  I was glad to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) on the report which appeared yesterday in The Times, upon which I, too, have reflected. I hope that she will agree with one or two of my reflections.
  Britain stopped guaranteeing its farmers the highest possible prices about 30 years after the Napoleonic wars. At that time, everybody forecast gloom and doom. In practice, Victorian prosperity took over. Britain was not ruined. A similar challenge now faces the Western world. By fixing food prices artificially high in developed countries and artificially low in poor countries, food output swamps Japan's paddy fields, Europe's grain mountains and North America's rich prairies, at the expense of poorer countries, where babies grow faster than crops. These prophetic words of The Economist are no less true today than when they were written over a year ago.
  The result is that 2 per cent. of the world's farmers —the 24 million in the rich countries, where fewer than one tenth of the people work on farms—are providing nearly a quarter of all the world's food and nearly three quarters of its food exports. The other 98 per cent, of farmers—the 1.2 billion in the poor countries, where up

  789
  to two thirds of the people work on the land — grow three quarters of the world's food but still do not have enough to eat.
  The average farmer in rich countries, including hobby farmers, produces $8,000 worth of food a year. The average full-time farmer in poor countries produces $650 worth of food a year. The rich land farmer is paid far more than the $8,000 worth that he produces, while the poor land farmer is often paid far less than the $650 worth that he digs out.
  If politicians want to help, if politicians can help, there is not one hon. Member whose time could be better spent than in protracted argument for a comprehensive reform of the common agricultural policy, for a comprehensive reform of farm policies worldwide and for a move away from the policies which have been pushing up farm output in countries where obesity is the main medical problem, and pushing it down in countries where malnutrition is the main problem.
  The story of World Bank lending to Ethiopia is interesting for many reasons. The bank's lending programme to Ethiopia was doubled after the 1974 revaluation, despite the political concerns of the United States and European Governments. This doubling was justified by the Government's programme of land reform, which had always been considered by the bank as essential both to growth and equity objectives in Ethiopia. Attempts at land reform before 1974 had failed. Post-revolutionary Ethiopia has managed what Stanley Please recognised as
  "a fairly sound record of macro—and development—oriented economic management, particularly by sub-Saharan African standards."
  But the domestic economy continues to weaken in Ethiopia.
  Compensation arrangements for nationalised foreign investors were not adequately forthcoming. Foreign investors have become objects of suspicion by the radical Government in Addis Ababa, exemplified by scepticism towards the international values of financial and Western democratic behaviour, which now dents the confidence of Western donors. Meanwhile, calls for a policy dialogue are snubbed by new joint venture codes without guarantees for withdrawal or guarantees to repatriate profits.
  The horrible inevitability of disaster, the hallmark of so much of Ethiopia's history, unleashed itself in the famine. Western donors now tread precariously in Addis Ababa, but once again food production must take the pole position. Peasant farmers produce 94 percent. of the food. The state farms and co-operatives produce 6 per cent. of the food, yet 80 per cent. of the output comes from state farms, 12 per cent. from the producer co-operatives and 8 per cent. from the peasant sector.
  With millions of peasant farmers malnourished and starving, the cry from Western donors has been that it is wrong to go for big agricultural schemes, that Lomé 3 should concentrate on the peasant sector, that there should be a policy dialogue, that the agricultural marketing organisations should be reformed and that there should be collective conditionally of the donors, land tenure and a free market. But in reality the enthusiasm dies and can often be insensitively handled. Even the peasant agricultural development programme of the IDA is withdrawn. The Ethiopian Government refuse to accept a World Bank adviser to examine pricing policy.
  Not surprisingly, and regrettably, Marxism has no love for policy dialogue, which even now evaporates and is
  790
  transformed into policy monologue. It is an ideology where people serve policies, instead of the policies serving the people, where the starving villagers come to the refugee workers over the Sudanese border, not the refugee workers to the villagers; where Soviet planes decant thousands of Eritrean and Tigre refugees on to the tarmac of Addis Ababa airport, to be bussed on to resettlement camps in the south-west; where Ethiopian officials take off the dying and dead from the overcrowded, unpressurised holds; where the fire engines wash out the contaminated remains which trickle down the camber of the airfield towards the RAF Lyneham teams, glancing nervously as the water approaches their supplies, hopefully, this time, free from 001, the code word for the unmentionable, cholera.
  It is a relentless, merciless world for the relief workers from all countries, who cannot switch over, as we television viewers can, to the other channel. They deserve our respect and admiration.
  Meanwhile, by complete contrast, the Sudan — geographically the area of the whole of Western Europe —consistently accepts refugees across its borders from war-stricken Ethiopia in the east, 250,000 refugees from Uganda in the south, 5,000 from neighbouring Zaire and hundreds of thousands recently from Chad into Darfur in the west.
  To do that on a humanitarian basis, and to attempt to assist in settling them away from the borders, deserves the admiration of the Western world. Relief workers go where they are needed and the refugees have equal access to whatever social services are available. Moreover, Government policy favours settling refugees in organised settlements to maximise the provision of the available services.
  This is all happening at a time when the Sudan is experiencing its second major drought in 15 years. I was glad that the right hon. Member for Clydesdale referred to forecasting and planning, because there is strong evidence that drought, apparently persistent and endemic to Africa, is linked to long-term changes in Africa's climate.
  The process of desertification—caused by a number of factors — must be considered carefully. We must examine such factors as livestock over-grazing, over-cutting for fuel wood purposes and the uncontrolled expansion of human settlements. The latter in its own right may be one of the causes of climatic change, in that it reduces the soil's capacity to store water.
  Five of the Sudan's eight administrative regions are affected by the drought, yet the Sudan continues to maintain its open-door policy to refugees. Regional Governments estimate that 4.5 million people are affected in the Sudan, having lost crops or livestock, or both, and as a consequence are unable to provide for themselves adequately without external support. Yet the Sudan continues to maintain its open-door policy.
  Among the immediate manifestations of the drought have been food riots as convoys of lorries carry grain through hungry villages to border camps for foreign refugees. A fourfold to fivefold increase in the market price of the main food staple, dura and sorghum, and a sixfold to eightfold drop in the price for livestock in affected regional markets inflame domestic resentment,
  In western Sudan, the news of drought in Darfur was known long before this week's radio broadcasts. The Darfur region was declared a disaster zone as long ago as July 1984. A national relief committee was established to

  791
  combat the effects of drought in that region and in Kordofan. The committee has since evolved into a national high commission for drought and desertification, and it is chaired by the first vice-president. Entire villages in Darfur have been virtually deserted, while others have been left to women, children and the elderly as the men have set forth seeking pastures and employment.
  In terms of scale, only the east of the country is worse. Only a month ago, Wad Kowli, a camp which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and I visited, was the main refugee camp in the Sudan. It was the final resting place for Ethiopian refugees, many of whom had walked hundreds of miles through war-stricken zones to reach the refugee workers, the unsung heroes who run the camp and minister to the children.
  I welcome the news given by the Minister today of increased funding for the Save the Children Fund. Wad Kowli is the fastest growing African city — a city of humble, gentle and dignified people. Compared with having fewer than 20,000 people at Christmas, Wad Kowli sheltered 91,000 on 10 February.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and I were privileged to be the first Western politicians to meet the new Sudanese leader, who was remarkably frank in his approach to the problems that he faces. He made it clear that the solution to political problems to which reference has been made, with John Garang and the rebel forces in the south, were vital so as to open up the Jonglei canal and get oil flowing once again — action which can only benefit the economic crisis in relation to the $9 billion external debt.
  The Sudanese leader said that the Sudan faced a 30 per cent. deficit of food aid and famine relief, and a 60 per cent. deficit of essential seeds for sowing. If these shortages are not made up, the famine crisis will worsen dramatically, in the way that has been visible in recent weeks. In addition, $11 million is needed to ensure water supplies, and new water boreholes are essential to the medium and long-term solution of the problems that we are discussing.
  We must reject as nonsense and lamentable ignorance the calls that have been made recently for camp closures. When the rains come, the journey home with limited provisions and the likelihood of heavy mud, swollen rivers and war-stricken zones will prove well nigh impossible for many. Equally, we must fight against "aid fatigue"—the "Why bother, we have done our bit?" attitude in a Western world anaesthetised by television.
  We must, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) rightly said—I have long supported this stance and will continue to do so—work towards the 0.7 per cent. United Nations target for aid. Above all, we must work for agricultural reform and conditionality between donors and recipients, based on trust and understanding and not imposed insensitively.
  I am grateful, in the brief time available for the debate, to have had the opportunity to talk on this subject.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) will forgive me if I do not discuss the points that he raised. I wish to be brief, in the knowledge, which I find encouraging, that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
  792
  The Minister speaks for a Government who were launched, in the words of the Prime Minister, by a quotation from St. Francis of Assisi. In reflecting on the hon. Gentleman's speech today, we must recall that St. Francis sought to encourage people to understand as much as to be understood. I hope that the Minister will understand, despite the assurances that he offered the House, that we have grave misgivings about Government policy on this whole issue.
  Grave reservations exist about the Government's commitment to try to seek a solution to the problem of world poverty. Few of us can be satisfied with the figures that are available. The Minister spoke of £95 million, which is an 18 per cent. cut in real terms in the aid programme since the Conservatives assumed office.
  In view of the information that is available and the pictures that we see on our television screens, it is clear that the great anguish in Africa, Asia and the Third world represents a scene that we would be negligent to ignore. It is a picture to which the British people want us to respond. The case for increasing aid is, therefore, already made.
  We are entitled to be worried about the quality of aid. Of the £200 million given to Africa, a mere £27 million went to agricultural development. If we are concerned about prestigious projects such as the £74 million spent in Khartoum on a massive building which could have waited for some years, it is clear that we must be concerned about priorities.
  Apart from asking Third world countries to deal with the problems of the debt crisis to which the motion refers — to deal with increasing interest charges at a time when commodity prices are going down and to cope with international inflation, which applies as much to them as to us, remembering that it greatly concerns the world recession — we must remember that we have given a commitment to spend amounts on armaments which, I suggest, are unreasonable in the light of the problems that the countries of the Third world are facing. How can we defend an aid budget of £95 million when last year alone we exported £1.8 billion of armaments? The people ask for bread and we send them tanks; they demand water and we send them an arms race. Our priorities are indefensible.
  I hope that the Minister understands the anguish of 500 million people—one eighth of humanity—who, every day, experience poverty, misery and deprivation. I hope that, despite the Minister's wish to defend this Government's record, he will accept that the House must give a considered response to the anguish of those people. I hope, too, that, when those people think of the problems that they face, they will forgive us for our collective indifference. I believe that history will find it difficult to do so.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: When the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and I stood in refugee camps in Korem and Mekele, one thought more than any other that gripped my mind was that one should not become numb to the reality of what one sees and that the world should not, as famine disasters are seen ever more frequently on television screens, become deadened to reality.
  I hope that the House, Britain and the international community will unite in a determination to eradicate hunger, at least by the year 2000. As the hon. Member for

  793
  Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said, we live in a world where cohesion is threatened not by the missile gap but by the gap between the rich nations of the North and the poor nations of the South.
  There is nothing inevitable about what I, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) and others have seen in Africa. Some 20 years ago, famine gripped parts of India. Today, to all intents and purposes, India is self-reliant in food. There is nothing inevitable about saying that we must live with hunger for ever. Nor do we have to accept that the nations of the developed world will always have to feed the nations of Africa. There is nothing inevitable about the feeling that Hercules aircraft will for ever have to fly around Ethiopia.
  We should have a simple objective — to make the countries of sub-Saharan Africa food self-reliant, able to feed themselves and to buy on the open market food that they cannot produce themselves. Despite our best will and intentions, until the international community gives the same priority to tackling hunger as it gives to the arms talks in Geneva, we will be unlikely to make progress.
  Our main concern is with focus. There is a danger in seeking to give as much aid as possible to Africa while the Soviet Union uses Africa to establish its influence, as, in part, does the United States. The international community must take the responsibility. We must ask ourselves how, as a community, we can best tackle this problem. It is not acceptable for part of the international community to seek to give food aid while another part seeks simply to give arms and to help prosecute a civil war and strife that is undoing much of the work promoted by the other part of the international community. Only when the United Nations has the determination to eliminate hunger will there be any hope of ensuring that sub-Saharan Africa is not still starving in the year 2000.
  Britain is in a unique position to take a lead, because it does not seek to carve out spheres of influence in northern Africa. We do not seek, by the sale of arms, to promote our influence throughout the world. We have a unique position in the European Community and in our relationship with the United States.
  I hope that hon. Members will stop seeking to divide the House by making cheap political points about whether our aid contribution is 0.35 per cent. or 0.7 per cent. of GNP. Of course resources are important, but it is more important for the House and Britain generally to be determined to eliminate hunger from the world as soon as possible. I hope that we shall achieve that aim within our lifetime. If we do not, the House and Britain will have failed.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) expressed the sentiments of most hon. Members. It is right to emphasise the Minister's statement about the image of suffering that created a response by the British people. That response has gone much further than many of us hoped—£60 million or more has been given by the British public to alleviate famine in Africa.
  The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, in paragraph 127 of its report on famine in Africa, stated:
  "The generosity of the British people has not been matched by the British Government."
  794
  We need to repeat that point and follow the Select Committee's recommendations. In paragraph 128 it stated:
  "We consider that it is not acceptable that almost the entire costs of the UK response to the crisis should fall on the previously agreed ODA budget."
  The Select Committee said that an additional provision should be made.
  The Select Committee and many hon. Members have stressed the need to develop improved agriculture policies and programmes, to provide assistance for those programmes, and to prevent a recurrence of the present crisis. The Select Committee referred to assistance by the donor communities in various ways for the food producing sector, principally smallholder agricultural and horticul-tural production. The Minister referred to the successful pioneering scheme developed in Zimbabwe to increase agricultural production.
  We need to examine our attitudes towards aid by noting the relationship between the present crisis and the longer-term crisis of agricultural production in Africa because of the obscene agricultural policies that are pursued by Northern and Western countries in the common agricultural policy. By relating the South's agricultural needs to the overdevelopment of the North—especially in the use of large areas of Southern countries to produce cash crops for export to Northern and Western countries — and by concentrating on the real needs of the Southern countries, we shall understand the structural changes that are required, not only in production techniques in Southern countries but in the international balance of trade in agriculture. Northern and Western countries must accept responsibility for the debt crisis and the man-made famine caused by our overconsumption and our commercial systems.
  We need to look at only one indicator—indebted-ness. In 1973, the ratio of external debts to GDP in non-oil developing countries was 22.4:1; it is now 35:1. To pay off the debts that are often caused by the militarism of the East-West conflict, which also engulfs the South, the developing countries have to expand their cash crops and raw materials for export. That often results in the forcing of self-sufficient farmers off the land, destruction of the environment, and over-intensive development of agri-business methods—all of them Northern inspired.
  We need to look again at the ways in which we in Britain, as a member of the European Community, can lend our support to fundamental changes in our own agricultural policy. We need to look at the proposals that have been made by the French for a new Bretton Woods. We need to look in particular at the ways in which domestic reflation within the Northern countries is a contribution to international change as well as to our own obnoxious levels of unemployment.
  We need, in particular, to take seriously what the French organisation, Frères des Hommes, said a couple of years ago:
  "A Normandy pig or cow, or a Parisian cat or dog, has a greater purchasing power than landless peasants in the Third World."
  As long as we accept that kind of situation and fail to relate the famine and the plight of the Southern countries to our economic system—in particular, to the way in which capitalism has over-exploited Southern countries — we shall not in reality tackle the hunger that faces those Southern countries.

  795
  We must take particularly seriously proposals that would gradually reduce the buying of agricultural produce from Southern countries, reduce the development of international sales of that kind, and emphasise the development of food rather than cash crops in those countries.
  Rather than introduce aid ourselves, we should as a European Community purchase the produce of those countries, but not for our own use. We should not take delivery of that produce. It should be sent to agreed depots in the producing countries. We should negotiate with the Governments of such countries a method of collection and distribution to ensure that the local people benefit not only from a guaranteed price but from the produce. It is that kind of radical approach to aid that we need if we are to eradicate famine.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The debate has been all too short. It has drawn on the experience of many right hon. and hon. Members, some of whom have seen famine at first hand in the Sudan and Ethiopia. The themes have been, among others, our own human responsibility for much of the famine which now faces us, and the civil wars in the Sudan and Ethiopia, the population explosion, the deforestation and — a topic well developed by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas)—our own agricultural policies in the West, which exacerbate the attempts of the developing countries to have their own proper agricultural infrastructure and feed their own people.
  The Minister gave a valuable diagnosis of the extent of our aid—the targeting, the speed of response, the need for co-ordinating and the need for a new strategic approach. I should be interested to hear his response to the valuable points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) about storage facilities and a rapid aid deployment force to meet those famine crises which are likely to face us with increasing regularity unless the world community as a whole comes together to meet its human responsibility in relation to those crises.
  The Minister failed to put the Government's response in the context of a shrinking aid budget. The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) said, in a rather lofty way, that money is not all, but money can help. The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) spoke of his commitment to the aid figure of 0.7 per cent. and the need to work towards it. He must realise now that we are moving away from that figure. Last year the United Kingdom's figure was 0.35 per cent. Indeed, it is now down to 0.33 per cent. When the Labour Government left office, the figure was in excess of 5 per cent., and rising.
  The aid budget has been consistently cut by the Government since 1979. Comparing the 1985-86 figure with that for 1984-85, one sees that there is a clear cut of at least 3 per cent. in real terms. There has been a cut of no less than 18 per cent. since 1979. In spite of the brave words of the Minister about the importance of science research, the budget of the science unit has been cut, and cut again.
  There is a falling percentage of central Government spending on aid, and comparatively our performance, in relation to that of the Development Assistance Committee countries, is very poor. The average development
  796
  assistance of all non-US DAC countries is 0.45 per cent. of gross national product. Our own figure is now 0.33 per cent. In spite of our colonial traditions and the human relationships within the Commonwealth, which should certainly have put us on a par with France, with a figure in excess of 0.7 per cent., our figure is rather less than three-quarters of the non-US DAC average, and that percentage is falling. That is the reality.
  The Minister, as he says, is seeking to obtain greater co-ordination and a more coherent aid strategy. That attempt takes place within a public expenditure programme which, since 1979, has allowed an increase in defence spending of 30 per cent., an increase in the law and order Vote of almost 40 per cent., and an 18 per cent. cut in the aid budget. However skilful the Minister is in redirecting, he is doing it from a much smaller base.
  In spite of the brave words of the Government at the Bonn summit and elsewhere, cuts have been made. They are certainly out of tune with public opinion in Britain. The Oxfam public opinion survey at the end of last year showed that only 18 per cent. of those polled were in favour of a lower aid budget. The Government's attitude also has to be contrasted with the magnificent response of our people to the famine in Africa. That point was made eloquently in the Select Committee report on famine in Africa, which has not been touched on as much as it should have been during the debate.
  It is clear that the Government's response to the famine in Africa has been based solely on switching funds within a decreasing aid budget, and the Minister cannot resile from that starting point. Apart from the Hercules operation in Ethopia, the money to respond to the unprecedented food crisis in sub-Saharan Africa has come from the existing aid budget. Indeed, from the beginning of February this year, half of the Hercules cost has fallen on the ODA.
  The Foreign Affairs Committee contrasted the generosity of the British people with the stony response of the Government and called for substantial new money in the face of the continuing crisis. It is not good enough to say, as the Minister traditionally does, that the money comes from the contingency reserve designed specifically for the purpose, because no contingency reserve within the ODA was_designed to meet the scale of human catastrophe that we have seen in sub-Saharan Africa in the past year.
  A further fact about the shrinking aid budget is that the debts of the relevant countries have increased because of the background, which is the on-lending of Western banks —that was true of oil money in Latin America in the 1970s—the vast increase in interest rates, and the fall in commodity prices. That means that countries in sub-Saharan Africa have debts in excess of $80 billion. Their debt service is both crippling and leads to distortions within their agricultural economy, as they are encouraged to produce agriculture for servicing those debt requirements rather than to help the poorer farmers in the poorer areas. That has been a consistent theme of many hon. Members. Partly as a result of servicing those debts, there have been the distortions to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and others referred.
  The Government have honoured the debt cancellation commitments, but they were inherited from the Labour Government, and from the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale of directing aid to the poorest people in the poorest countries. We accept what the

  797
  Minister said about rescheduling and writing off debts in some of those areas. However, we should like the Government to lean on the Americans and West Germans, and to follow the example of the retroactive terms adjustment of the old UNCTAD agreement.
  Further relevant developments on debt have been the Government's acquiescence in September 1983 to the International Monetary Fund's change of practice on the compensatory financing facility, the food surplus policy of the European Community and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) said in relation to the EC, the fact that the Government took the lead in making cuts in EC food aid. Therefore, there have been cuts, the debt crisis has increased, the need has never been greater, and the general nature of the Government's response has been unfavourable.
  Further famines in Africa can be prevented only if there is a decline in the African population or an increase in Africa's per capita food production. Too little of our aid has been directed to the agricultural sector. The Minister knows that the ODA figure for 1983 was only £27 million for project aid for agriculture, £15 million for technical assistance for the same sectors, and £23 million for rural roads, water and electricity, from a total budget of £224 million.
  The Government's aid has been increasingly inflexible in terms of the reduction in support for local costs. The Minister will know that between 1980 and 1983 the Government's local costs contribution decreased by 25 per cent. in cash terms, and by more in real terms. I challenge the Minister to deny that figure. There has also been a reduction in programme aid and balance of payments support. Again I challenge the Minister to deny that, because it comes from his Department's figures. The reduction in programme aid since 1979 has been 55 per cent.
  The Minister will be aware of the DAC checklist, which was formulated at the end of last year, for concerted action in sub-Saharan Africa. It was meant to be a guidance list for donors. I understand that progress on the checklist, which includes priority for agriculture, has been blocked by the reservations of certain donors. I should like the Minister to confirm that that is the case and that the British Government are not among those who are blocking its implementation.
  Essentially, our response has been niggardly. We saw that from the World Bank specialist facility for sub-Saharan Africa, when no extra funds were committed. I hope that the Minister will say something about the Government's response to the International Fund for Agricultural Development, which now seeks replenishment. As the main meeting of IFAD has ended in disarray, will the Government contribute to the proposed special fund for sub-Saharan Africa, which is seeking at least $300 million over four years? Will we make a voluntary contribution in that area, which is the subject matter of our debate?
  Clearly, there is a crisis in Africa. Our response has essentially been that of a reactive Government. There have been no initiatives and no moves overall towards the United Nations target of 07 per cent. of gross national product. Indeed, our contribution has fallen to 0.3 per cent., and continues to fall. Our contribution to alleviating the famine in Africa, however better targeted, can be seen properly only in the context of a much reduced aid budget.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Raison: The House will agree that we have had a good debate this afternoon. I congratulate the Opposition on choosing this subject, if not on the terms of their motion. It has been useful to have a chance to consider what is unquestionably the terrible crisis in Africa. All hon. Members have spoken in the shadow of that crisis.
  Some hon. Members spoke with peculiarly close experience, as they have been out to see what is happening on the ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) described his experiences of visiting the crisis area. I echo one of his points—that while we rightly pay tribute to the work of our voluntary agencies and the people they send out, we should remember that in the camps of Sudan and Ethiopia there are Sudanese and Ethiopians who are working as dedicatedly, hard and skilfully as those from abroad. That is one of my clearest memories of my visit there.
  There has been a good deal of agreement on many aspects of the debate, in particular on the enormous importance of doing all we can to help the small farmers in African countries and other parts of the world which face great difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), in his brief intervention, rightly pointed out that we have a simple objective—to make sub-Saharan Africa self-reliant in food, able to grow its own crops and to do the bulk of the work in that respect. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) also spoke about the importance of the small farmer. I share his view that the small fanners of Africa have been derided too much. A growing wisdom recognises that many of the things that small farmers have been doing over the years have been based on experience and a great deal of good sense. Anyone who goes to Africa and thinks that he can simply lecture the small farmer on what he should do without regard to that experience is making a great mistake. Sadly, in many African countries the wisdom of the small farmers has been undermined by absurd ideological policies. However. I believe that wisdom is reasserting itself, and that a greater sense of reality is coming to the countries which have been most committed to the more counter-productive forms of African Socialism, for example. That is of great importance.
  The rural development and commercial philosophy argument has been advanced in the debate. The hon. Member for Greenwich alluded to it when he talked about the importance of aid going to the poorest rather than being given on commercial grounds. I suggest that one day he has a quiet word with his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who as an Opposition trade spokesman seems to have espoused the cause of commercial projects at all costs without making too much of the development value of those projects.
  My position is clear. As I have said, it is right that we should look to British interests, and it is right that the bulk of our bilateral aid should be tied. On the other hand, it is essential that, when we use aid funds to support industrial projects, we have proper regard to the developmental significance of those projects. That is the Government's position.
  A significant proportion of our aid to Africa is already related to agriculture. That aid is mainly for smallholder development. As the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) said, aid for agricultural development means financing the local costs of projects as well as

  799
  providing goods from Britain. We have the capacity within our aid programme to provide local costs, where appropriate. That capacity has long existed and it still exists. There is no going back on that. In India, for example, there is a substantial local cost element in our programme. When dealing with imports, we operate on the basis of tied aid, but we provide substantial local costs through the ODA.
  The right hon. Member for Clydesdale suggested that there might be a new organisation to bring together the United Nations, the World Bank and major donors, including the European Community, to deal not only with the sudden and desperate famine problems in Africa but with disaster operations generally. I think that the right hon. Lady will know that international machinery—
  Dame Judith Hart: The Minister has not described exactly what I have suggested. He had better read Hansard tomorrow.
  Mr. Raison: As I understand it, the right hon. lady addressed herself to the need, as she sees it, of a new mechanism for dealing with disasters.
  Dame Judith Hart: Yes, a new mechanism, not a new organisation.
  Mr. Raison: Very well; I am sorry. However, the right hon. Lady will know that the international machinery has been enlarged and greatly improved since the famine in the early 1970s. The United Nations Disaster Relief Office was set up to act as a clearing house. The World Food Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organisation provide regular and detailed information on food aid pledges and shipments and on port and inland transport conditions. We receive a six-page telex from the World Food Programme every week and many documents on food availability from the FAO every month. In dealing with the African crisis we have seen the appointment of Mr. Brad Morse by the United Nations Secretary-General to cope with the emergency operations.
  In the Community there is a new ad hoc committee meeting regularly and co-ordinating our bilateral and Community responses. There is also a new emergency unit in the aid directorate of the Community, which was set up last December. All these developments are helping to produce a more effective response. I do not think that they are the totality of the answer, but the mechanisms have improved.
  Experience has shown recently that it is possible to get hold of food, thanks to the famous mountains, the surpluses, and their equivalents. We have been able to acquire food quickly. The securing of food has not been one of our problems. I think that the right hon. Member for Clydesdale must recognise that the provision of permanent stocks in every conceivable risk area would be enormously expensive and difficult to maintain. There is ample evidence that the storage of food is far from being an easy matter. There must be some storage facilities and supplies where they are most needed, but more important is an effective mechanism for ensuring that we can get food relatively easily to where it is needed. That is something that we have developed.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said that in dealing with these
  800
  problems we must take account of the follies of man as well as of climates. He referred to Eritrea and Tigre and said that we should insist on ceasefires in all the wars that are taking place in Africa. My right hon. Friend is right, but we must remember that we cannot intervene in ways that we would like in countries that are independent. We have supported Mr. Jansson's efforts to arrange a safe passage in Ethiopia. I acknowledge that they have not met with success, but we have pressed hard the importance of treating the starving and the famine-ridden and attaching to that the greatest priority.
  It has been suggested that the Community aid programme could be used rather more rigorously to achieve our policy objectives. The new Lome convention allows greater policy dialogue and gives a greater change to achieve policy changes, which is all to the good. The Community has made it clear that in the last resort it will suspend aid where there is gross abuse of human rights. However, we are operating on behalf of the people of independent countries. We cannot walk in, tell them what to do and resume the colonial burden.
  The essence of what we are about is to give effective aid. It is important to remember that we are giving aid in Africa and in other areas where there are desperate problems, such as Afghanistan, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) referred. As my hon. Friend knows, we have provided substantial aid for Afghanistan. I have allocated a further £4 million to help the refugees in that area who are suffering so tragically.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) talked about the credit scheme operated by the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is an important job. The work is promising and we support the scheme through our membership of the International Fund for Agricultural Development. We are fully prepared to take part in the next replenishment of IFAD, and we regret the fact that the negotiations have been stalled. We hope that they will be resumed as soon as possible. We hope also that the Americans will find their way to coming in on terms which can be agreed among us all. When I go to Washington in the next day or so I shall be prepared to convey that message. It will be sensible to achieve the replenishment and then to consider what to do next about any further activities.
  We have heard a good deal during the debate about targets and resources. We operate under public expenditure constraints, and we can hardly counsel sound finance to the developing countries if we do not practise it ourselves. However, we have a substantial programme that is running at roughly the overall average of OECD countries. More important than that, perhaps, is the scope and direction of our aid programme. It is too easy to think that aid is a matter of throwing in resources. Some of the parrot cries that we hear do no good to anybody. If there is one lesson on aid, it is that the policies of aid programmes must be right. Above all, that is true in Africa, where the problems are most severe.
  It is fair to say that Africa has not lacked aid over the post-war years and that it does not lack it now. However, I firmly believe that there must be a workable strategy. That strategy is not to be found in Socialism. African Socialism is one of the burdens that has afflicted that continent. A workable strategy must be found in realistic policies that tackle the great needs of Africa. There must

  801
  be co-ordination between donors and sensible economic policies. Incentives must be given to key producers, notably the farmers. There must be research into the best ways of growing food and rearing livestock, and the results of that research must be disseminated. There is a need for appropriate technology. There is a need to get to grips with enfeebling bureaucracy. There must be a recognition that development will not come without scope for private investment, the operation of markets and resistance to protectionism.
  We are now seeing policies emerge—this is true of the major institutions such as the World Bank and our bilateral partners as well as ourselves — which are designed to cope effectively with the fundamental and long-term problems which so afflict Africa.
  Therefore, I urge the House to reject the Opposition motion and to support the amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 277.

  Division No. 235]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Dixon, Donald

  Alton, David

  Dobson, Frank

  Anderson, Donald

  Dormand, Jack

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Douglas, Dick

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Duffy, A. E P.

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Atkinson, N (Tottenham)

  Eastham, Ken

  Bagier, Gordon A. T

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Ellis, Raymond

  Barnett, Guy

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Ewing, Harry

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Faulds, Andrew

  Berth, A. J

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Benn, Tony

  Fisher, Mark

  Bennett, A (Dent'n & Red sh)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Forrester, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Foster, Derek

  Blair, Anthony

  Foulkes, George

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Boyes, Roland

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Freud, Clement

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mlme E)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Brown, Hugh D (Provan)

  George, Bruce

  Brown, N (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

  Golding, John

  Brown, Ron (E burgh, Leith)

  Gould, Bryan

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Carhle, Alexander `(Montg'y)

  Hancock, Mr. Michael

  Cartwright, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Thomas

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Clay, Robert

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Haynes, Frank

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Coleman, Donald

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J D.

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Howells, Geraint

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Cowans, Harry

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Crowther, Stan

  John, Brynmor

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Johnston, Russell

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

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

  Kmnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Deakins, Eric

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dewar, Donald

  Lambie, David

  802

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Radice, Giles

  Leighton, Ronald

  Redmond, M.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Litherland, Robert

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Robertson, George

  Loyden, Edward

  Rogers, Allan

  McCartney, Hugh

  Rooker, J. W.

  McGuire, Michael

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Rowlands, Ted

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheerman, Barry

  McTaggart, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  McWilliam, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Madden, Max

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Marek, DrJohn

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Snape, Peter

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Maxton, John

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Stott, Roger

  Meacher, Michael

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeok)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Torney, Tom

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wainwright, R.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wallace, James

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Warden, Gareth(Gower)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Weetch, Ken

  O'Neill, Martin

  Welsh, Michael

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  White, James

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Wilson, Gordon

  Park, George

  Winnick, David

  Parry, Robert

  Woodall, Alec

  Patchett, Terry

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pendry,

  Tom

  Penhaligon, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pike, Peter

  Mr. Alan McKay and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Prescott, John

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Alexander, Richard

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Budgen, Nick

  Amess, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Ancram, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Arnold, Tom

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Cash, William

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Cockeram, Eric

  Bellingham, Henry

  Colvin, Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Conway, Derek

  Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic

  Coombs, Simon

  Benyon, William

  Cope, John

  Best, Keithv

  Cormack, Patrick

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Corrie, John

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Couchman, James

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Bottomley, Peter

  Crouch, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Dicks, Terryv

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dover, Den

  Bright, Graham

  Dunn, Robert

  Brinton, Tim

  Durant, Tony

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Dykes, Hugh

  803

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Leigh, Edward insbor'gh)

  Evennett, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Lester, Jim

  Farr, Sir John

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Favell, Anthony

  Lightbown, David

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Lord, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  McCrindle, Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Forth, Eric

  Maclean, David John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

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

  Franks, Cecil

  Madel, David

  Fraser, Peter(Angus East)

  Major, John

  Freeman, Roger

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gale, Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Marland, Paul

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Marlow, Antony

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mates, Michael

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mather, Carol

  Gorst, John

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Greenway, Harry

  Mellor, David

  Gregory, Conal

  Merchant, Piers

  Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Grist, Ian

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Ground, Patrick

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Grylls, Michae

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Moate, Roger

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Harvey, Robert

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hayward, Robert

  Needham, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hickmet, Richard

  Neubert, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hill, James

  Norris, Steven

  Hind, Kenneth

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hirst, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Holt, Richard

  Osborn, Sir John

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Howard, Michael

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Parris, Matthew

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Irving, Charles

  Pawsey, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jessel, Toby

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Pollock, Alexander

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Porter, Barry

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Portillo, Michael

  Knight, Gregory Derby N)

  Powley, John

  Knox, David

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Lang, Ianv

  rior, Rt Hon James

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  804

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Renton, Tim

  Thompson, Donald lder V)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Thorne, Neil (llford S)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Townend, John (Bndlington)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Townsend, Cyril D (B'heath)

  Robinson, Mark(N'port W)

  Tracey, Richard

  Rost, Peter

  Trippier, David

  Rowe, Andrew

  Trotter, Neville

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Ryder, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N

  Viggers, Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Waddington, David

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1)

  Walden, George

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldndge)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Shersby, Michael

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Sims, Roger

  Waller, Gary

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Walters, Dennis

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Ward, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhtll)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Warren, Kenneth

  Speed, Keith

  Watson, John

  Speller, Tony

  Watts, John

  Spencer, Derek

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Spicer, Michael(S Worcs)

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Squire, Robin

  Wheeler, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Whitney, Raymond

  Steen, Anthony

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stevens, Lewis(Nuneaton)

  Wilkinson, John

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stokes, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Stradling Thomas, J

  Yeo, Tim

  Sumberg, David

  Taylor, John (Sohhull)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mr. Tim Samsbury and Mr Peter Lloyd

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Question accordingly negatived.,
  Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER,forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the effectiveness of the Government's action in tackling the famine in Africa; endorses its policies to promote long term development in Africa; supports the present approach of the Government and the international financial institutions to the severe debt problems of the day; and recognises that Britain's aid policy confers real benefits not only on the developing countries but also on British industry and employment.

  Young People
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: I beg to move,
  That this House, mindful of the fact that 1985 is the International Year of Youth, believes that Her Majesty's Government has failed to foster conditions for opportunity, choice and participation for young people and has contributed to the desperate plight of youth by failing to operate the policies necessary to assist young people in securing work, housing, income and social security; and believes that all young people, regardless of sex and social background, have a right to effective education and training in order to give them wide and continuing opportunities to secure fulfilling employment and the consequent economic and social rewards.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Sheerman: It is sad, but hardly surprising, that the organisers of the International Year of Youth should criticise the Government for their miserable support of the year. They have provided a measly £250,000 for the whole year's efforts. That figure should be compared with the Canadian Government's provision of £8 million and the Greater London council's provision of £160,000. That is exactly the type of helpful and progressive use of resources which has led the Government to pursue its abolition. We all know that having to watch an alternative in action upsets the Prime Minister even more than hearing about it.
  The Government regard youth as an embarrassment and a liability. Faced with the crisis of youth unemployment, which is substantially of their own making, Ministers have rained blows and blame on young people. Youth should be an exciting and fulfilling time of life. Throughout the ages, poets have celebrated and revered youth.
  "Youth's the season made for joys"
  wrote John Gay. Byron also dwelt on the sweetness of youth:
  "Oh, talk not to me of a name great in story;
  The days of our youth are the days of our glory;
  And the myrtle and ivy of sweet two-and-twenty;
  Are worth all your laurels, though ever so plenty."
  [Interruption.] It is not surprising that the Government Front Bench cannot understand why poetry should be quoted in a debate on young people.
  Politicians also have known the value of youth. It was Disraeli who proclaimed that almost everything that is great has been done by youth and who described the youth of the nation as the trustees of its posterity. He might have added the word "prosperity" if he lived now. How unlike the poets and politicians,of an earlier age are the present Government. They have no vision of youth. What policy they have is merely a combination of saving money and political expediency, screened by a veneer of callous and insincere celebration of Victorian family values.
  We all know that the most important step in becoming an adult and taking on the responsibilities of life is having a job. Being in work gives young people independence and a new status. It gives them the money to make their own choices and introduces them to new relationships with friends at work. It enables them to move away from independence on their families. For most young people, a job is their most important possession. However, too few young people have jobs or have been able to build the right foundations for work.
  The old passes to an adult place in society no longer exist. Hon. Members, especially Opposition Members,
  806
  understand that. The new ones such as the youth training scheme too often lead back to the dole queue. Unless society can create jobs for young people and help them to prepare for jobs through high quality education and training, it is denying opportunities to a whole generation. All right hon. and hon. Members have had such opportunities aplenty.
  I shall return to jobs, and I do not apologise for that. Unless the Government are willing to sort out the problem of jobs, there will be no end to the miseries that youth endures. The bottom line is that, if the fundamental problems facing young people are to be put right, the economy must be put right. Our shrinking manufacturing sector cannot provide sufficient jobs for unemployed youth directly or in service occupations. If manufacturing continues to shrink, as John Harvey-Jones said, what on earth will they service? Our economy needs the skills and energies of youth to help make it successful.
  It has been estimated that putting the under-25s back to work would produce a saving of between £5 billion and £7 billion a year in public expenditure. That is one public expenditure cut that we would favour. An even greater sum would be saved by the additional output of those employed young people. Treated as a liability, youth has become one. Youth is an asset, but the Government have been unwilling to capitalise on it.
  I shall consider the desperate plight of young people under the four major headings of jobs, education and training, income and housing.
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): Will the hon. Gentleman explain precisely how he arrived at the figure of £5 billion to £7 billion?
  Mr. Sheerman: The Minister will hear later of particular proposals. That figure was arrived at by an independent assessment made in the Labour party. I shall give him the figures from independent bodies if he cares to have them.
  Let us talk about the plight of youth in terms of jobs —[Interruption.] I am not proud of those figures, This is a most desperate—[Interruption.] If Ministers looked at the findings of the Unemployment Unit, they woui.d find the figure of £5 billion to £7 billion, which was worked out by that unit. The Minister of State knows well of the existence of that unit. From 1979—[Interruption.] The Government Front Bench is trying to stop me giving the catalogue of the dreadful unemployment figures, but I shall continue.
  Between 1979 and 1985 unemployment among all under 25-year-olds was up 167 per cent. For under 18-year-olds, it was up 77 per cent. For under 18-year-olds, including YTS trainees, it was up 168 per cent. For under 25-year-olds, the rate of unemployment was over double what it was for the rest of the population, at 22.7 per cent., compared with 10.3 per cent. for those over 25. In April 1985 1,203,000 people under 25 were out of a job. That is a dreadful catalogue of figures, especially if we add the fact that 359,000 of those people had been unemployed for 12 months or more, and 655,805 had been unemployed for six months or more. Although the totals for the past couple of years are holding relatively steady, the duration of unemployment is increasing markedly and worryingly.
  School leavers' jobs and apprenticeships have also collapsed. Most tragic of all is the figure for young people

  807
  who have not worked at all since leaving school. For example, 152,795 of those over 19 have never worked in their lives. That is a dreadful figure, and one that we shall pay for dearly in the years to come. Those young people despair of any hope or future.
  The Government are fond of saying that appren-ticeships were out of date and produced out-of-date skills, and that they were time served rather than standard served. We have heard the catalogue of criticism about apprenticeships. However, the fact is that all over the world one can hear the praise for our apprenticeship system, which has provided skilled workers for industries in the United States and many other parts of the world. That system has been allowed to collapse. Even in 1978 we did not have enough apprenticeships. There were 86,000 male apprentices, and the figure reduced to 70,500 in 1980. However, by 1983 the figure was down to 22,000. What a record of skill training for a nation that has hopes of being a great industrial nation again.
  Ministers are fond of reminding us that the YTS is a training measure, not an employment measure, so I shall deal with youth training separately. The only direct policies aimed at reducing youth unemployment are the wicked attempts to lower young people's wages, and to create jobs through the community programme. I confess that the community programme remains fairly popular, but the paltry wages—on average under £60 a week—are fast becoming a national scandal. In any event, the programme only scratches the surface of demand. I hope that the Minister will intervene if he disagrees with this. Even the increased 100,000 places on community schemes announced in the Budget will serve the needs of only less than 10 per cent. of eligible people under 25, who are out of work.
  The Government's favourite claim is that it is not the Government's fault that there are no jobs. Their inadequate policies are not to blame. They are nothing to do with youth unemployment, according to Ministers and the Prime Minister. Young people are unemployed because it is their own fault. Unbeknown to them, they have been pricing themselves out of jobs for years. That is why there are no jobs. I would find that hilarious if it were not so tragic.
  The Government have made much of "high" youth wages and have enlisted the YTS allowance alongside the —almost—late and wholly unlamented young workers scheme in support. However, the evidence is so thin as to be laughable. Research has been commissioned in a desperate attempt by the Government to find some evidence to back their prejudices on the matter. All the independent research that I have seen makes it clear that the Government's alleged relationship between high youth pay and the lack of jobs is nonsense. Of course, the Government find that proposition politically attractive.
  The wages council proposals will further attack young people's ability to earn a decent living. There will be further moves in line with the idea that youth are to blame for their predicament, which is an amoral position for a Government to hold. Young people are the victims rather than the perpetrators, but they are blamed for the crisis. It is not youth, demographic trend or international competition that is to blame for youth unemployment— it is the Government's policies. In the debate, we hope to
  808
  make it clear in the public imagination that the Government are responsible for the unemployment and despair of our young people.
  The Government have failed to meet the challenge of education and training. Her Majesty's inspectorate has confirmed beyond doubt that our schools are crumbling from neglect. The leader in The Times Educational Supplement ofMay is entitled
  "False economy and penny-pinching"
  How appropriate that is to the present Government's policies and the present Secretary of State. The leader states:
  "Working in decaying conditions amid peeling paint, under leaking roofs, unable to get defects repaired let alone improvements undertaken, is one of the most widespread complaints from teachers. As time goes by, working in a poor environment becomes more and more depressing and less and less conducive to high morale and the enthusiasm which lights up enthusiasm in others."
  Something else is far more telling against the Government's lack of understanding of what is happening in education today. The Secretary of State for Education and Science and his fellow Ministers do not have the imagination to understand, even when the teaching unions are reluctantly taking industrial action in support of their living standards. The teachers are doing so because it is a crime that they cannot do their job on their present rates of pay and in present conditions. The nature of education changes when there is mass youth unemployment. The Government do not have the imagination to know what the role of a teacher is, who used to teach a class of young men and women who confidently expected to get a job when they left school. Until a few years ago, they all would have done that. Let the Government compare that with trying to teach young people who know that there is no job, no future, and no opportunities when they leave school at 16. That is the measure of the Government's lack of understanding of today's education system. Until our economy provides the possibility of a job, there will be no hope for education and training. The Government have completely failed to meet that challenge.
  The decay referred to in The Times Educational Supplement affects morale. For teachers to realise that there is little prospect of jobs for their pupils affects morale even more. The output from the system shows how badly we are lagging behind our industrial competitors. That is part of the bind we are in. The Government must be aware that we must improve our education system and have a proper training system that compares with that of Germany, Japan, the United States and our other industrial competitors and that we must move to a level of quality training and education. If we have any sense, we must do that in conditions of expansion and not contraction. It is difficult to achieve any change in an atmosphere of decline and cuts.
  Britain lags behind its major competitors in every aspect of education and training. Just one third of its work force has any recognised qualifications equivalent to at least O-level, compared with about two thirds in West Germany. A high proportion of our 16-year-olds leave school with no prospects of genuine vocational preparation. That is in striking contrast to Germany and Japan. Only 13 per cent. of our school leavers go on to higher education, compared to one fifth in West Germany.
  Our entry into higher education is lower than that of other countries. The recent Green Paper only squares the circle between places and demand by predicting levels of

  809
  demand that fail to accord with the predictions of those who have no expenditure axe to grind. The Government also fail to see that the object should be to encourage and stimulate demand for higher education and to support all those who want to improve their learning and the value of their contribution to society.
  Then we come to the co-called jewel in the Government's crown — YTS. We find that it is not a jewel. Most people's assessment is that it is a bad imitation paste. That must be said without embarrassment. I know that the Government will say that the Opposition are being disloyal to youth, because we criticise a training programme that is not good enough for our young people, our international competitiveness or the country's future. To see the problems of YTS is not disloyalty. It is disloyalty not to recognise those problems.
  I have recently visited a number of mode A schemes. I may not have visited as many as the Minister of State. I understand from the grapevine that when I visit those schemes I do something that the Minister does not do. I ask for the trainees to talk to me on their own without their supervisors, teachers or anyone else.
  Mr. Peter Morrison rose—
  Mr. Sheerman: I may be wrong about that. When one sees the trainees in a relaxed and informal atmosphere, one hears the central criticisms of even the mode A scheme about which the Minister brags so frequently. With his hand on his heart, the Minister must accept that most of the schemes that he studies involve work experience and not quality training. We must move to quality training and not merely job experience.
  Mr. Peter Morrison: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured when I tell him that that is not the fact.
  Mr. Sheerman: The problem with YTS is that it leads to jobs for only half the trainees. The Government say
  Mr. Peter Morrison: Wrong.
  Mr. Sheerman: I shall stand by that statement. Roughly half the trainees obtain a job. In many parts of the country, hardly any trainees obtain a job. My information on this is as good as the Minister's. The Government say, "Yes, but only half are unemployed." Wonderful — that is the difference between us. The Government congratulate themselves on a job that is only half done. We want to start doing that job for our young people properly.
  Mr. Giles Radice: Tell us the figures.
  Mr. Sheerman: The Government do not have the
  figures.
  Secondly, the training is not of sufficient quality or any replacement for the apprenticeship schemes, the skillcentres or the industrial training boards. Thirdly, the YTS is being done on the cheap. When the YTS was launched, we were told many times that it would cost £1 billion. That is how much the Government were spending on YTS. Ministers crowed about that figure, but now we know that that £1 billion must pay for two years of YTS rather than just one. If, as the Opposition want, YTS is to be a stepping stone into quality training which matches that anywhere in the world, it will cost money. We cannot
  810
  train on the cheap. The money must come from the employer, the individual or the Government. The Government have not faced that problem.
  I shall deal with the plight of youth in respect of income. First, under this Government, mass family poverty has grown. In total, the number of children living on incomes below subsistence — supplementary benefit level — almost doubled in the first two years of this Government. A combination of growing unemployment, leading more families to depend upon supplementary benefit, and low pay means that one in four children were living in or near the margins of poverty in 1981. The proportion of working parents earning poverty wages has increased in recent years, and the number of children living with working parents on incomes below 140 per cent. of supplementary benefit level more than doubled in the two years to 1981. So much for the Government's celebration of the values of the family. That is how most of the families that we see in our constituencies suffer.
  Moreover, young people's standards of living are falling, whether they are on a wage, a training allowance or a student grant, without a grant and having to rely on parents, or on the dole. The Government are like the famous advertisement: they manage to reach parts that no other Government have managed to reach. In terms of delivering poverty, that is not funny.
  For the vast majority of young people wishing to continue in full-time education, there are no grants or educational maintenance allowances. sayhat is something for which the Opposition have called for many years and which we are committed to introducing once we are in government. Only those whose parents can afford to keep them can continue in full-time study. The Government have stubbornly refused to provide young people under 18 with grants. It is all right for the Secretary of State to tell us what we did or did not do, but the Labour Government did not have the same level of youth unemployment. We did not have the young unemployed school leaver having to decide whether to stay at school to do his or her A-levels, to obtain a vocational qualification or to take £26.25 home to the family budget because mum and dad are unemployed. That is the terrible tension that exists in many families, and it is one that we must recognise.
  Students aged 18 or more are denied grants if they are not on higher education or specially designated courses. Grants for part-time study are non-existent. The value of student grants has fallen by 14 per cent. More students have to rely on parental contributions or are forced to borrow money from the banks. The Government have threatened to introduce student loans—pay as you learn. They have already tried, unsuccessfully, to charge parents course fees.
  People on the youth training scheme are paid a totally inadequate allowance of £26.25 per week. Only a very few trainees manage to get that topped up through collective bargaining, and supplementary benefit is cut if trainees leave early. Anyone who has studied the White and Green Papers carefully knows that the spectre of withdrawal of benefit entirely from 16 and 17-year-olds probably merely awaits implementation of the second year of the youth training scheme. I should like to hear the Government's response on that.
  Those changes in benefit come at the end of a whole series of changes designed to force young people back on to the resources of their families. I can give chapter and verse. In 1980, supplementary benefit was removed from

  811
  school leavers for three to four months. In 1982, child benefit entitlement was reduced. In April 1983, 16 and 17-year-olds lost £3.10 per week housing benefit. That was extended to 18 to 20-year-olds in 1984. The catalogue of blows against young people is as depressing as it is possible to imagine.
  The current reviews of the social security system will create ludicrous anomalies between the under-25s and the over-25s, so that a couple with a 24-year-old son or daughter will receive a different level of benefit from that received by the couple next door whose child is 25 years old. The Government have totally failed to tackle the tangle of benefits and incomes for young people, and further cuts in benefits for 16 and 17-year-olds are likely.
  The plight of youth is equally desperate in housing. The decline of the private rented sector and the failure of the public sector to provide for the young and particularly for young single people has pushed them to the back of the housing queue in every area. As a result, housing problems among young people are on the increase and the unprecedented number of homeless young people is a national disgrace.
  The pressure is building up, as reports from around the country show. I cite just a few instances. Between 1984 and 1985, Threshold had 1,500 new inquiries from persons under 25. Flatshop in Cardiff had 1,600 inquiries in 1983, 64 per cent. of them from people aged between 18 and 25 and 8 per cent. of them from people under the age of 18. The Association for the Single Homeless noted that between June 1983 and April 1984 79 per cent. of the homeless were under 24 years of age. Every year, 14,000 youngsters leave local authority care. It is estimated half of them end up homeless, but three out of four local authorities offer no assistance for priority allocation after leaving establishments of that kind and many local authorities maintain housing policies which operate against young people.
  I have covered jobs, income, education, training and housing because they are the fundamental stepping stones for youth in moving to a full, worthwhile and secure place in adult society. The Government have not only failed to support those stepping stones but have actually weakened them in many respects. That is the measure of their culpability for the desperate plight of young people today.
  The Minister may ask what Labour would do. I will tell him. First, Labour has a vision of youth.
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): Yes?
  Mr. Sheerman: Yes indeed, and we understand young working people in a way that Ministers with their privileged backgrounds cannot begin to appreciate.
  At the heart of our policy is an appreciation of the value of youth. Youth does not last very long and it is a crime to deprive young people of all the things that the Government are taking away from them. Youth is a time to be enjoyed, a time to look forward with hope, a time of opportunity. Young people should be able to look to their families for help and mutual support, but they should also be allowed and indeed helped to work towards the essential independence and learning of life entailed by the responsibilities of adult living.
  What is needed is a framework for that transition— not to mollycoddle young people but to give them
  812
  something to build on and to build with—and it is the responsibility of Government to develop that framework. One element is jobs. Labour has set out its programme for getting the country and its young people back to work in "A Future that Works" and "Partners in Rebuilding Britain".
  A second element is the education system. We have set out our proposals for that in our charter for pupils and parents. Thirdly, for education and training after the age of 16 we have "Learning for Life" and "Plan for Training". Fourthly, for income support we have set out our commitment to educational maintenance allowances, increased grants and a much improved grant for trainees. We also have a series of policy options to improve the housing prospects of young people, including more opportunities for rented housing, easier access to housing waiting lists and an extension of priority housing need to cover young people.
  I have no doubt that the Government today will trot out the usual litany of excuses for their inadequacy, incompetence and indifference to the problems of young people, but however they twist and turn and squeal, as Harry Truman said, the buck stops there. The Government are responsible for what is happening to our young people and for the despair that those young people feel.
  7.46 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "recognising that 1985 is the International Year of Youth, congratulates the Government on the action it is taking to improve the prospects for young people and, in particular, for introducing through the Youth Training Scheme the most imaginative and far reaching training programme since the last war; recognises the tremendous opportunities the scheme has created for young people and looks forward with confidence to the introduction of the two-year Youth Training Scheme in April 1986; and welcomes the initiative being taken to provide more effective education for young people."
  I was surprised that the Opposition chose to have a debate on youth, but I was also very pleased because their record when in government was not impressive, as what has been said today has shown. I intend to show that, despite the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Government's record is impressive. The hon. Gentleman may live to regret his statement that we have no vision. The hon. Gentleman began his speech with a little poetry. He also praised Mr. Livingstone, but I wonder how many youngsters under the GLC have that sort of praise for that sort of man.
  The hon. Gentleman's speech was very short on facts, and he was wrong about many facts. For example, he said that only 50 per cent. of those leaving the youth training scheme go into a job. He knows the facts because they have been debated before, so he knows that the figure is about 60 per cent., a further 6 per cent. going on to further training and education and another 5 per cent. going on to another scheme.
  Mr. Sheerman: Perhaps the Minister will check his figures with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission who is also uncertain about the figures because they are accumulated merely by survey. The figute that we have and that Youthaid has is 50 per cent.
  Mr. Morrison: It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should take what Youthaid says as official

  813
  when it has been proved time and again to be factually incorrect. It is also extraordinary that members of the Youth Training Board, not all of whom are members of the Conservative party by any stretch of the imagination, do not question the facts given to them by the Manpower Services Commission. The figures are obtained through an independent survey, so factually the hon. Gentleman is incorrect.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield says that Labour has a vision of youth. That is fine. But what does he intend to do with that vision? I listened carefully to everything that he said, but he did not put forward even one new idea. That is the position of the Labour party. It has no ideas —[Interruption.] Labour Members may not like the fact that they have no ideas, but they cannot bluster their way out of it. Rhetoric is one thing, but constructive ideas are something else. The Labour party is good on rhetoric but bad on constructive ideas. I want to hear ideas about how one gets through a difficult situation such as this, and I have not for a moment pretended that it is anything other than difficult.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield forgot to remind the House that when in government the Labour party had the chance to introduce a youth training scheme. It was put forward by the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is now president of the Social Democratic party. She has vividly reminded us of the way in which the Labour Government at the time totally failed to put youth and the necessary resources up the list of priorities. As a result, many 19, 20, 21 and 22-year-olds have never had a job or any training at all. Had the Labour party had the courage at the time, it would have placed those 19 to 24-year-olds in a quite different situation.
  I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman spends time on the youth training scheme. As he knows, I also spend a lot of time on it and have talked to many trainees. The hon. Gentleman's experience is interesting. He said that young people were not very keen on the scheme. I have not met all the 700,000 trainees who have benefited from the scheme, but I have met a good cross-section and heard quite a different story. However, the hon. Gentleman need not believe me or perch on my shoulder as I go around the various schemes, even though I would be delighted if he came with me. Perhaps he will look again at an independent survey, which is about to go to the Youth Training Board, with which I have had nothing whatever to do. That was a survey of trainees as they came off the scheme, and many were interviewed. It showed that 84 per cent, thought that the scheme was either fairly or very worthwhile. By any stretch of the imagination, that must be an extremely successful, positive rate. I believe that about 15,000 trainees took part in the survey, but if I am wrong I shall correct that figure if I have over-exaggerated or even under-exaggerated.
  Just the other day, in conjuction with the Industrial Society, we met the trainees of the year. Had the hon. Gentleman attended that meeting, he would have heard the success stories and met trainees who after some years had changed their attitude and got themselves into employment. One trainee was offered a job provided he had a driving licence. He did not, but, because of his attitude, he obtained a driving licence within 10 days and became employed.
  Mr. Max Madden: The Minister will be aware that earlier this year at a conference in Bradford
  814
  there was extensive criticism of racial discrimination within the YTS. He acknowledges that he is aware of that, but what action do the Government propose to take to diminish the level of such discrimination with the YTS, and when will the hon. Gentleman announce the Government's proposals?
  Mr. Morrison: If there is any racial discrimination, the same rules and regulations apply up and down the land. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if I hear of specific cases, they will be looked into immediately, and he can also be assured that the right statute is in place so that that should not happen.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield misled the House when he said that we had cut back on YTS. He quoted a figure of £1 billion. We are now spending £830 million on the scheme this year, and it will go up by a further £300 million during the period of the full two-year scheme. But the hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge that for the last two years, the current year and the year ahead, every 16 and 17-year-old school leaver will have the opportunity of joining the scheme if he wishes. That is no cutback at all. Originally the guarantee covered all 16-year-olds, but we have now given the opportunity to every 17-year-old. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman cannot argue that there has been any cutback. Furthermore, there is common ground between us in our wish to see better quality training throughout industry and commerce—[Interruption.] It is obvious that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has nothing constructive to offer.
  Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East): Of course we have alternatives.
  Mr. Morrison: I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield will agree that there is training in many industrial and commercial sectors as a result of YTS which did not exist previously.
  We have also moved away from outdated time-serving and age restrictions which were a feature of traditional apprenticeships. Many trade unionists believe that that was the right way to proceed. I am sorry that the Opposition Front Bench do not appear to believe that, because they are precluding many school leavers aged 17, 18 and perhaps 19 of getting the right sort of training.
  Education and industry have been brought much closer together as a result of YTS. That is to the benefit not only of education and industry, but, perhaps more importantly, of 16 and 17-year-olds.
  Mr. Prescott: How many apprentices were recruited under the normal industrial training boards in 1979, and how does that compare with the figure today?
  Mr. Morrison: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the precise figures of the number of apprentices, but the number of the traditional apprentices has dropped.
  Mr. Prescott: By what order?
  Mr. Morrison: By a substantial amount, but while the number of traditional apprentices has fallen, the number of people who, as a result of YTS, have obtained basic training has increased very substantially. I shall come back to the question of apprentices later in my speech.
  Mr. David Alton: Does the hon. Gentleman disagree that between 1979 and 1983 the number of apprenticeships fell from 155,000 to about 90,000? Should we not look at the West German system and introduce statutory apprenticeships?
  Mr. Morrison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall come on to that subject at the end of my speech.
  Contrary to what the Opposition have put forward— which, as far as I can see, is nothing at all—what we have suggested for YTS is more imaginative than any other training initiative since the war. Therefore, every school leaver aged 16 or 17 has the chance of being trained for the first time—
  Mr. Prescott: Rubbish.
  Mr. Morrison: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's letter to me in a moment, which might annoy him even more. In the past, only a privileged minority went into the apprentice system.
  However, the Government do not rest on their laurels. They are introducing the two-year youth training scheme, which will enhance for 16-year-olds the opportunity of obtaining employment. It could not have happened if we did not have the support of the employers and the unions. Perhaps Opposition Members are no longer worried about the support of the unions for the youth training scheme. It would not have happened without the good relationships that exist between the colleges and the training providers. I am glad to say that, although it is still early days, progress towards the two-year scheme is set fair. That will mean a better-trained work force than hitherto. The fact that we have not had a well-trained work force has meant that we have lost some markets to our overseas competitors and, as a result, lost jobs.
  The White Paper on education and training for young people emphasises for the first time the importance of a unified approach to training and education for all 14 to 18-year-olds. It links, crucially, schools and industry. It is extremely depressing — I hope that the Opposition spokesman can do something about it — that some Labour-controlled local education authorities will not jump aboard the technical and vocational education initiative. Perhaps when the hon. Gentleman talks with his colleagues in local government he will encourage them to do so. If they do no take part in the initiative, they will deprive the youngsters in their areas of a vocational education that would certainly benefit them.
  Mr. Prescott: I encourage everyone to do what they can about training. I should tell the Minister that Labour authorities are fulfilling the training requirements which the Manpower Services Commission is not fulfilling in many areas. One should give credit for the amount of resources allocated to training by local authorities, which compares well with the amount given by Tory authorities. Indeed, the Minister said today that the Labour authority in Southampton stepped in to save the training centre there.
  Mr. Morrison: I accept the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. However, he must know that some Left-wing local education authorities will not enter the technical and vocational education initiative. I do not know why they are not interested in it, but they are depriving the 14 and 15-year-olds in their areas—
  Mr. Prescott: Rubbish.
  Mr. Morrison: It is not rubbish. It is true. They are depriving 14 and 15-year-olds of the opportunity to have such training. The hon. Gentleman will also know that
  816
  some Left-wing local authorities will not take part in the community programme. I wonder why. Are they not worried about the long-term unemployed?
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that if the Government were prepared to make the TVEI money available to all schools it might benefit all school leavers? Many local authorities are worried about the divisiveness of the scheme, whereby money is given to one school but not to another. They believe that that increases the problems of the allocation of children among different schools.
  Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that about £250 million has been spent on the initiative. It is suitable for only some local educational authorities, and it is only a pilot scheme. It must be worth the while of every local authority to try it on a pilot basis. However, for party political reasons, some Labour-controlled local education authorities have not done so.
  For some time, the Opposition have criticised the youth training scheme. Indeed, their opposition seemed a little more shrill this evening. I agree that the quality of the scheme is crucial. On 11 March, when we debated this matter, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East mentioned that point. He will recall that I wrote to him a day or two later saying that if he could suggest schemes that did not rate according to quality, I would examine them immediately. On 1 April—I do not know whether the date is significant—he replied:
  "Thank you for your letter dated 14 March offering to look into any training schemes which I find unsatisfactory. The one involving shifting cardboard boxes around"—
  this is the case which he mentioned in the House—
  "is actually run by a Tory councillor and I have sorted the matter out myself, though I still think the training is not up to standard and I have discussed the matter with some of your officers."
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. He continues:
  "I am compiling a number of criticisms of the Youth Training Scheme and will make you aware of my case as soon as I have it ready to my satisfaction."
  The hon. Gentleman raised the matter in a bland, rhetorical statement on 11 March. He wrote to me on 1 April, but nine weeks later some schemes have become one scheme and the hon. Gentleman has not produced a shred of evidence.
  Mr. Prescott: The case to which I referred that evening occurred in a business run by a Tory councillor. I did sort it out. It concerned the exploitation of a young worker. Other examples have come to my attention, and the Minister must know that we intend to produce a report by October—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We shall produce a report not only about the youth training scheme, but about training in general and about getting people back to work. After we have produced that report, we should have a proper statement from the Minister. He seems to accept the success of the scheme, although little evidence has been produced to show that, on surveys of between 1,000 and 5,000 people. He is obviously easily satisfied. The Minister participated in a BBC programme about the YTS during which youngsters on the scheme made it clear that they believed that it was cheap labour and that they wanted nothing to do with it.
  Mr. Morrison: Again, the hon. Gentleman has not produced concrete examples. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not complacent. If my Department receives a complaint, my officials know that they must resolve it

  817
  within 24 hours, or explain their failure to do so. The hon. Gentleman is the official Opposition spokesman on employment, yet he makes bland statements and, after two and a half months, he cannot give me more than one example of abuse. The youngsters on the youth training scheme will note that he cannot give me more than one example. If the hon. Gentleman has concrete examples, I shall consider them immediately. I am amazed that he cannot give me one today.
  The knockers of the scheme, of whom the hon. Gentleman is one, include the British Youth Council. When it gave evidence to the Select Committee, it made similar remarks, and it wrote a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) stating:
  "In response to a request of the Select Committee on Employment held 17 April 1985 and your recent comments in the House of Commons. I am writing to inform you that the British Youth Council will be furnishing you with the names of 'Bad Schemes' at the end of June 1985."
  If the council knows of bad schemes, why does it not tell us immediately? It is common ground between the hon. Gentleman and me that we should improve schemes where possible. If we know of bad schemes, we shall do so. To make such bland statements is not acceptable.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) referred to health and safety. He will recall that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) introduced a Bill which dealt with health and safety. The hon. Gentleman had not taken into account the fact that the Government have covered all health and safety matters in legislation. What is just as important is that every trainee on the scheme has statutory protection against racial discrimination in the selection for and termination of training. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the necessary legislation is in force, as it should be.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to the placement of trainees. When I first went to the Department of Employment the placement rate on the youth opportunities programme was 30 per cent. The Labour Government's youth opportunities programme was successful. Today, the placement rate is about 60 per cent., with a further 6 per cent, going into further training and education and over 5 per cent. going into another scheme. Good placements are not necessarily achieved in the areas where one expects them to be achieved. In parts of the country where there are high levels of unemployment there have been placement rates of 70, 80 and 90 per cent.
  Mr. Sheerman rose—
  Mr. Morrison: However, the hon. Member for Huddersfield has never addressed himself to the point that no Government have the power to ordain that a job should be provided at the end of the youth training scheme. The hon. Gentleman and all trainees know that a job exists only when a product is created at a cost and of a quality that the consumer wants to buy.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to wages and the allowance. He will have talked to trainees, as I have, and the answer that I receive is, "We get by." Of course they would like more money, but when it is put to them that the more that they receive by way of an allowance the less will be spent on their training, because there is no pot of gold at the end of this rainbow, they begin to understand that the training element — the quality of the scheme—is crucial.
  Mr. Geoff Lawler: Will my hon. Friend comment upon the announcement by the Manpower Services Commission of its intention to employ clerical assistants as trainees at £60 a week? Does that not undermine the laudable efforts of the Government to persuade young people to take realistic training allowances? If everybody were to copy the MSC, there would be a substantial reduction in the number of young people who would be able to take advantage of the youth training scheme.
  Mr. Morrison: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler), I read the report, and it came as a surprise to me, too. I made inquiries about it. My hon. Friend and I agree that wages or allowances are relevant in terms of prospective employment. Like my hon. Friend, I do not believe everything that I read in The Times.
  On apprentices, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, is out of step with another of his supporters. Look at what happened in the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union. It agreed that the pay of apprentices should be reduced from £41·63 to £27·88. The result was that the intake of apprentices trebled. But there is still a long way to go.
  Mr. Sheerman: That is a most fraudulent claim. 1 have checked this with the EETPU and with the employers. The package for the three and four-year period provides a higher rather than a lower income over that period. There is merely a reduction in the starting rate. However, there is an overall increase. To equate low wages with more apprentices is to turn logic on its head.
  Mr. Tom King: By George, he's got it.
  Mr. Morrison: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment says, "By George, he's got it."
  Despite the fact that this is an enlightened development, there is still a long way to go. The Liberal spokesman pointed to West Germany where first-year apprentices earn about 20 to 30 per cent. of the adult rate compared with the average rate of 60 per cent. in this country. The result is that about 50 per cent. of school leavers in West Germany become apprentices compared with about only 5 per cent. in this country. The Opposition fail to take that matter on board.
  Mr. Prescott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Morrison: No. I have given way on many occasions, and I know that many hon. Members want to take part in this debate.
  During the last three years the Government have introduced a new training scheme which is universally popular and very successful. It is sad that some people are trying to encourage youngsters not to join the scheme. The Government have introduced a community programme that provides training, the technical and vocational education initiative and the enterprise allowance scheme, all of which are imaginative and relate to the 14 to 25-year-old age group. The provision of proper education and training for young people is vital both for them and for the future prosperity of this country. The measures that I have outlined represent the most wide-ranging programme of reforms that has been produced for many years.
  I commend the amendment to the House.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Terry Fields: About 24 hours ago there appeared on television an advertisement warning young people and children of the seductive advances that can be made by strangers. That was in an entirely different context, but in terms of this motion the youth of this country should listen hard to the non-explanation and the bland and unpositive attitude of Government Ministers about the plight of the unemployed, particularly the youth of this country. It is to the credit of the Opposition that we have raised this key issue, not as a bantering match between sixth formers but as the reality of life for millions of people in this country, in particular for our youth. In some instances it is a life and death struggle for the youth of this country. For Ministers blandly to push aside the reality that faces the youth of this country is a crime.
  I should declare an interest on two counts. I am both a father and a grandfather. My daughter has two young children. Her husband is unemployed. Both of them are in their early twenties. When I look at those kids who have no hope for the future, I despair. I have a 22-year-old son who had to leave Liverpool three years ago because of this Government's policies and the system that they represent. He has had to leave the home circle and his friends to look for work elsewhere. He has had to follow Tebbit's advice to get on his bike. I also have a 17-year-old daughter who is on a youth training scheme. She prays that she will be kept on at the end of it if she is given decent training. I have a 14-year-old lad who is still at school, with nothing in front of him but the youth training scheme and exploitation by this Government, as long as they remain in power.
  It would be easy to raise the spectre of the wicked witch or the mad monk, but these matters should not be personalised. By providing simplistic answers, we do not educate youth about why these things are happening, who is responsible for them and how to resolve the problems that they face.
  The hypocrisy of members of the Government is evident in their everyday speeches. As we listen to the Prime Minister talking about the creation of one nation, we must wonder where the evidence for such a creation exists. Is it in the contradictions which appeared only last week in the press? In the Liverpool Daily Post and Liverpool Echo stories appeared saying:
  "Sexual harassment, verbal abuse, unpaid overtime, dirty conditions and wages as low as 48p an hour have been uncovered by a team looking into the plight of working teenagers.
  They are considered to be the lucky ones because they have a job.
  A 16-year-old girl machinist complained female staff were left in no doubt how they could find an extra £10 in their pay packet by an employer who regularly tried to touch her breast.
  A 19-year-old clerk typist received just £25 for a 49-hour week, an 18-year-old with 11 O-Levels earned just £32·25 a week, while a young roofer was paid £8 for 12½ hours overtime."
  That is the way in which the young are suffering.
  Our elders and betters are supposed to be telling us what is good for us. Last week on Derby day those elders and betters consumed 8,000 bottles of champagne, 5,000 lb of strawberries, 1,800 lb of beef, 1,500 lb of salmon and 2,500 gulls' eggs. They must think that we are gulls if they believe that we will accept the propaganda, lies and distortions that come from Conservatives about the conditions of working people. They are out of touch with reality.
  820
  The Government's policy on education — on comprehensive schools, further education, higher education and universities—is an exposition of their lunacy and bankruptcy in relation to investment for the future. Places are being cut, courses are being savaged and standards in our educational establishments are being reduced.
  Investment in the future should be the name of the game. If the Government were serious about their policies for industry, they would be encouraging massive investment in science and technology. The reverse is the case. The needs of the next decade, if not of the next century, are in our hands today and we, legislating in Parliament, should be preparing for the future if Britain is to survive as an industrial nation. Unfortunately, the resources and means of the nation are being frittered away by the Government.
  Mr. Alton: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it helps standards in schools for youngsters to be led out of their schools to take part in demonstrations? Does he believe that constantly advocating breaking the law gives people the right standards for living?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that hon. Members will keep to the terms of the motion.
  Mr. Fields: I knew that I was being foolish the moment I gave way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).
  Government propaganda tells us that we are now going through a boom period. Tell the youth, the unemployed, the people living in substandard housing, those with no hospital services and those deprived of social services that we are going through a boom and they will reply that there is no boom.
  But even if we were going through a boom, the Government, particularly in view of the class of people they represent, should be making massive investment for the future. The unfortunate truth is that increased investment is going ahead, but it is not occurring in this country. The wealth created by the workers of Britain is being invested abroad rather than in industry in our own nation.
  We warn the Government that the consequences of their actions will be felt in the next 12 to 18 months when worldwide capitalism faces a further slump, and Britain will be unable to live with that situation. Hence we explain to the youth the need to create vast armies of unemployed, of people on slave rates of pay, of youth on YTS schemes doing full-timers out of jobs and part-time workers out of work, reducing the standard of living of those in work by the schemes that the Government are adopting.
  In addition, on the backs of trade union legislation, the Government are attempting to whip the trade union movement into line for the inevitable catastrophe that is round the corner, a catastrophe which the commentators on capitalism understand but to which the Government seem impervious.
  The myth that workers are pricing themselves out of jobs—that myth is applied in particular to the young— has exploded. But for millions of working people, in particular the young — we have the highest levels of youth unemployment and the lowest wages—that myth is a crime for which the Government are responsible.

  821
  We tell youth, "You will not resolve your problems in isolation, any more than the difficulties of the old, the unemployed in general, the problems of peace in the world, low pay, inadequate health services and social services can be resolved in isolation."
  While we are fighting to get these reforms and better conditions for youth, we must explain to the young the nature of society and the reasons why, because of the greed of the acquisitive few, those few propped up by the policies of the Government are feeding off the backs of working people. Despite the faint hearts in our movement, the Youth Trade Union Rights Campaign has carried out in recent years sterling work on behalf of the youth of Britain.
  The Minister boasted about the Government's record in health and safety at work. The Youth Trade Union Rights Campaign—with myself and comrade Dave Nellist as honorary vice-presidents — has achieved better health and safety conditions. In 1982 we fought against cuts in benefits for the unemployed. The demonstration and school strike this year brought about a climbdown by the Government over the compulsory nature of the YTS. We warn the Government that, if they bring in compulsory YTS, the 250,000 kids who were seen on the streets will pale into insignificance beside the mass movement of working-class youth that will appear.
  A myth has been created about it being wrong to politicise young people. From the cradle to the grave, the working classes' minds are poisoned by the ruling classes and the Tories, by the present Government. It is happening in our schools. I will give just one example. Discussions were taking place in a school that I know in Liverpool about the Tolpuddle martyrs. Although that school is in a working-class area, the story that was peddled was to the effect that the Tolpuddle martyrs were criminals who, in the dead of night, carried out satanic worship, with skulls and the rest, for which they were transported to Australia. That is the level of political education in our schools.
  We make no apology for joining with youth in politicising them. In my view, working-class youth should be politicised from the cradle, when they first start to speak and go on to read and talk about the nature of society. We must explain why there is no future for them under the present Tory Government and this capitalist system.
  The deceit, lies and hypocrisy of society, with the YTS scheme being used, with wages councils being abolished, with low pay being the order of the day and with high levels of unemployment, which will become even higher in the period to come, is one side of the coin. On the other side are those who are telling us how wrong we are. They preach in the press that we are wrong, but they own and control the wealth of society. They are handing themselves vast pay increases, money got off the backs of working people.
  The choice for us and for youth in 1985 involves recognising that society is at a crossroads. Increasingly, we must reach a decision. We must decide whether society is to continue on the greed of the few or the needs of the majority, using the wealth created by working people for the benefit of the workers.
  We on the Opposition Benches, particularly Labour Members, are not here on the sufferance of the ruling class. We were forged as part of the trade union struggle, understanding that we should have to change capitalist law
  822
  to working-class law. That is why the Labour party and trade unions were established. They were set up not to come to terms with the present system but to change it.
  The young of today have not lived through the years of class collaboration and reformism over policies. They know, as all hon. Members should know, that there will be no return to the 1950s and 1960s. The system is bankrupt and crooked, and in terminal decay. The youth must understand that the future is theirs. As the most audacious and enthusiastic section of society, they are being denigrated by society in general and by the Government in particular. They are being demoralised.
  I recently quoted the case of kids being used as scarecrows to chase away starlings from a rich farmer's cherry orchard. As I came through Euston station today I saw a young man on his knees cleaning people's shoes. "Shoeshine", he shouted, and when I spoke to him he told me that he had eight O and three A-levels. This is happening in London, not Liverpool, where we have been birched by the Government. Youth in London have no future.
  Mr. Lawler rose—
  Mr. Fields: The hon. Gentleman should sit down. He has nothing to say to me.
  I, for one, have confidence in youth in particular and workers in general. [HON. MEMBERS: "They have none in you."] They have confidence in me as vice-president of the Youth Trade Union Rights Campaign. We want to point out that the Thatcher Government understand what must be done to maintain the profit system and give profits to their rich backers. That is why they are selling off all our nationalised industries and our assets to the sharks on the stock exchange.
  A future Socialist Government need to carry out the pledges enshrined in clause four of Labour's constitution, giving to those who work by hand and by brain the full fruits of their labour, taking over production, distribution and exchange in society.
  The youth of today are the adults of tomorrow. Past generations have let down today's youth, but youth now have an opportunity. They are saying, "We shall no longer take the crumbs from the rich man's table. We do not even want the cake now. We want to take over the bakery." The youth of today have seen through the Government and the system that they represent.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn)rose—
  Mr. Fields: I shall not give way. I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman should sit down.
  We have a warning for the parasites who feed off the working people, who hive off the wealth for their own aggrandisement. When working people wake up and see through their own experience the distortions, lies and manipulation of society and hear the message of our Socialist alternative, an unstoppable movement will develop. The youth will be at the head of that movement, carrying out the historical task of transforming society from this rotten, decayed, exploitative system into a caring compassionate society where people will be treated as human beings, not wage slaves or market commodities for the benefit of a handful in society. Only then will youth look forward to a future free from fear and despair.
  There is a correlation between unemployment and drugs, although we would not say that unemployment was

  823
  the sole cause of drug use. There is also a correlation between unemployment and crime. No one condones crime, hooliganism or drug taking, but if people are treated subhumanly we cannot expect any better from some of them.
  The Government have brutalised social relations. They have brought about the politics of the jungle. The rich and powerful get the lion's share, and the poor and weak get the scraps. It is little wonder that the pale shadows of the Tory Government and the alliance ask why we seek to defend ourselves, our youth, our families and our conditions. We are fighting for those people against this brutal system which you are propping up along with the Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Member, when he is in such fine flow, but I do not prop up anything.
  Mr. Fields: I shall not go into that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The message from this debate is that the Tory Government have nothing to offer youth. This system has nothing to offer youth. Despite the criticisms of the faint-hearted, my appeal to youth is to get organised in the Young Socialists and the Youth Trade Union Rights Campaign and fight back against this vicious Tory Government and their attacks. We say to youth "The future can be yours, organised with a programme that can and will change society to create civilised conditions in health, education, housing, jobs and personal fulfilment." If youth hear no more during this debate than this message of hope, I for one shall be satisfied.
  8.34 pm
  Sir Philip Goodhart: 1 have an awful feeling that when the colleagues of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen, (Mr. Fields) take over power they will treat the young and the old with the same delicate courtesy as the hon. Gentleman showed to those who sought to intervene during his speech.
  Nearly a fortnight ago, on the day on which Liverpool football club played Juventus in Brussels, I was in Holland talking to employers, trade union leaders and Government officials about the youth unemployment problem. The latest figures for youth unemployment in Holland had come out a couple of days before, and they were excited about the trend. The April unemployment rate among those under 19 had fallen by 20 per cent. between 1984 and 1985. This had followed a decrease of 14 per cent. in the March unemployment rate for the same group between 1984 and March 1985. People were optimistic that the tide had turned.
  In the recent past, the Dutch were in a bad position. In 1980 an employers' federation estimated that one manufacturing job in two was operating at a loss. When the recession came, the loss of jobs was more rapid and went further than in the United Kingdom. The Dutch unemployment rate increased to 18.5 per cent. in January 1984. Nearly half the unemployed were young people.
  At the end of 1982, a Conservative coalition was elected to Government. It followed policies that are broadly in line with those of the British Government. The Dutch Government gave priority to competitiveness and profitability and waged a successful battle against
  824
  inflation. They kept tight control over the money supply and sought to cut public spending. They sought also to remove themselves directly from the wage negotiation process.
  The one aspect of wage negotiation from which the Dutch Government have not removed themselves is in setting wages for young people. For many years, under successive Governments, an elaborate system of minimum wage levels has operated. With the co-operation of the trade unions and employers, the Dutch Government have sought deliberately to lower the minimum wages of workers under 19. Although the minimum wage for those over 20 increased between 1980 and 1985 by 6 per cent., the minimum wage of young workers was reduced, on average, by 22 per cent.
  The Dutch Government's tactics in tackling youth unemployment were set at the beginning of 1983 by the chairman of the Federation of Netherlands Industry, an employers' organisation. The proposals that he put forward bore a remarkable similarity to the programme suggested at the end of 1982 by the unemployment steering group of the CBI, under the chairmanship of Sir Richard Cave, then the chairman of Thorn EMI. The one difference was that, because the situtation was rather worse in Holland than it was here, Mr. van Veen had an easier ride with his proposals and found it easier to get co-operation than have Sir Richard Cave and the unemployment steering group of the CBI in Britain.
  Basically, the proposal was that the minimum wages of young workers in Holland should be reduced—as they have been there—by about 22 per cent. At the same time, a great deal of attention was paid to youth training schemes. They are not as comprehensive or as costly as those in operation here, but they are still an improvement on what has gone before. The one scheme which was adopted in Holland which we have not adopted in Britain is a shorter working week for young workers. In Holland it is impossible for any new young worker under the age of 23 to get employment in the public sector, or in a major firm covered by a collective trade union agreement, for more than 32 hours, with, of course, 32 hours' pay.
  There have been some problems in introducing the scheme. The unions in the public sector showed a certain amount of reluctance, but they eventually accepted it, and I note that the 32-hour week scheme has been introduced in the public sector in a way that would certainly appeal to a Prime Minister wishing to see a reduction in public sector employment. One Civil Service department is reducing the number of posts open to recruitment from 4,500 to 4,000, yet it is taking on 5,000 new workers to fill those 4,000 jobs. Therefore, there is a reduction in the level of employment within the public sector, while at the same time more job opportunities are being given to young people.
  The result has been spectacularly good in the past few months. There has been a reduction of 14 per cent. in youth unemployment in March compared with the previous year, and a reduction of 19 per cent. in April compared with a year ago. There is a real feeling that the problem of youth unemployment has been tackled successfully. If the Dutch experience continues to be as satisfactory as it has been in the recent past, I would ask the Government to look seriously at the possibility of introducing a shorter working week for young workers.
  Our Government have introduced their own job-splitting programme, although not adopting it themselves.

  825
  We saw further encouragement of job-splitting for young people in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's last Budget. Perhaps this a concept that is too revolutionary at the moment. At the last count, only 1,500 posts had been split. It may well be that the Dutch approach, which is less revolutionary and much simpler to operate, offers a better and a simpler road to follow.
  I hope that my hon. Friends will look very carefully at what is taking place across the Channel. As one Dutch employer said to me, "The 32-hour week for 32 hours' pay has two great attributes: first, it is very simple; secondly, it costs almost nothing." Both attributes should appeal to our Government, and I hope that they will consider them very carefully.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. David Alton: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) has put forward a very sensible proposition, and I hope the Government will take due note of it. I support the idea of a shorter working week for younger workers. Anything that can be done to ensure that more of the employment opportunities are shared more evenly is well worth our support. It is useful to look at examples from other European countries and see how we might emulate them.
  We heard earlier about the statutory apprenticeship scheme in West Germany. At present, 500,000 young people are employed in statutory apprenticeships in West Germany, and we could well copy that. A similar scheme operates in Belgium.
  In the three countries which have been mentioned— Holland, West Germany and Belgium — there is one thing that they all have in common, and that is Liberals participating in the Government. One of the problems in the United Kingdom is that the people who might be advocating measures of that sort — some of them in groups such as the Conservative Centre Forward—are not listened to with sufficient seriousness.
  This year, 1985, should be a time of hope. Young people should be able to look forward with confidence to making their contribution to our community, but instead it is very much a time of hopelessness and despair.
  About half of the unemployed in Britain are young people. I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields)—I hope that it will not do him too much damage in the Militant Tendency—that there is an undoubted relationship between high unemployment and high rates of crime, despite the Prime Minister's regular denials of the link. Half of all the crimes are committed by young people. There is a link, too, with the escalating problem of drug abuse—a subject to which I shall like to return later in my speech.
  Many of our young people face the prospect of 50 years on the dole. They face youth training schemes. They face increasing competition for university places. Many of my contemporaries, with worse A-level results than brothers and sisters who are now being turned away from universities, were able to get into higher education. It is a tragedy that those younger brothers and sisters are now denied the opportunity of going to university. What we see today is a reduction in self-esteem and self-respect.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who opened the debate for the Opposition, indulged himself in some poetry. I am glad to see him returning to his place. I think that Alfred, Lord Tennyson put it very well in a couplet that he composed when he asked:
  826
  "Ah, what shall I be at fifty,
  Should Nature keep me alive,
  If I find the world so bitter
  When I am but twenty-five?"
  The truth is that there is today a great sense of bitterness, hopelessness and despair among many of our young people.
  The hon. Gentleman complained that only £250,000 had been made available for International Year of Youth. I do not intend to follow that argument because the debate is not simply about throwing money at young people and their problems. However, I agree that it should be about the Government taking International Year of Youth seriously.
  The hon. Member for Broadgreen, who spoke as a member of the Labour party, struck an interesting contrast with the Labour Front Bench. We should not laugh him off, as some hon. Members tried to do today. In Liverpool, his colleagues run the council. Indeed, his colleagues have a great say in who is to be selected for many seats throughout the country. We shall see more and more people like him in the House representing the Labour party.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Good.
  Mr. Alton: We know that there are great affinities between the London and Liverpool Labour parties. We should not laugh off the hon. Gentleman, but should take him seriously. When he talks, as he did today, about breaking the capitalist laws and replacing them with working-class laws, it shows how he and many of his hon. Friends regard the law of the land. When I intervened, I pointed out to him that it sets an appalling standard and example to young people to lure them from their school classes, to march them to the pierhead in Liverpool and for speakers to harangue them at open-air rallies. The effect of that on discipline and morale in schools, and on their long-term opportunities and future, is unbelievable.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why he believes that explaining to young people the cause of their lost opportunities and how the system brutalises them is a disadvantage to them?
  Mr. Alton: It is not a disadvantage to explain to people the causes of our problems. The way to solve those problems is through the ballot box and parliamentary democracy, not by pulling young people on to the streets, or by encouraging them to leave their classrooms. That is simply to take the first steps towards breaking the law.
  As I also pointed out in my intervention, constantly to tell people that it is all right to break some laws but not others, and that they can defy the Government, whoever that Government may be, breeds contempt for parliamen-tary democracy. Some of us know that this is all that the members of Militant Tendency who dominate the Labour party in many parts are concerned with. I warn the House not to laugh off those pied pipers who pull young people from their classrooms and who constantly advocate breaking the law.
  I also have a criticism of the Government. They have created the breeding ground that has allowed people like the hon. Member for Broadgreen to prosper and thrive. We have witnessed the creation of a disaffected, disillusioned, cynical and bitter youth. The measures which the Government have announced during the past two weeks have compounded the problem. They have announced a

  827
  rise in students' grants below the rate of inflation, which will cut the real value of the grant further. They have continued to threaten to extract young people from the vital protection of the wages councils. They have presented a review of social security which treats anyone under the age of 25 as a juvenile and forces young people into greater dependence on their parents. It has been a bad 14 days for young people.
  It has also been the 14 days during which the Government have implemented their change in the Department of Health and Social Security board and lodging house allowance regulations to save £70 million. The affect of that saving has been to force about 10,000 people in Scotland on to the streets, and about 4,000 people in Merseyside to endure greater hardship. Many young people will now sleep rough in the inner cities rather than go home. Others will make fraudulent claims. Others again will take to prostitution or to peddling drugs to pay for living accommodation. How can the Government reconcile that policy with their previous urging of young people to get on their bikes, to become a nation of Dick Whittingtons, and to go off and seek their fortunes? The Government urged them from their homes, but now do not give them the wherewithal to survive in the social antipodes—the inner city areas—where young people find themselves.
  This year is International Year of Youth, and my hon. Friends and I have tried to take it seriously. That is why we invited 1,000 young people to participate in our Youth Day in Westminster earlier this month. The young people who came wanted to learn about Parliament, its processes, and how this building operates and functions. I believe that they learnt a great deal that day. Many of them may have seen my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) introduce his Bill on disabled young people.
  Four other Bills have also been introduced by my hon. Friends during International Year of Youth. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), who is present, introduced a Bill to deal with the problem of young people in rural areas; my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) introduced a Bill to deal with the problems of young people in Scotland; my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) introduced a Bill to deal with employment opportunities for young people, in which he advocated the statutory apprenticeship scheme, to which I referred earlier; and on the first sitting day of Parliament in International Year of Youth my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) introduced his Youth Charter Bill. We have taken International Year of Youth extremely seriously.
  "International" is a word that I wish to draw to the Government's attention. It is very sad that the Young Conservatives and the Federation of Conservative Students have decided not to participate in the British Youth Council's visit to Moscow this year. The best way of building bridges and creating peace in the world is for our young people, whether they live on the eastern or the western side of Europe, to get to know each other. Unacceptable pressure has been placed on the British Youth Council. It has been threatened with losing its grant if it goes ahead with the visit. That is utterly unacceptable.
  828
  I hope that the Government will say tonight that there will be no reduction in its funds. I hope that they will reconsider supporting what could be a mission of peace.
  As the joint chairman of the Council for Education in the Commonwealth, I also regard it as a tragedy that during the past five years young people from the poorest pans of the world have been denied the opportunity of coming to our colleges and universities because of the introduction of full-cost fees for overseas students.
  I shall make my remaining remarks in the context of the three grand themes which the United Nations designated for International Year of Youth — peace, participation and development. I ask the House to consider now not international peace, but inner peace. What sort of generation is being brought up on heroin and cocaine? Some 100,000 young people in Britain today are taking heroin. Only two weeks ago the chairman of our Home Affairs Select Committee rightly said:
  "Every son and daughter of every family in this country will be at risk from this terrible epidemic."
  For years, Liberals have been advocating the introduction of life sentences for those who peddle heroin and organise the evil of trade in heroin. It is one of the worst maladies to affect our age. My right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party has also said that we should sequestrate the funds of those who have been making then-vast profits from peddling heroin to the young. At present the racketeers salt away their ill-gotten gains, place fortunes in bank accounts in Zurich, or bask on beaches in countries with which we have no extradition arrangements. They should not be able to get away with it. We must make every effort to bring them to justice, to sequestrate their ill-gotten gains and to use them for the treatment of young people who suffer from the heroin plague. It was very easy during the strike of the National Union of Mineworkers to sequestrate the union's funds. Surely it must also be possible to track down those to whom I have referred and similarly to sequestrate then-funds.
  Inner peace, the opportunity to feel that one can be a self-respecting member of the community and the right to self-esteem are important conditions for many of our young people. Similarly, the right to play a part in society is vital. That is why we on the alliance Benches have considered the lowering of the age of candidature in line with the voting age. My noble Friend Lord Tordoff introduced an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill, which, sadly, was defeated by Conservative peers voting against the proposal and by the abstention of Labour peers. The alliance believes that there should be statutory representation by young people on organisations such as the area manpower boards of the Manpower Services Commission, which monitor youth training schemes at local level, thereby allowing trainees some say in the schemes in which they participate.
  The alliance thinks that young people should be able to sit on local authority committees. I served on the education committee in Liverpool some years ago. The Liberal group introduced the right for a young person from one of the local schools to be elected—incidentally, by the single transferable vote system—after hustings had been held to sit on the education committee and to be able to speak on behalf of the consumers. There are other organisations, such as the health boards, where young people should have the chance to express themselves.

  829
  Participation is crucial to Liberals. We believe in giving people control over the institutions that govern their lives. For many young people the mechanisms of control do not exist as yet. Participation should not be confined to a purely mechanistic level. Unemployment means having nothing to do, and sometimes that can mean having nothing to do with the rest of us. Young people also need to be able to participate by virtue of having a job.
  I have reminded the House of the number of apprenticeships that have been lost. There were 155,000 in 1979, and the total declined to about 90,000 in the mid-1980s. Far too many of our young people have been introduced to the hopelessness and despair of the dole queue.
  Liberals believe that the youth training scheme is based on sound principles, but we are not happy with many of the ways in which it operates. Far too many employers view the scheme as a means of obtaining cheap labour. Too few young people enter permanent employment at the end of their YTS scheme. Many young people receive no real training from YTS and, therefore, are not having their employment prospects improved. Too many people on the YTS are being put into jobs in which they are neither interested nor suited to.
  Liberals would like to see the YTS improved, first, by the establishment of an inspectorate to vet companies which wish to take part in the scheme and regularly to scrutinise the scheme at the workplace. Secondly, all health, safety and insurance regulations applying to industry should apply also to the YTS. Thirdly, no young person should be forced on to the scheme under the threat of reduction or removal of state benefits. Fourthly, we should establish an improved system of consultation so that everyone entering the YTS is appointed to a training scheme in which he is interested and to which he is suited. Fifthly, those on the scheme should receive fair payment that is set at a level appreciably higher than that of state benefit. Sixthly, each young person should receive training in a number of skills, and the system of assessment and qualification should be developed in consultation with both trade unions and employers. Seventhly, each young person on the YTS should receive training in life skills. Finally, there should be greater emphasis on training in skills that are of use to the community.
  Earlier, the Minister asked what practical proposals the Opposition had for improving the YTS, and he was given some ideas by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. I hope that the ideas which I have introduced to the debate will be considered seriously by the Minister.
  After peace and participation, the other great theme of this year is supposed to be development. There should be more opportunities in our Britain of 1985 for more personal development. At present, the clock is being turned back in education to a time before the Education Act 1944 and even before Mr. Gladstone's Elementary Education Act of 1870. Opportunities for development are being reduced.
  Young people in the International Year of Youth have suffered a great deal if they have wanted improved education opportunities. There has been a series of attacks on their standard of living—they are already poor—and on their representative institutions. In the past fortnight they have been told that there is to be yet another cut in the value of their maintenance grant. After a 10 per cent. drop in the real value of the grant over the past five years,
  830
  they are to receive only a 3 per cent. increase this year. That increase will not even allow the grant to keep pace with inflation. They will probably have to rely even more on housing benefit payments and long vacation supplementary benefit payments, which have come to provide vital income for students on inadequate grants.
  The Government have thought of that. The Secretary of State for Social Services has promised that in his already infamous Green Paper there will be proposals that students should soon be deprived of long vacation supplementary benefit and housing benefit payments. Why is he taking that course? It appears that the payments made to students cause the DHSS administrative problems. However, the Secretary of State claims that it will not really matter if these payments are not made as the amount of benefit involved is usually small. The payments are not small if the student's grant barely covers his college bills, if he has a permanent bank overdraft and if his parents do not pay the full contribution. They are certainly not small if, as thousands of students have found, the new travel grant system has left them hundreds of pounds out of pocket.
  How do the Government expect young people in colleges to manage? The answer is in the social security Green Paper, which says that students should be
  "helped through the grant system by their families and by their earnings in vacation".
  As nearly half the parental contribution to grants are not paid in full now, and as the Secretary of State chickened out of asking parents to contribute to tuition fees last November, in reality this means one thing. If a student finds that his money has run out, he will have to rely on part-time or temporary work to stay in education—never mind the damage to studies. These are Victorian values of the worst kind, and the Government are undermining the funding of public education.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that forcing students into part-time work takes jobs from other people in the community?
  Mr. Alton: I made that point at the outset of my remarks. We should be sharing the available work and making more, not fewer, working opportunities available. Encouraging students to take up jobs adds to the unemployment problem. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
  There is worse. The only institutions on which students can rely to defend their interests, the student unions, are also under attack. The Green Paper on higher education accuses them of being unrepresentative and says that some of their policies are
  "determined by a minute portion of the union membership."
  That is rich, coming from a Conservative Government with a mandate of only 31 per cent. of the electorate.
  Every student union in the country uses proportional representation in some variation to elect its officers, and all of them are therefore more representative of their electorate than is the Secretary of State. The strict controls on student union expenditure threatened in section 7.19 of the Green Paper are yet another attempt by the Government to clamp down on those of their victims who have the audacity to fight back.
  What do the Government have in store for students? The likelihood is that it will be some form of student loans system, which would be a disaster. Not only would it be extremely costly to introduce, taking years to become cost-effective, but it would discourage entry into higher education by women and those from less affluent

  831
  backgrounds. This is at a time when a fall in the 18-year-old population offers us a golden opportunity to broaden access to education across the social spectrum.
  The International Year of Youth will, for young people in Britain and in British colleges, represent the opposite of the United Nations' themes. The Government are encouraging protest, not peace. They are discouraging participation and turning away from the development of a fair and accessible higher education system. The Secretary of State for Education and Science is a fellow of the Oxford College of All Souls and the Faithful Departed. He clearly wants to add traditional British education to the faithful departed.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I declare an interest. I have worked for a large proportion of my career with young people, and I made my maiden speech on this topic. The Opposition, with their unerring sense of overstatement, talk about the "desperate plight" of young people. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) went over the top with his Marxist analysis of the situation. For those reasons, as well as many others, I shall oppose the motion and support the Government amendment.
  Although the world of the 1980s is not easy for young people, it is important to emphasise that they are in good heart. Every day in my constituency I learn about the achievements of the young people of Norwich and the surrounding areas. I learn of young people who have gone on Operation Raleigh round the world and achieved great things; I learn of young people on the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme who are achieving great things; I leam of young people starting their own businesses; and I learn of those who are aiming high in academic, sporting or other sectors. We should commend the achievements of our young people and not continually talk them down in the gloomy tones of the Opposition.
  Above all else, our young people need a sense of direction — not the direction provided by the hon. Member for Broadgreen — and leadership. Any fair-minded person must pay tribute to the Government at least for their efforts to provide higher standards of education, which must be the right way forward for our young people. We should also congratulate the Government on improving and extending the youth training scheme. They plan to extend it to two years so that no young person need be without a job, training or education. If that is not an ambitious programme, I do not know what is.
  The hon. Member for Broadgreen spoke proudly of how the Youth Trade Union Rights Campaign organised a strike of school students against the youth training scheme. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to be thoroughly ashamed of himself, but he should be. That is the type of irresponsibility among adults which leads young people to ignorant rather than tolerant and enlightened attitudes.
  I deplore recent events at the University of East Anglia. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Broadgreen has anything to do with the Socialist Workers party, but its members did all that they could to prevent free speech at that university. Thanks to influence and firm action by
  832
  the university authorities, the meeting went ahead. That was a triumph for democracy and a defeat of everything that the hon. Member for Broadgreen appears to stand for.
  Opposition Members should remember that ever since the early 1960s, when Labour was in power, there has been pressure to increase the wages of young people. There may be votes in this, but the result of increasing such wages was a reduction in the length and effectiveness of apprenticeship schemes. We all regret that trend, but responsibility must be laid squarely with the Labour Governments of the 1960s. In 1970, 12 per cent. of 18-year-olds had adult rates of pay. That proportion has increased to more than 50 per cent. today. Anybody who compares what is happening in Britain with what is happening in West Germany will not be surprised at the serious depletion in the British training effort and the reduction in skills which are vital to our economy.
  I do not need to spend long reminding the House of our serious skills shortages. Information technology is just one shortage area. In response to such shortages, the Government introduced and extended YTS. It was the Labour party which failed to take up the challenge when it had an opportunity to do so.
  Mr. Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to 1979 when total unemployment was equivalent to youth unemployment today? The proportion of the problem is quite different now. Does he agree that the youth opportunities programme was successful and tailored according to conditions at that time? We did not have 1·25 million unemployed young people then.
  Mr. Thompson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of 1979.1 remember it well. I remember campaigning when the number of unemployed people had doubled under Labour. I can remember the criticisms of the youth opportunities programme. It was right for the Conservative party to make good those deficiencies and to introduce a proper scheme in the shape of YTS.
  I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to some serious points about the youth training scheme. There are dangers in that scheme — for example, too much bureaucracy. I hope that we shall address ourselves to those dangers. I hope that there will be more co-operation and liaison between the Manpower Services Commission, education and industry. The lines of communication between those three areas of national life are not as good as they should be. I hope that Ministers are taking note of this point. As a matter of urgency, we should do all that we can to raise the standards of achievement on the YTS. I hope that we shall not be tempted, as sometimes happens, to mislead our young people into the belief that they are gaining qualifications when they are not.
  For example, if young people are on a scheme that provides them with skills, that is fine and it must be better than having no training at all; but we must not try to give them the impression that they are obtaining craft skills that are provided by more extended training schemes elsewhere. I am not criticising the YTS in saying that; I am merely stating a very important way in which it can be improved. We must raise standards, make sure that young people fully understand what skills they are acquiring and what they will be able to do with them when the time comes.
  The good news is that in Norfolk the number of people going on to jobs from YTS is as high as 80 per cent. I am

  833
  quoting the most up-to-date figures available. Surely that is a success if ever there was one. So much for Opposition carping on that point.
  Education is mentioned in the motion and the amendment. Again, I should like to pay tribute to the Government's efforts to raise standards in education. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will not argue with this. There is no doubt that at the moment there is difficulty and low morale in the education service. We should look seriously at the causes. That does not mean that we should change course. I should like to set the record straight. The House should be reminded that we are accused of making cuts in education, but the facts are that more than ever is being spent on education per pupil, the teacher-pupil ratio is the best ever, and more young people aged between 18 and 20 are entering higher education than ever before.
  Nevertheless, we should look seriously at the causes of the present unhappiness in the education service. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are doing so and taking that point seriously. I believe that, in the long term, for the sake of education and our young people, the financing of teachers' salaries should be removed from the local authorities. I hope that if that were ever to come about, we would end once and for all the sad saga of the Burnham committee and the consequences resulting from the failure over and over again to reach satisfactory agreements. As a Member of Parliament, and as a past member of the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, it is good news to find that at least some of the teachers' organisations have realised that there is no future in conducting their dispute by strike action. I hope that that message will finally get across, and that we can get back to talking about the problems of education, the teaching profession, and so on.
  The financing of teachers' salaries should be taken out of the control of local authorities because, ideally, schools should be run by head teachers and boards of governors. State schools should be run by those who are closest to the school, not by large bureaucracies. There must be local input. That matter needs debate and discussion. I hope that there will be much more debate and discussion before we finish discussing local government finance and related topics.
  There should be a national approach to the teaching profession. That is why I support the idea of a professional teachers' council. I hope that that matter will be discussed again. If we can move in those general directions and continue pressing for higher standards in education, as the Government are doing, we shall serve our young people well.
  In case the Opposition should feel unduly pleased with themselves over their criticisms of the present education set-up, they should remember the serious damage that I saw done in Manchester and elsewhere by the headlong rush into comprehensivisation. I was teaching in Manchester at the time. Nationally, we have not recovered from the damage. We need to move on and to improve our schools in every way that we possibly can. Let us not forget the prominent part played in that dreadful, mishandled political rush to the new comprehensive organisation by one of the members of the gang of four, now a member of the alliance.
  The youth service in Norwich is doing a good job. I have obtained a great deal of experience of the work being done by its professional and voluntary workers. Last
  834
  Monday, I visited a youth and community centre in Thorpe St. Andrew. There is a great deal to discuss on this subject, but I shall confine my remarks to saying that I hope that the Government will continue to do what they can to encourage the professional and voluntary leaders and the young people who do good work and who take part in the worthwhile activities provided by our youth service.
  In the House and the country, we need to apply ourselves even more vigorously to ways of harnessing the ambitions and energies of our young people. I should favour some form of national service, if it were possible. Nevertheless, whatever happens, we must set higher standards. The Opposition wish to level down. We must set the highest challenge and standards for our young people, and they will respond to that challenge. As we have heard tonight, they are responding to the challenge.
  We have seen the effects of lower standards of discipline and moral education in schools, families and society. The subject of drugs has been mentioned tonight. Those are serious matters. Lower disciplinary standards and the failure of moral education will lead to ever more appalling effects unless we seek to reverse the trends. I am sure that there is consensus throughout the country that that is the direction in which we need to move.
  The Government are addressing themselves seriously to the problems of youth and will continue to do so if we push them in the right direction. Our young people will have, and will be able to provide, the energy and leadership for their children in the future. Therefore, I am happy to support the Government's amendment and to oppose the Opposition's overstated motion.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: The Government's White Paper "Education and training for young people" contains at least one interesting sentence. On page 4, it states:
  "Yet, for all these developments, much still remains to be done."
  The word "much" can cover a multitude of sins, as can the word "very" and many others. When the Minister replies I should be interested to know whether he considers that the problem of what needs to be done in our education system for youth is massive, enormous or a crisis that desperately needs attention and not just a sentence in a White Paper which merely states:
  "much still remains to be done."
  As a teacher of many years' standing, I want to concentrate upon some of the features of our education system which have been covered in various documents such as "Better Schools" and that excellent report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology in the other place on education and training for new technologies.
  The environment in our schools creates a problem for young people, in that they are worried by the impression created and the urges given to them by teachers and parents. There is a feeling that they must work harder so that in future they can somehow achieve the paradise of high-wage employment, as a result of which they will throughout their working lives enjoy a high salary combined with job security, marvellous holidays, trips abroad and so on.
  In reality, school buildings are deteriorating, buckets are provided to catch the leaking water from the roofs and library facilities are denied. A recent report showed that very few chartered librarians work in our state schools, as

  835
  a result of which very few children learn how a good library works within the school system. Many pupils do not know how to use the reference and cross-reference facilities that a good library provides. In addition, book stocks are now suffering from prolonged use over many years.
  When my little boy comes home from school he asks, "What is the point of working hard? When I see Mr. Davies in my classroom, I think to myself, 'If that is the sort of job I will have when I finish my school career I would rather not bother'." That is the type of discrimination that has been built into our education system.
  Morale among teachers is low, and the Government are not helping. Paragraph 4.27 of the report of the Select Committee of the other place stated:
  "In schools there is a shortage of teachers in specialist subjects, notably mathematics and physics"
  It said that the Cockcroft committee, looking at mathematics in secondary schools,
  "estimated … that the 'hidden' shortage of mathematics teachers in secondary schools was about 9,000."
  Yet this country prides itself on an education system that is supposed to be the best in the world.
  According to the Select Committee of the other place, teachers seldom have experience of applied science in industry and commerce. There is an inbuilt tendency among teachers to be inward-looking. They do not have the necessary work experience to pass on to their pupils. A fundamental change in the secondary school curriculum is necessary. The Open University system, under which material is made available through radio and television programmes and units provided to students, is a model that could be repeated in our schools. That would avoid the sad situation which still exists, whereby teachers trot out dictated notes day after day. The notes which teachers used in their colleges are passed on to their students with no additional input. There must be a fundamental change so that the Open University system is repeated in our schools.
  I welcome the training and vocational education initiative, but I believe that companies should increase their efforts to interest local and head teachers in their enterprises. In liaison with schools, companies are doing very little to ensure that our young people are prepared for the changes that are now taking place in our economy.
  The former chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, now Lord Young, stated in evidence to the Select Committee that in 1983 the youth training scheme cost the Government about £850 million. German employers, not the Government, pay about £7·5 billion per year towards apprenticeships. The Government have said that much needs to be done and have outlined some proposals in their White Paper. I hope that they will rectify the fact that, according to Lord Young, the expenditure on training and the proportion of the working population holding vocational qualifications was lower in the United Kingdom in 1983 than it was, for example, in West Germany.
  Relevant knowledge is critical. It is a sad reflection on our education system that most young people in our schools not only have no link with local industry but do not know the difference between the roles of their local community council, the district council, the county
  836
  council and their Member of Parliament. A serious look needs to be taken at a school system which churns out young people ignorant of the roles of the important decision-makers in our system. If we do not combat that ignorance, we shall be in serious trouble.
  The decline in our standard of living is shown by the GDP per head for the United Kingdom compared with other industrial countries. We are slipping year after year. Before long, we may not be able to describe ourselves as an advanced industrial economy at all.
  In a recent oral answer to me, the Prime Minister expressed complete confidence in Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools, but what experience do the inspectors have of life? Is there any guarantee that they have done other than been educated in our schools, passed on to our universities and colleges, then gone back to our schools and then been appointed as inspectors to advise others on the best way forward? In Wales, the inspectors churn out papers such as "Home-School Links", which is just chat about the way in which teachers should mark reports. There is no mention of solvent abuse, under-age drinking, crime, pornography and the rest. That is a pretty bad show on the part of the inspectorate. On the subject of obscenity, I hope that orders will shortly be brought in to bring the video recordings Act into operation. That will be of at least some assistance to our youth.
  In West Glamorgan there has been a massive increase in the percentage of young people among the long-term unemployed. The DHSS research report No. 11 on the cohort study of unemployed men states that the relationship between long-term unemployment and illness in our society is a fruitful area of research for the future. I hope that the Secretary of State for Employment and other Secretaries of State will consider setting up a research study for that purpose.
  I am deeply perturbed that the effects of long-term unemployment among young people will be seen after a time lag. The eminent professor of gynaecology and paediatrics at Edinburgh university, Professor Baird, has examined longitudinal studies of the effect of long-term unemployment on infant mortality rates 15 and 20 years ahead. I wonder what the effect on young people in terms of neonatal and perinatal mortality will be and what other consequences and hardships will appear after the time lag. The Government must set up a research project to find out what evidence exists and to ensure that the young girls who will be giving birth to children in 15 or 20 years' time will not have such problems.
  The two-year YTS scheme worries me, as it does other Opposition Members, because the youngsters do not believe that they are part of a proper work force. Indeed, they do not know where they belong. They are neither one thing nor the other. Youngsters who want independence and who wish to live away from home will be forced by the Government's new board and lodging regulations to move from place to place to find homes. I wish that the public had given the same attention to that change as they did to the cut in education grants, which forced the Secretary of State for Education and Science to change his mind.
  I am extremely angry about the present education system. The priority of all hon. Members should be to talk to youngsters and to listen to what they say. The message that I have received from them is that the Government do not care. Unless we start to embrace those youngsters and stop leaving them in ignorance, in terms of income per

  837
  head of the population and the quality of life, Britain will be doomed to slip down the international table of standards of living. In the end, we shall say that we are lucky to be ahead of some of the most under-developed countries in the world, but we should be saying that we wish to be one of the great countries in terms of our progress and development.
  9.37 pm
  Mr. Geoff Lawler: A motion phrased in such generalised, negative terms, which lumps together those who have done well, including the 20-year-old football stars and people who have started their own businesses, with the unemployed, is an insult to those who have done well and glosses over the special needs of the disadvantaged. After hearing the speeches made by Opposition Members tonight, I am not surprised that youngsters are much more cynical about politicians and politics than is the rest of the population. They believe that they are being manipulated by politicians.
  One thing that youngsters have in common is that they do not like general statements about their having no hope or no future. Nor do they wish life to be run for them. They want the opportunity to control their destinies. It is no coincidence that two main themes of the International Year of Youth are development and participation. Traditionally, youngsters have looked to education and employment for development. But what development? We have heard the praises sung of the old apprenticeship system, but hon. Members have ignored the fact that many youngsters could not enter the system. Indeed, many youngsters who obtained jobs had no training at all. The majority of youngsters—it is estimated to be 60 per cent.—who left school and went into employment received no training, whereas in competitor countries the reverse was the case. They went into dead-end jobs with low wages and minimum security, which is one reason why Britain has more youth unemployment than do its competitors.
  We are now moving into a new world where youngsters have the opportunity to learn skills that will be of real use to them. There will be an end to those wasted school years when youngsters could not wait to leave school. Nowadays, the headmaster of a TVEI school will say that youngsters are queueing to get into school in the mornings and that they cannot get rid of them at the end of the day. We are creating a generation of people who can look forward to qualifications, real skills and security of employment, and the economy will benefit as a result. Those who doubt that young people want this ought to talk to them. We have heard about young people wanting this and wanting that.
  When the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) talks to his pushchair revolutionaries, one wonders how many other people he talks to. If one talks to those who are taking part in the technical and vocational education initiative and to those who are in youth training schemes, one finds that the majority are happy about being in those schemes. They believe that they are receiving a worthwhile training. The youth training scheme is taking those who were written off at school. They played truant because they found that the school course was entirely irrelevant. Having been written off by their teachers, they went into the youth training scheme and discovered that they possessed talents that they did not know they possessed. After nine months on a YTS course they have
  838
  written computer programmes. Before YTS they had no future. Now their future is bright. They find that they can contribute something to society.
  To those who purport to have the interests of young people at heart I say that every time they deter, by politically motivated propaganda, young people from going into the youth training scheme they destroy their self-advancement. There must be many 17-year-olds who wish that they had never been misguided by professional critics. They look at those who did not listen to the professional critics but went instead into the youth training scheme and find that they have jobs, or at least that they have received some experience and training.
  The youth training scheme is developing into the major avenue between school and employment. It is being incorporated into longer-term craft training, as is happening with the electrical contractors, but the vital point about the new scheme is that it must remove the distinction between employed and unemployed trainees. It must not remain the second best, the alternative to a proper job. It must be the accepted destination of those 16-year-olds who want to acquire a skill when they leave school. That distinction must be removed if the stigma of YTS being the second best is to be removed. It must not be regarded as the avenue for the unemployed.
  There are still too many young people over the age of 18 who are still unemployed and who have been without work ever since they left school. They have to look for other avenues of self-development. That is dealt with by the youth service. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) referred to the youth service. I wish that the Opposition recognised the valuable role played by paid and, more often than not, unpaid people who dedicate themselves to the development of young people.
  The positive approach of the youth service to the problems of large scale unemployment has led to new initiatives and new ideas. It has provided young people with the self-confidence that they would not otherwise have had. There is a new range of options, from drop-in centres to "instant muscle". It is appropriate that in 1985 this work has been supported and enhanced by means of the youth circular and the formation of the National Youth Advisory Council.
  I wish that every local authority was as supportive as are the Government. In 1982–83, 78 out of 96 local education authorities spent less than their grant-related expenditure youth service assessment on the youth service. It means that £35 million—30 per cent. of the total— was lost to the youth service. The Government cannot be accused of failing to recognise the importance of the youth service. They provided a 13·1 per cent. increase in the youth budget for 1985–86.
  Many local authorities also failed to recognise the valuable contribution of the voluntary organisations. For every £1 of public money that is put into the voluntary youth sector, a huge amount of money is generated in terms of cash and time. I hope that in this International Year of Youth local authorities will consider their responsibilities, pay heed to the circular and give young people that which is rightfully theirs.
  As we debate this motion, hundreds, indeed thousands, of young people are meeting in youth clubs all around the country. They will be planning community work and raising money for charity. There will also be a minority who are smashing telephone boxes and indulging in other

  839
  acts of vandalism. We shall read of the latter in the press tomorrow; we shall not read of the former. If it were not for the youth service, there would be much more of the latter than of the former.
  Opposition Members make the big mistake of seeing everything as a problem. Young people are, to them, a problem, when in reality they are not. They do not want to be viewed as a problem. They are a major resource in terms of the future, and now, for the first time, there is a guarantee that every young person will have an opportunity to realise his or her full potential. That is the best contribution that the Government could make to International Year of Youth.
  9.50 pm
  Mr. Sheer man: We have had a full debate and, although I have only a few minutes in which to comment on it, I must deal with three points of fact following the Minister's remarks. He challenged me about the saving of £5 billion to £7 billion. I have with me a copy of the Unmployment Bulletin containing the figures, which I will let him have.
  The hon. Gentleman was unhappy when I referred to half of those leaving YTS getting jobs. I refer him to an article entitled
  "Half YTS leavers find jobs"
  in The Times Higher Educational Supplement. He also challenged the veracity of Youthaid information. I hate to embarrass the hon. Gentleman, following the altercations that took place about discontent with bad youth training schemes, but a few months ago, replying to a parliamentary question of mine, the Minister accused Youthaid of inaccuracy. I challenged him on that, but received from him no example of inaccuracy in Youthaid reports.
  Youthaid has catalogued many misleading statements that various Ministers, from the Prime Minister down, including Lord Young, have made about the number of people getting jobs following YTS training, the Youthaid figure being not 70 but 40 per cent. That information is on the record and I will let the Minister have that, too.
  I got the feeling as the Minister spoke about the YTS that he was really discussing the philosophy of "Never mind the quality, feel the width." My hon. Friends and I have been indulging in positive and constructive criticism of the YTS. We want it to be a training scheme, not job experience, whatever the quality of that job experience. We want it to be the sort of training that will match the training received by youngsters given by any of our industrial competitors. That is palpably not what it is now.
  Mr. Alton rose—
  Mr. Sheerman: I do not have time to give way.
  If we are to compete with our major competitors, we must perform in training and education, and I refer the House to an interesting written answer yesterday by the Secretary of State for Education and Science to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who asked about the age participation and training in European countries, in the United States and in Japan. [Interruption.] There is no need for carping criticism from Conservative Members. The table contained in the answer given by the Secretary of State ends with Spain, followed by the United Kingdom at the bottom of the league. We
  840
  are at the bottom of the league as a result of the Government's education and training policies. We in the Labour party have ideas that the Government palpably do not have.
  Prior to this debate we had a fascinating discussion about famine in Africa and under-privilege in various parts of the world. A range of schemes is needed and a Government with imagination could harness the idealism of our young people—the wonderful youngsters that we have in Britain—to fight under-privilege and poverty and to carry out the constructive tasks that need to be performed. The potential is there. The Government lack the will to do anything for our young people.
  9.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I must start by telling the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that I am not deaf, that I listened intently to what he shouted and that, if he wants to quote Disraeli, I wish that he would get it right. In "Sybil", published in 1845, Benjamin Disraeli said:
  "The Youth of a Nation are the trustees of Posterity."
  Mr. Sheerman: That is what I said.
  Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman did not; he said "prosperity".
  Mr. Sheerman: If the Under-Secretary of State reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I said "posterity". I said that the words could be updated today to include "prosperity".
  Mr. Dunn: I accept the hon. Gentleman's apology.
  We have had a stimulating debate, with contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) and for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) and comments by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and for Gower (Mr. Wardell). I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Gower, who made some very sensible points to which I shall certainly give my attention.
  I accept that schools can do much to increase young people's chances of finding employment or of creating jobs for themselves and others. The House must accept that our schools have a duty to prepare pupils effectively for working life. I am very much afraid that the standards now generally attained by our pupils are not as good as they need to be for the competitive world of today, still less of tomorrow. Schools must promote enterprise, adaptability and the qualities and skills needed for work in a technological age. They must seek to develop the attitudes that will help young people to find their way in modern society. To do this, changes are needed, in what schools do and how they teach. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has launched his initiative to improve standards. That is why we need national agreement, as the hon. Member for Gower said, about the objectives of the school curriculum. That is why the Government are spending £250 million on the technical and vocational education initiative.
  During the early part of the debate, we were challenged to list Labour authorities that had refused to participate in TVEI. The non-participants are the Inner London education authority, Manchester, Sheffield and, of course, Liverpool. I hope, because bids for the final round of the TVEI allocation are not due until the end of July, that those

  841
  authorities will decide to join the initiative for the benefit of the children for whose education they are responsible. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) condemned those authorities that were not taking part because of their political animosity to the scheme.
  I believe that the hon. Member for Broadgreen was trying to make a helpful speech—at least, helpful to his hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench—but I must express concern that a Member of this House, when giving advice to impressionable young people, should advise them to break the law rather than to take advantage of the opportunities that may or may not be available to them.
  It was indeed welcome that the hon. Member, in the honesty with which he expressed his views, left us in no doubt whatever where he and his colleagues will stand when they form a majority on the Opposition Benches. [Interruption.] They certainly will not form a majority on the Government side of the House. The hon. Gentleman's attempts to influence and infiltrate the young people of Liverpool will be seen for what they are — a cynical abuse and misuse of the feelings, motivation and anxieties of young people. I wish him no success whatever in the evil campaign that he and his colleagues are embarked upon.
  I welcomed the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) when he said:
  "those who support the youth trade union rights campaign are a bunch of dafties".
  I welcomed those words, and the approbation given to them tonight by the Opposition Front Bench.
  The hon. Member for Mossley Hill asked some specific questions about the youth training scheme, and listed seven or eight of them for the attention of the House. He will be pleased to know that the Manpower Services Commission, via its inspectorate, already checks and monitors schemes as they are created, and makes regular visits accordingly.
  The hon. Gentleman asked for an improvement in consultation between the applicants and those providing the scheme. The careers service already offers advice to youngsters about the YTS, and regular consultation is available.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the allowance. He knows as well as I that the allowance is a training allowance and does not pretend to be a wage.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Dunn: The hon. Member for Mossley Hill called for training in life skills — something that I see very much as a future role for the schools themselves. He will know also that training in life skills is already part of the YTS.
  Mr. Banks rose—
  Mr. Dunn: I give way to the chairman of the GLC.
  Mr. Banks: Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government have any proposals to make the youth training scheme compulsory?
  Mr. Dunn: That is a matter that I shall come to later.
  Mr. Banks: Will the Minister answer yes or no?
  Mr. Dunn: I can say a great deal in the course of a minute.
  842
  With regard to training for relevant skills, to which the hon. Member for Mossley Hill referred, he and I know that schemes are approved by the area manpower board, comprising employers, trade union representatives and representatives of the community, and that such schemes are based in the community itself.
  As for staying-on rates, over 30 per cent. of 16 to 19-year-olds are now in full-time education, half of them in further education colleges. Here, as before, we seek improvement. We shall continue to raise standards and to raise the quality of what is taught.
  The answer to the question by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is, briefly, no.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 274.✶

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Ellis, Raymond

  Alton, David

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Anderson, Donald

  Ewing, Harry

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Ashton, Joe

  Fisher, Mark

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bagier, Gordon A. T

  Forrester, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Foster, Derek

  Barnett, Guy

  Foulkes, George

  Barron, Kevin

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Beith, A. J

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Benn, Tony

  Freud, Clement

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

  Garrett, W. E.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  George, Bruce

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Blair, Anthony

  Golding, John

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Gould, Bryan

  Boyes, Roland

  Gourlay, Harry

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hamilton, James (M'weil N)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hardy, Peter

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

  Harman, Ms Harriet

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

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Haynes, Frank

  Canavan, Dennis

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cartwright, John

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Thomas

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Clay, Robert

  Howells, Geraint

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Corbett, Robin

  John, Brynmor

  Cowans, Harry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Craigen, J. M.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Crowther, Stan

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lambie, David

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Leighton, Ronald

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

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Dewar, Donald

  Litherland, Robert

  Dobson, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dormand, Jack

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Douglas, Dick

  Loyden, Edward

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Eastham, Ken

  McGuire, Michael

  Edwards, Bob (Wh'mpt'n SE)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  843

  McKelvey, William

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Robertson, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rogers, Allan

  McTaggart, Robert

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  McWilham, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Madden, Max

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Maxton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Smith, C.flsl'ton S & F'bury)

  Meacher, Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Miller, Dr M S (E Kilbnde)

  Stott, Roger

  Mitchell, Austin (G t Gnmsby)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

  Thomas, Dr R (Carmarthen)

  Morns, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Thompson, J (Wansbeck)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Thome, Stan (Preston)

  O'Brien, William

  Tinn, James

  O'Neill, Martin

  Torney, Tom

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wainwnght, R.

  Park, George

  Wallace, James

  Parry, Robert

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Patchett, Terry

  Weetch, Ken

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Welsh, Michael

  Pendry, Tom

  White, James

  Penhaligon, David

  Wilson, Gordon

  Pike, Peter

  Winnick, David

  Prescott, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Radice, Giles

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Randall, Stuart

  Redmond, M

  Tellers for the Ayes

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Mr Don Dixon and

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Mr Ray Powell

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Burt, Alistair

  Alexander, Richard

  Butcher, John

  Amess, David

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Ancram, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Tom

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H

  Cash, William

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Vall'y)

  Chope, Christopher

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Churchill, W S

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Clark, Hon A (Plym'th S'n)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cockeram, Eric

  Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic

  Conway, Derek

  Benyon, William

  Coombs, Simon

  Best, Keith

  Cope, John

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Cormack, Patrick

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Corrie, John

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Couchman, James

  Blackburn, John

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cntchley, Julian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Crouch, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Curne, Mrs Edwina

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dicks, Terry

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'to'n)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Dover, Den

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dunn, Robert

  Bright, Graham

  Durant, Tony

  Brmton, Tim

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bnttan, Rt Hon Leon

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brown, M (Bngg & Cl'thpes)

  Evennett, David

  Browne, John

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Farr, Sir John

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Forman, Nigel

  Budgen, Nick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  844

  Forth, Eric

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Freeman, Roger

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Gale, Roger

  Neale, Gerrard

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Needham, Richard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Newton, Tony

  Glyn, DrAlan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gorst, John

  Norris, Steven

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Greenway, Harry

  Osborn, Sir John

  Gregory, Conal

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

  Parris, Matthew

  Grist, Ian

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Ground, Patrick

  Pawsey, James

  Grylls, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Porter, Barry

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Portillo, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Powley, John

  Henderson, Barry

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L

  .Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hill, James

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hind, Kenneth

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hirst, Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hordern, Peter

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Howard, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Irving, Charles

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jackson, Robert

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Jessel, Toby

  Rost, Peter

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rowe, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Ryder, Richard

  Lang, Ian

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lawrence, Ivan

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lightbown, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Lilley, Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  McCrindle, Robert

  Speed, Keith

  Maclean, David John

  Speller, Tony

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

  Spencer, Derek

  Madel, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Major, John

  Squire, Robin

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Malone, Gerald

  Stern, Michael

  Maples, John

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Marland, Paul

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Marlow, Antony

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mates, Michael

  Stokes, John

  Mather, Carol

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Sumberg, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mellor, David

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Merchant, Piers

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thorne, Neil (llford S)

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Moate, Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  845

  Tracey, Richard

  Watts, John

  Trippier, David

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Trotter, Neville

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Whitney, Raymond

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wilkinson, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Waddington, David

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Wolfson, Mark

  .Walden, George

  Wood, Timothy

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Waller, Gary

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Walters, Dennis

  Ward, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Watson, John

  Mr. Peter Lloyd.

  ✶See Mr. Speaker's ruling at column 898.
  Question accordingly negatived,.
  ,Question,, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Mr. Ian Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just walked through the Lobby and come out, and found that the Tellers have disappeared. The exit door of the Lobby was open, but the tellers had gone. I do not know on what basis my vote has not been counted. Can you help me?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am slightly surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman saying that, because four Tellers appeared, and as far as I am aware the Division has been correctly recorded. I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Mikardo: I am obliged, Sir.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognising that 1985 is the International Year of Youth congratulates the Government on the action it is taking to improve the prospects for young people and, in particular, for introducing through the Youth Training Scheme the most imaginative and far reaching training programme since the last war; recognises the tremendous opportunities the scheme has created for young people and look forward with confidence to the introduction of the two-year Youth Training Scheme in April 1986; and welcomes the initiative being taken to provide more effective education for young people.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Enduring Powers of Attorney Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Durant.]

Orders of the Day

  ENDURING POWERS OF ATTORNEY BILL [LORDS]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

  Historic Churches (Northern Ireland)
  10.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move,
  That the draft Historic Churches (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.
  This is a short order, but it is no less important because of its brevity. It enables the Department—
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we be enabled to hear the Minister?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber would do so as quickly and quietly as possible.
  Mr. Patten: I am as surprised as the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) that so many hon. Members should choose to leave the Chamber when this important order is being discussed. Its purpose is to enable the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to make grants or loans towards expenditure incurred in the repair or maintenance of churches in current use for ecclesiastical purposes and which have been listed as being of special architectural or historic interest.
  The order also gives us the power, should we require it, to extend listed building controls to historic churches in current use from some future date. The order brings matters in Northern Ireland into line with what has been the practice in Great Britain or the past nine years.
  Hon. Members will be aware that, in Great Britain, grant aid to churches was not prohibited, as has been the case in Northern Ireland, but there was an arrangement under which churches undertook not to ask for state aid for the maintenance of their buildings, in return for which they were exempted from some of the provisions of planning legislation.
  In 1975 it was announced that, following studies by the churches in consultation with the Department of the Environment, the Government had accepted in principle the case for some state aid for historic churches. The experimental scheme has now been in operation for 10 years. In Northern Ireland, we are prevented from making a grant to listed buildings which are being used for ecclesiastical purposes by article 83 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. These buildings are also exempted from listed building control for works or alteration or extension, but not for demolition. The churches in Northern Ireland have experienced problems similar to those experienced in Great Britain— rising costs of repair and maintenance. They therefore made strong representations to the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland for a scheme to provide financial assistance towards the upkeep of listed churches, similar to that which obtains on this side of the water.
  I realise that there are strong arguments against grants for that purpose. It is said with some force that parishioners should bear the costs of repair. Nevertheless, on balance, I believe that there is an even stronger case for acceding to the representations of the Church authorities and for making grants. Therefore, on 5 July 1983, I announced that a suitable scheme would be introduced in the Province. After a great deal of consultation with all of the interested parties, including various churches, the legislative proposals have been drawn up.
  848
  As the House would expect, we have discussed these matters extremely thoroughly with the Church authorities during the past 18 months. The draft order was also debated in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The report of the Assembly approving the proposal was laid before the House on 15 March. I note the absense of one or two hon. Members, doubtless for good reasons.
  Hon. Members will see that the order provides first, for the making of grants or loans towards expenditure incurred in the repair and maintenance of listed churches currently in ecclesiastical use. Secondly, it allows us to extend listed building control to listed churches in current use from a day to be appointed. Thirdly, it gives us power to appoint committees of the Historic Building Council to advise my Department on the operation of the scheme.
  Hon. Members may wish to be aware of the Department's proposals for the administration of the scheme of grant aid. The initial annual budget will be £150,000. I realise that that is necessarily a small crock of gold. We arrived at that sum by extrapolating from Scottish experience, which seems adequately sensible. Scotland has a budget that is about four times the size of ours for about four times as many buildings. The Church authorities were aware of that sum from an early stage, at least from the time of our meeting with the Irish Council of Churches in December 1983. Their understandable wish that that sum should be larger has not detracted from their support for the order.
  Grant aid will be fixed at 33·33 per cent. of eligible costs subject to a limit of £25,000 for any particular scheme in a single year. Schemes that would attract grants in excess of £25,000 should be phased over a period of years.
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Can my hon. Friend tell the House how many historic churches and historic buildings are to be considered for such grants, because, as he said, it is a small sum of money?
  Mr. Patten: Initially, we are talking of about 85 churches that are A or B-plus listed. That number may increase as we carry out, with the Historic Buildings Council, a review of all the churches that are listed. But at least initially the figure is 85. I accept that the amount of money that we can afford is not as great as most of us would like. It is therefore all the more important that we should concentrate the money with respect to both the number of churches and the work that we can do on those listed buildings.
  Grant aid will be restricted to repair and maintenance of the external fabric of church buildings and associated works such as the treatment of dry and damp rot, which underlines the point that I have just made to my hon. Friend. Bells, stained glass windows and internal furnishings will not be included. Again, we are rightly following the practice on this side of the water.
  We shall not take the denominational aspect into consideration in any way in making grants. It will be a matter of first come, first served, for the limited funds available, though the church authorities, in consultation with the Historic Buildings Council, may wish to agree on a sensible way of controlling the queue of about 85 potential recipients of aid. I stress that the operation of the scheme will be carefully monitored, and reviewed if necessary in the light of experience.
  It is not the Government's early, let alone immediate, intention to make churches in Northern Ireland subject to

  849
  listed building control. That would be done only following careful consideration and widespread consultation. There is no question of our taking such a step unless it is taken on this side of the water. There is equally no question of our automatically following in the wake of whatever is done in Great Britain. I wholly accept that were we to consider with the Church authorities— and with hon. Members, for that matter—any move in that direction, we should have to face up, among other things, to the considerable financial consequences.
  I realise that the order would be even more cheerfully received in some quarters were we able to spend more money on the grants available under it. We have stepped up our activities in conservation and listing, but we still have a long way to go, and I fear that we may disappoint almost as many people as we can satisfy for some time to come. Nevertheless, 1 believe that the order is a small step in the right direction. I repeat that it is welcomed by the Church authorities, and, indeed, was pressed on us by them.
  Against that background, noting again that I regard this as an experimental scheme which we may need to modify in the light of experience, I commend the order to the House.
  10.24 pm
  Mr. Norman Hogg: May I apologise for the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley West (Mr. Archer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell)? They are tonight in the Province. May I also apologise for being a little late? I am afraid that we must speak to the Attorney-General and tell him to nod a little more slowly. I hope that the House will accept my apologies and the fact that I am making my maiden speech from the Dispatch Box. I am happy to say that the Labour party will not be opposing the order.
  The order would enable the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland to make grants or loans
  850
  towards the expenditure incurred in the repair or maintenance of churches. These churches, of course, must be in current use for ecclesiastical purposes and should have been listed as being of special architectural or historic interest. It would also bring such historic churches within the system of limited building control. It has always been considered an anomaly that listed churches in Northern Ireland are treated differently from those in England, Scotland and Wales, where specific grant aid schemes have been in operation for the past eight years. I have some experience of the situation in Scotland.
  That anomaly is somewhat accentuated when one considers that there are about 560 listed churches in a total of 6,500 listed buildings throughout Northern Ireland. If we are to have league tables, it is accurate to say that the Church of Ireland, as the press has pointed out, comes top of the table with 195 listings. That is followed by the presbyterians with 174, and the Roman Catholic Church with 135. I should like to ask the Minister why the order does not come into force for another year—until April 1986. I note that the order will not be retrospective. However, as the provision for listed church buildings in Northern Ireland is now to be brought into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom, we should be thankful that the order is before us at all. I note that the Northern Ireland Assembly has carried out its usual useful function of scrutinising the order before its appearance in the House. The Environment Committee recommended that the proposals contained in the order be approved, although it made some comments upon it.
  I shall not weary the House at this late hour—that would be completely inappropriate for a Deputy Chief Whip deputising as a Northern Ireland spokesman—with a recital of the recommendations. I shall merely content myself with noting the comments of the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the hon. Member lor North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), that the Assembly was concerned with administrative arrangements and broadly welcomed the proposals. That is the view of the Opposition.
  10.27 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sorry that we have temporarily lost the presence of the Leader of the House, because I was going to address to him a word of gratitude for having provided, by suspension of Standing Orders, for extra time whereby this Government measure could, if necessary, be discussed at large by those who wished to debate it. It is not a subject upon which, in recent memory, the Leader of the House has always been so generous. I hope that it is a habit that he will continue and extend.
  From that commendation, I turn to something short of commendation on the performance of Her Majesty's Opposition. It is true that one Secretary of State can act for any other Secretary of State, but it is unheard of for one shadow to act for another shadow especially as that shadow of a shadow is a Deputy Chief Whip.
  I have to say to the absentees—I hope that my words will reach them in due course—that it is no excuse for absence from debates in the House on Northern Ireland to be in the Province. It would be more proper for hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies to seek on that ground from time to time to excuse themselves. The House has first claim upon the attention of its Members, not least upon those who represent their own party from their respective Front Benches.
  While I am on this topic, let me offer a friendly word of advice to the shadow Northern Ireland spokesmen. If they are very inquisitive about circumstances in Northern Ireland and want to know what to look at and when, it is no bad idea to consult—occasionally, at any rate—those who know and who are elected to represent Northern Ireland in this House.
  There has been a notable lack of communication between the present Opposition Front Bench Northern Ireland team and hon. Members representing constituencies in the Province. It is no substitute for that kind of consultation to be absent in the Province when Northern Ireland affairs are debated in this House. I hope that these remarks will be noted in the quarters where action can be taken upon them.
  When I studied the order, an aspect of the commencement clause at first struck me as curious. Article 6(a) comes into operation on such day as the Minister— I am translating into direct rule terminology—may by order appoint, whereas the remainder of the order, apart from articles 4 and 6(a), comes into operation
  "on the expiration of 2 months from the day on which it is made."
  It is curious that an article which repeals article 33(1) of the 1972 order should come into effect upon the fiat of the Minister, whereas article 3 comes into effect upon a predetermined day—two months after the making of the order.
  At first I was incautious enought to think that this was a curiosity which might owe something to that carelessness which the examiner of statutory rules occasionally detects in his valuable work of examining Northern Ireland statutory instruments. However, further reflection convinced me that there was a more sinister explanation to this apparently curious phenomenon.
  The Bill, or rather the order—I correct myslf. I hope that my reference to a Northern Ireland Order in Council as a Bill is an unconscious anticipation of the future. The order does two completely separate and unconnected
  852
  things. First, it abolishes the exemption on buildings in ecclesiastical use from the planning provisions limiting the alterations and so on that may be carried out on those buildings. That is the purpose of article 4. Secondly, it makes it possible in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, to pay grants to listed buildings, even though they are in current ecclesiastical use.
  These two effects have no logical or necessary connection with one another. The Minister informed us that there was no early prospect that the abolition of the exemption of listed ecclesiastical buildings would be brought into effect. Indeed, in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) on 11 May, following a ministerial meeting with two of my colleagues, who are present tonight, and myself, the Minister said:
  "There is at present no legal constraint on applicants to prevent them from altering listed churches".
  That is an understatement. There is at present no legal constraint on anyone altering listed churches. He went on to discuss the consideration being given to removing that exemption in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  I agree with the Minister that the removal of that exemption is a serious course of action which should not be taken without considerable prior consultation and reflection and that it could act as a deterrent to those responsible for listed churches seeking to preserve them in the immediately coming years.
  In those circumstances, I do not think that it is a proper use of legislation to enact the abolition of exemption and then to leave it suspended with power for a Minister to bring it into force. If such legislative provision is to be made, it should be made in its own right. We should not have to discover by examining the commencement article of an order that such a power is being enacted now and that the exemption is being abolished now subject to commencement on such date as the Minister may by order appoint. I do not believe that that is the right way to go about the matter.
  If there is no present intention to remove the exemption, and we may be forgiven for being somewhat hesitant about assuming this, there would have been no inconvenience whatever in not enacting the abolition of the exemption in this order but coming forward with a separate proposal at the proper time. At the least, in any proper form of legislation the giving of effect to article 4 should have been reserved to some procedure that was subject to proceedings in this House. I appreciate that that is difficult to accomplish due to the restrictions under which we labour with direct rule, as the vast majority of subordinate legislation in respect of Northern Ireland in no way comes before the House, but that merely illustrates how much better legislation for Northern Ireland could be framed and effectuated by means of a proper Bill. The provision could then have been contained in the Bill, with an arrangement for it to be brought into effect by an affirmative order, which would bring the matter to the attention of the House once again.
  I therefore register our complaint at this advantage— an improper advantage, we would argue—of the Order in Council procedure to enact now a provision that is not to come into effect until some undetermined date.
  The question of what Iain Macleod and I used to call "needs and means" was dealt with at some length, though perhaps not at fully adequate length, by the Minister. The incompatibility between the needs and the means will

  853
  cause the main difficulties that the order and its adminstration will encounter. The facts of the matter were set out by the Minister and have already been rehearsed today. No fewer than 545 churches in Northern Ireland are listed buildings. In relation to a total of that magnitude, an annual budget of £150,000 is nugatory.
  Mr. Chris Patten rose—
  Mr. Powell: Perhaps I can just conclude this part of my remarks, as I may anticipate the Minister's intervention. He has stated that a short list is to be compiled, comprising the present A and B grade churches but to which others may after consideration and investigation be added. He estimates that the total size of that effective list for consideration may be about 85 churches. I still believe that 85 churches on a short list for an annual budget of £150,000 is completely unrealistic. If that unrealism is not to be completely disastrous and cause more ill will than good will among those whom the measure is intended to benefit, some stern administrative measures must be taken. The idea that there can be a painless subdivision or distribution of £150,000 among a short list of 85 listed ecclesiastical buildings is completely unrealistic.
  Some suspicion of the difficulty is revealed in the Minister's explanation, in the letter to which I referred, of how he intends to marshall the queue. Perhaps I might read what he said in that letter, although I noticed that he qualified it in his speech this evening. He said:
  "Various methods of ordering the short listed churches were considered, including selection by greatest need, by the number of listed churches in each denomination or by the architectural or historic 'worth' of the individual churches, before it was decided that applications should be dealt with strictly in the order in which they are received."
  This first-come, first-served rule was justified on the ground that,
  "to do otherwise would be to introduce an unacceptable degree of subjectivity which would inevitably lead to disharmony."
  It is ludicrous to say, when there are 85, or 545 whichever way one looks at it— potential bidders for grant, and when one does not even know when the starting pistol will go off, that first come will be first served. Will there be arrangements such as one finds in competitions organised by newspapers, so that the first application opened by the junior clerk in the Department of the Environment will be deemed to have been received first, or will it be the postmark on the envelope, or will it be the date on the letter? What will be the rationality in this unseemly scramble, which is to be the only method proposed for marshalling the queue?
  It is ridiculous for the Government to say that, of all the possible contenders, it will be first come, first served, but we have no ideas—at any rate, we have not explained them to those most concerned—how to set out in this race to be first in the queue. In the House, for private Members' Bills or private Members' motions, we have a system of ballots. Why did not the Government think of a ballot, which might be conducted by the Clerks of the Assembly? It might be the last act that they will perform before disappearing into oblivion. Why were they not asked to conduct a ballot among the 85 applicants and arrange them in the order that the names were drawn from the hat?
  That conclusion was reached—I hope that it will not be maintained—after rejecting methods that one might have thought were reasonable. I am sure that it will have occurred to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that selection by
  854
  greatest need was not an irrational method of selection. Admittedly, it was selective, but selection by greatest need is something for which Governments and Ministers take responsibility all the time. One might almost say that the allocation of resources to greatest need is what we keep Ministers for. That method was considered, only to be rejected.
  Then there was the criterion of the architectural or historic worth of churches. If the object is to preserve buildings which are of architectural or historic worth, one would have thought that that might be a sensible criterion to apply when deciding which of the claimants should have the highest priority. Judgment is needed. It is a dereliction of judgment and inconsistent with the claimed purposes of the order to throw the reins on the horse's neck and say, "There are the 85; let's see which of them turn up first, and it will be the first three or the first six who turn up who will get the first slice of the cake."
  The Under-Secretary of State will land himself in much more trouble by doing it that way than by applying a more rational criterion. Ulster people are not so irrational that they cannot understand that grants for the preservation of listed buildings bear some relation to the need for expenditure upon particular buildings and the worth and architectural value of those buildings. That idea is not absolutely impossible for the well disposed to sell, even among competing claimants. But there is a need for judgment. That is perhaps greater and more difficult to exercise in Northern Ireland than it is on this side of the water.
  The historic and architectural value of the churches of different denominations can be different in kind. A judgment between the Roman Catholic cathedral in Newry and the Church of Ireland cathedral at Downpatrick in my constituency is a judgment of items which belong to different categories and different standards of value and merit. If one supposes that both are listed buildings, I am not suggesting that it would be easy to establish a common scale against which both buildings could be measured. The same could be true of the very many distinguished dissenting meeting houses. I apologise to my Ulster colleagues for the grating sound of Anglican vocabulary, but that is what they were when they were first erected, so perhaps I shall be excused upon that ground.
  Rev. Martin Smyth indicated assent.
  Mr. Powell: I am glad to have obtained the approval and pardon of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) for my chosen adjective.
  Many of those meeting houses are extremely distinguished buildings. There is an extremely distinguished meeting house at Kilmore in my constituency— as it happens, only two or three miles from Downpatrick cathedral. I should be interested to know how one would set about judging the respective architectural or historic worth of that meeting house, which I am sure is a listed building of a high category, and of a Church of Ireland building such as that to which I have referred These judgments ought to be made and ought to be seen to be made, and they will have to be made if the money, such as it is, which is to be spent upon this purpose is to be administered in a way that is rational and defensible. If we were to ask the Under-Secretary of State why the first slice of grant was given to the Kilmore Presbyterian meeting house, it would be unsatisfactory if we were told that it got

  855
  in first and that its application was received a whole week before the application of the Roman Catholic church in Strangford which, in its way, is an equally remarkable and interesting building which may, for aught I know, be of high architectural value.
  The practical solution that I offer to the Under-secretary of State to assist his purposes is that he will have to be responsible, or he will have to find someone through whom he can be responsible, for genuine acts of judgment which will have to be performed with great severity. Unless we are to fritter away in penny packets, or almost penny packets, this small annual budget, it will have to be spent upon urgent and important work, and acts of difficult judgment and discrimination will have to be made. They should be acts of judgment which can be defended and be seen to be rational.
  The Minister is making provision in article 5 of the order for afforcing the Historic Buildings Council. The suggestion was made in discussion elsewhere that representatives of the churches might be put on that council, and probably the Minister was wise to be cool towards that suggestion and to say that his prime object in afforcing the council was to increase the degree of historical and architectural expertise that was available in the council.
  However, the Minister will have to go further than that and set up a specific advisory body to make, to be seen to make and to show public cause for making, exactly those difficult judgments that at present he is threatening to spurn by using the method of first past the post or first at the head of the queue.
  The Minister must safeguard and husband the relatively small finance that is to become available for ecclesiastical listed buildings in Northern Ireland. He must husband it not only by preventing it from being frittered away in small packets but by being sure that there is genuine outstanding merit and need in the applicants which are chosen for early receipt of what I hope will be large single grants under the order. By "single", I do not necessarily mean not spread out over several years. I mean really large projects which might absorb a considerable part of the annual budget for several years.
  In restricting the scope of these grants as they are restricted in Great Britain, to the external fabric, a mistake is being made, as so many mistakes in relation to Northern Ireland are made, by failure to understand, appreciate and be sensitive to some of the peculiarities and merits of Northern Ireland.
  There are some distinguished Church of England churches in this country of which the principal historic interest is their internal fittings. I can think of a Shropshire church which has absolutely intact the Commonwealth fittings dating from the 1650s. They are objects of great interest and are preserved on that account, and that is by no means unique. However, I do not think I would be contradicted in saying that in Great Britain, and certainly in England, the fabric of the churches is essentially their lasting glory and that element of them that calls for protection and preservation.
  I am far from sure that that assertion could be made with the same confidence of the churches in Northern Ireland which, as listed buildings, will mainly come under the scope of the order, and I will give two examples to
  856
  illustrate the significance of two of the deliberate omissions from the scope of the grants. I shall first give an example of furnishings.
  I do not know whether the Minister, who is a voracious and active traveller in Northern Ireland and a rubbernecked Minister when he is in the Province, has had the good fortune to visit St. James's—I hope that I have given the correct name—in Waringstown and has seen the magnificent Jacobean furniture which was recently restored and lovingly preserved. It would be impossible to distinguish between the merits of the church furniture and the fabric of that church. Indeed, the fabric was made for the furnishings more than the furnishings were made for the fabric. I dare say that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will later confirm that that could be true especially of the meeting houses of the Presbyterian and other Non-Conformist denominations where the building is ancillary to the internal arrangements and yet where the internal arrangements are of architectural and historic value. That is an example showing why major schemes, which are the proper way to get full value out of the available finance, should not exclude furnishings in appropriate cases.
  My second example is stained glass. That might seem a strange nomination for a Northern Ireland Member to make, since the glories of stained glass as we know them in some churches in England which were lucky enough to escape the rage of Puritanism have no corresponding representatives in the Province where the work of destruction was carried out much more by war and rebellion than by Puritan and Reformist prejudices. That does not mean that the windows in the churches in Northern Ireland are not equally part of the building and, in some ways, more part of the buildings than the 15th-century stained glass windows for which the perpendicular south aisles were added to many churches, particularly but not exclusively in East Anglia.
  I was going to give an example from my constituency, but I shall give another from the vicinity of Waringstown, since the Minister and the House, if it is accompanying me in these examples, were last in Waringstown looking at St. James's church. One need only go to the mother church in Waringstown which—as all good mother churches in Northern Ireland should — has a Gaelic name, Donaghcloney, and one will find a remarkable edifice. It is not beautiful to the eye. Indeed, it was erected as a village hall by the Lyttle family which owned and ran the mill which, for many decades, was the lifeblood of Donaghcloney.
  That hall has been brought into use to replace a tin tabernacle which stood on the basis of the erased pre-Reformation church. It has been brought into use as the parish church in Donaghcloney. It has a splendid set of —I confess it—Victorian windows, brought there from a Church of Ireland church in the Republic which was demolished. I am prepared to say that those windows have a value of their own kind in the Northern Ireland context which ought to be taken into account.
  I do not want to dwell too long on this imaginary peregrination. I invite the Minister, when next in Downpatrick, to go—or to go again—into St. Patrick's, the parish church, and look at the east window. The structure itself is late 16th or early 17th century, but I think he will agree that, as in so many Wren churches in the City

  857
  of London, the east window in that church is an essential part of the church, and forms part of that for which the preservation of the church is desirable.
  I make a plea to the Minister—since there is nothing in the terms of the order which excludes reconsideration —not to be so rigid, in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, in defining the outer limits of what it is that calls for preservation and assistance under the order.
  Although I believe that the purpose of the order is probably wise, as on balance the corresponding legislation in Great Britain has probably been wise, we shall run into disaster unless the Minister changes his mind about the method of allocating priorities. We shall run into disaster unless, recognising that he has a limited budget, he deliberately uses that limited budget in a way which will do really big and distinguished things, although that means there can b only a few really big and distinguished things done for the listed buildings in Northern Ireland which are in ecclesiastical use.
  I hope that the debate will be, as it is intended to be, of use to the Minister, who showed himself understanding and open-minded about the difficulties and dangers which he would encounter when he had a useful discussion with my hon. Friends and myself some weeks ago.
  11.1 pm
  Mr. William Ross: The House has listened to a very fine speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who covered many of the salient points of the order.
  We are being brought face to face with the question whether a public interest in a building brings with it the need for a public liability in respect of that building. It would seem that there is general agreement that that public interest imposes a public liability, the only question being what the extent of the liability should be. In such cases there is always a balance of interests between the user and the viewer, and I am not sure that we have managed so far to get dead right what that balance should be.
  There is, of course, the very real difficulty for the owners of listed churches that they are now to lose some of their freedom of action by virtue of being listed. In looking through the total number of churches involved, to which my right hon. Friend referred, I was most surprised. I managed to find 84 A listings, but I understand, from what my right hon. Friend said, that there are 85 A and B-plus listings. There are 24 Church of Ireland A buildings and eight B-plus buildings. The Roman Catholics have four A and 24 B-plus buildings. The Presbyterians have four A and seven B-plus buildings. The Methodists have four A and seven 3B-plus churches. The Non-Subscribing Presbyterians, surprisingly, out of a total of 20 churches, have three A and five B-plus buildings. The Society of Friends has one A, and the Moravians have one A.
  One is led immediately into the question of the division of money among the churches. My right hon. Friend covered that point in great detail. The Minister should look at it again, because the figures that I have quoted are an absolute nest of worms in this context. I hope that the Minister will take account of what my right hon. Friend has said, because I would be very worried about the first-come-first-served principle.
  In my inquiries I have also noticed that the listed categories for Scotland and Northern Ireland are the same, in that they are A, B-plus and B, whereas in England and Wales the gradings are 1 and 2. When the Minister replies
  858
  to the debate, will he be kind enough to tell us exactly what the differences are between those various gradings? It is relevant to the question how a church listed in Northern Ireland compares with a church listed in England. It may be that wholly different criteria apply. The listing may depend upon the context of the building rather than on a common level throughout the United Kingdom.
  I was surprised to hear the Minister say that he had only a quarter of the money for Scotland, and that Scotland had roughly four times as many such buildings. Can he go further and tell us how many B, B-plus and A graded buildings there are in Scotland compared with similar groupings in Northern Ireland? I understand that the total number of listed churches is in the ratio 4:1, but I am curious about the merit that is attached to them, which should be revealed by the listing. If the ratio is more than 4:1, perhaps the Minister should reconsider the decision to give one quarter of the money for one quarter of the listed buildings.
  I should like a clear explanation of what the ecclesiastical exemption consists of. The case of the Howard United Reform church upset people's understanding of the position, and seemed to turn the haycock upside down. The owner of churches in Northern Ireland would like to be told what use the ecclesiastical exemption now is. Can one use it to demolish a building which is no longer in use or needed?
  A large problem regarding redundant churches is building up steadily in Northern Ireland. Many people seem to think that churches have become redundant only in Belfast because of the vast movement of the population during the past 15 years, mainly because of terrorism, but that is not the case. Many rural churches, of practically all denominations, although mainly of Protestant denomination, are in areas where the population has greatly decreased. I can think of Presbyterian churches and churches of my own denomination, whose congregations are much smaller than they were 150 years ago. That is not to say that the total number of people has decreased, but there has been a tremendous amount of movement from rural areas to towns, with a corresponding drop in church population. It causes enormous difficulties for some congregations and parishes. I hope that we shall not get into the rut of thinking that redundant churches occur only in larger urban areas. The problem extends across the Province.
  All denominations continually make the case that there should be some sort of appeal procedure against the listing of a church. That may be difficult, because the Churches may have reasons for not listing it, usually regarding disposal or lack of use of the church, whereas there may be architectural merit that demands that it should be listed. If there were an appeal procedure, it would be welcomed by everyone, because we need to have all the facts of each individual case brought into the open so that people know exactly why a building is listed.
  I have studied the listings of the various churches, especially those in my own area, which I know well. In some instances, the reason for the listing is plain, but in others I have some difficulty in identifying the outstanding merit that has led to the placement. It seems that most of the churches have found their way on to the list in one way or another. When I tabled a parliamentary question, the Minister was unable to tell me how many churches had

  859
  been inspected and left off the list. I hope that we shall be told what percentage of the churches in Northern Ireland have been put on the list.
  I am concerned about the loss of ecclesiastical exemption, but my fears may be allayed to some extent when the Minister gives an explanation of the benefit that will accrue to Churches from the exemption in the light of the Howard United Reform Church case, which was taken to another place. I make a plea that the grant or the loan should not mean automatically the loss of ecclesiastical exemption. The exemption must give some benefit to the Churches that come within it. I should not like to see a small grant or loan used as an excuse for tying a Church's hands and those of the denomination for all time.
  Everyone who has read the order accepts that a grant or loan of £150,000 will be a drop in the ocean. There must be some Church involvement in the listing procedures, and we must endeavour to determine how we marshal the applicant Churches in order of priority. There must be a system which is acceptable to the Churches which belong to the various denominations that are affected, so that they do not feel that they are being hard done by.
  In inquiring into the order, I took the precaution of writing to the four major denominations. They all kindly replied to me setting out their views. There is deep concern about the way in which the money is being distributed. That concern can be allayed only if there is a Church involvement. It is feared that that would lead to an unwieldy committee which would include representatives of all Churches. If it is only an advisory committee, that unwieldiness might well be acceptable.
  A consultation document has been drawn up by the Department of the Environment and a similar paper has been circulated in Scotland. When the Minister replies, I ask him to tell us what effect the document is having upon the future of listed churches in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. There is bound to be a spin-off from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, or vice versa. The issue runs right across the sea and we should not close our minds to the consultation paper.
  That leads me to sections 16 and 19 of the paper. Section 16 states:
  "The internal structure, decorations and fittings of a church may be of fundamental importance to its liturgical and other religious purposes. It may be argued that to apply normal listed building controls to church interiors would risk impinging on the churches' freedom to decide on the form of their worship. However, some interior alterations, particularly those involving structural work, may damage the aesthetic quality for which a building has been listed. In that case, it can be argued that the Government has a duty to safeguard the interiors as well as the exteriors of buildings included in the statutory list."
  Section 19 tell us:
  "In some cases, however, this would exempt from control those very features for which a church had been listed; many buildings with plain exteriors contain a wealth of important church fittings which would thus be totally exempt from listed building control".
  A building with a plain exterior that required considerable money spent on it would not be eligible for a grant if the internal features were not taken into account. That would not be acceptable. A building has to be looked at as a whole, interior and exterior.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Down commented on Jacobean furniture. I have been in two churches which are plain buildings with a seating
  860
  arrangement based on the family unit, so that the pews are all built in a square. There may be other such churches in Londonderry. Such features are well worth preserving, because, although they are not modern looking, they are a tie with the past. Such churches should not be left out of the running just because of the plainess of their outsides.
  My right hon. Friend also spoke about stained glass windows. I cannot understand how windows can be left out of this order, because most stained glass windows embody in their structure a considerable amount of stonework that can be seen from the outside and is part of the architecture of the building. One should not leave such windows aside. My church has stained glass windows, with stonework visible from the outside, and that is very much part of its character.
  Article 83 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which is being altered by this order, says that grants and loans for the preservation of listed buildings should be for
  "the repair and maintenance of any objects ordinarly kept in the building."
  If we are changing that order, we should do so in a way that takes account of that provision, which covers the point made both by my right hon. Friend and me.
  In that order, article 31(2) (b) refers to
  "any feature of the building which consists of a man-made object or structure fixed to the building or which forms a part of the land and which is comprised within the curtilage of the building."
  I am curious as to what that last phrase means. How does that include walls and gates, which in many cases seem to be the only reason why a building is given listed status? I should have thought that the boundary line runs down the middle of the wall, and I cannot see how the outside of it could be taken to be within the curtilage of the building.
  Whenever we talk of churches, most people think of a building, but a church in the true sense is not a building, but a body of people. It is a body of worshippers and believers joined together in a congregation. That may not be as true of the Anglican tradition, of which I am a member, as it is for the tradition of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). However, it is still a basic ingredient of a church that it is a body of people. A church is not always the same size, or the same shape; nor does it have the same distribution of people at all times. It is a living and changing body of people, and it is there with a job to do.
  That brings me to what concerns me most in the order — the preservation of buildings. The Church is not about the preservation of buildings. Its essence is teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is a quite different matter. I fear that the application of the order will hang a massive millstone around the neck of many congregations and stop them from carrying out their basic function as Christians and believers in the Gospel of Christ.
  When I was a boy, all Presbyterian churches were known as meeting houses. During my teens, however, they gradually became known as Presbyterian churches. The change did not meet with universal approval from the congregations. I liked the original term, and still use it quite often. It seems to be generally acceptable to my many Presbyterian friends and neighbours.
  In the order, we are taking the first exploratory steps towards securing the right balance between the interests of the user and those of the viewer. I do not believe that we have got it right. When we produce orders such as this I always fear that some people will attempt to get something

  861
  on the cheap. My experience of life is that nothing is got on the cheap— someone, somewhere, has to pay. It seems that the Treasury will not put any more money into the Northern Ireland coffers and that the £150,000 comes out of existing money. If so, someone else will go £150,000 short. I should be glad if the Minister would say that there is more money.
  As a result of the order, I believe that the interests of the viewer will overtake those of the user and that the Church might lose out in the long run, and none of us wants that.
  11.22 pm
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I welcome the order because it brings Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
  The explanatory document says that the order will bring historic churches within the system of listed building control, but that is already the case in practice. Part III of the explanatory document says that the order will not lead to an increase in overall public expenditure. Having regard to the derisory amount that is to be provided, one could be forgiven for wondering whether approvals for expenditure will be controlled by the amount available and whether the Churches will find that they are worse off than before.
  Even worse is the fact that churches in class B, which do not qualify for grant aid, must maintain their buildings for the benefit of others. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) gave a vivid description of what will happen. The situation should be considered in conjuction with the well-known case, which my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) mentioned, concerning Bedfordshire county council v. Trustees of Howard United Reform Church in May 1975. In that case the other place defined an ecclesiastical building in such a way as to render the Churches unable to demolish their churches if they wanted to without listed building consent.
  As a result of the factors that I have outlined, the Churches are not free to redevelop their sites to meet the demands of their work or changed circumstances, nor can they realise the full asset value of their sites for use elsewhere, should they consider that the word of God requires such action. In other words, they have lost their rights in their property, without compensation, and are now saddled with a perpetual commitment without redress. That appears to be contrary to British constitutional law, but it is unlikely that any Church, certainly in Northern Ireland, would have the resources to bring such a case before the House of Lords.
  Despite the consultations between the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment and the Irish Council of Churches on the subject of the order, the Churches have been put in a virtually impossible position and little regard seems to have been paid to the implications for their future. In the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 there is provision for compensation for refusal of listed building consent in certain circumstances. The contrary view under article 69 is discretionary, not mandatory, and, to my certain knowledge, there is at least one case of a Methodist church in central Belfast where that has been applied, with the result that no compensation has been paid. It is my view, and that of the trustees of the church, that the reasons given and the contrary case presented by the Department of the Environment were spurious.
  862
  The original application to demolish the existing building and erect another on the same site, with church premises within the new building, was expressly to provide a Methodist place of worship and witness for the foreseeable future, together with a rental income to enable that worship and witness to be carried out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East said, in that church in the centre of Belfast we are all going through a traumatic experience. During the last war, that church was open 24 hours a day to minister for the ex-service men, the service men, the ARP and everyone involved in the war effort. Before 1969, the church was also open 24 hours a day to look after young people in the area and people who needed help. During the troubled times, that church was also there, providing succour for the police and the Army who were carrying out their difficult job in the centre of Belfast. Even today it is open for several hours day and night to cater for the down-and-outs, the unemployed and people who need help and succour in difficult circumstances.
  That application was refused, on the grounds that the building was to be listed. All the proposals in the contrary view under article 69 of the 1972 planning order, put forward by the Department of the Environment and fully admitted by its officials, were incapable of providing a place of worship and ancillary premises alongside the notional commercial development, which formed the basis of a refusal to pay compensation.
  While I welcome the order, as far as it goes, which is not very far, it is my opinion that the case that I mentioned should be reconsidered and that the House ought to undertake a review of the law in relation to planning legislation and the Churches to safeguard the rights of the various Churches. I hope that the Minister will give my suggestion his serious consideration.
  11.28 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I am speaking in the debate because, in a fit of generosity, the Leader of the House has allowed us at least another hour and a half. Accordingly, I should like to use some of that time, although I am amazed as to why, when we are dealing with an order that we cannot change and must accept, we are given such latitude of time, when on other occasions we would have liked to make changes to legislation, which would have been helpful, and for the good of the country, but we were not allowed time to do so.
  I should like the Minister to clarify the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Cumbemauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) about the date upon which the order takes effect. If it is to be April 1986, is that an acknowledgement that there is no money available but that money will be released in the next financial year, or is it because someone in the Department is aware that in the near future some work will be done on a building for which no money is available and that, rather than face that difficulty, the Department has put it on the long finger?
  As the Minister will be aware, the historic St. George's church in the centre of Belfast has recently completed a major scheme to preserve its witness. There has been a great deal of controversy over that building. If the order is passed tonight, and as the Minister has discretion, I cannot understand why it is proposed to wait until April 1986 before it takes effect. We look forward to receiving an assurance that it will come into effect sooner.

  863
  I support the points made by my right hon. and hon. Friends for consideration by the Minister and others who will have to implement the order and the scheme. Rather than merely consider the point made by the churches and the Northern Ireland Assembly, there should be a representative of the churches on the decision-making body.
  I understand that one of the objections to that is that such people will have a theological point of view only. I do not believe that that is necessarily so. Within the churches there are people who have the historical and architectural expertise to deal with the subject dispassionately. It is not necessary to have a representative from each of the major denominations because, contrary to what many folk have said, I believe that there is greater collaboration between the churches in Northern Ireland than exists centrally in England and Scotland. It is not beyond anyone's capacity to nominate someone to represent the churches dispassionately.
  I take up the concept of need to which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) referred. The need for structural work on the building has been emphasised. As I understand it, the force of the order is to provide finance to help that work. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) suggested that a small congregation which has been given a legacy of an historic building that it can no longer maintain in a good structural condition may be in greater need than those with a love of history and architecture believe.
  I happen to be a philistine.
  I share the views of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East about the functions of a church. In an age when there are greater demands upon church members, many people who believe in worldwide evangelism and helping the needy are torn between choosing to help mankind or pouring money into maintaining a building. As well as a need to carry out architectural work on a building, there may also be a need to provide the finance required to do so, because local people are no longer able to supply the tremendous finances that are often required for modern building schemes.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Down referred to what is locally known as the redemptionist meeting house in Kilmore, and reminded me of the story of the preacher who went to kill rats in the morning and to Kilmore at night.
  There are meeting houses through the Province where intrinsic beauty and historic interest lie within. For example, there is exterior architectural merit in the Presbyterian meeting house of Sinclair Seamen's in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), but the real historic and architectural beauty lies within. The pulpit is in the shape of a ship's prow, signifying the heritage of that meeting house and its links with the sea. I therefore hope that in interpreting the order, attention will be given not only to the exterior of a building but also to the interior which often has an historic value.
  In church buildings throughout Northern Ireland, England and other parts of the kingdom, a new revolution is taking place about how an interior should be arranged for the proper exercise of worship. That was no doubt one of the concerns in the minds of those who framed the
  864
  order, but if its purpose is to preserve historic buildings, we must be prepared to say that finance will be made available.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Down spoke of the absence of Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. For some time, a pattern has developed whereby Ministers who visit Northern Ireland constituencies inform the Members concerned either the day after or the day on which they are in the constituency. If constituency Members are expected to welcome such visitors, we should like to know earlier, so that we can plan accordingly.
  I also regret to say that a habit is developing whereby Northern Ireland Members no longer need to know what is happening in their constituencies. Ministers may be security conscious, but it is tragic if they cannot trust hon. Members, whereas from now on they will have to trust Sinn Feiners in local councils.
  11.39 pm
  Mr. Chris Patten: First, I welcome the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) to our debates. I think that his speech today was his first contribution to a Northern Ireland debate, and I congratulate him on his maiden speech from the Front Bench. I am sure that it will not be his last speech from that Bench, although if we are unlucky it may be the last time that we hear from him on the affairs of the Province. I share the hon. Gentleman's gratitude for the sensible and thoughtful comments of the Assembly, which includes some who are also Members of this House.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the figures for the denominations of churches which are listed buildings in all categories, but I think that it is more relevant to consider those in categories A and B-plus, a breakdown of which was given by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), to whose comments I shall return later.
  The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) made as interesting and informed a speech as one would expect from him. I hope that it will not be taken as too critical an observation or suggest that I am overly thin skinned about this if I say that his speech and some others reminded me of how much trouble one can heap on one's head by trying to do a small amount of good, although as a Tory I am not at all surprised by that. One just has to take a little care in these matters.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the removal of the exemption and suggested that taking these powers might act as a deterrent to people concerned to obtain listing for a building in which they are interested. We have no evidence to suggest that that is the case. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was on more substantial ground when he developed his argument about the type of power that we have taken in this respect, but, given the undertakings that I set out in my opening speech, I think that the situation should be regarded as reasonably tolerable. The churches certainly regard it in that way, and I hope that the House will take the same view later today.
  The right hon. Gentleman and others properly referred to resources, and I accept that £150,000 is a small crock of gold, but if it is an unrealistic figure for Northern Ireland it is equally unrealistic for the rest of the United Kingdom because we have tried to arrive at a figure by extrapolating from experience elsewhere. I shall return to that aspect when I respond to the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East.

  865
  I am anxious that we should do more in terms of conservation of both the built and the natural environment, but resources are limited as I am discovering—without, I hope, too many constraints on my discoveries — in attempting to implement both the letter and the spirit of the extremely important and well-received Balfour report. I repeat that £150,000 is not much, and certainly not so much as the Churches would have liked, but there were moments during the debate when some Members seemed to be saying that we would do better to provide no funds at all if we could not provide more. I accept the criticism that we ought to find more, although I am not sure where it could come from, but I am sure that it is better to do this with limited funds than not to do it at all. I repeat that that has been the consistently held view of the Church authorities in the Province, which we have fully consulted.
  The question emerges as to what criteria one should apply in allocating those unfortunately but necessarily limited resources. The right hon. Gentleman's Pevsneresque journey round the Province and beyond showed the difficulties in reaching wholly rational, objective and defensible judgments on these issues. I do not wish to heap criticism on the heads of colleagues or of civil servants in Scotland or in England and Wales, but I am bound to say that rationalism has sometimes had a pretty difficult run there. Of course, that is precisely the sort of area on which we shall want to keep an open mind. It is precisely the sort of area on which we shall wish to keep in close touch with the Church authorities, and I believe that our good faith on this issue can be judged by the extent to which we have consulted the Churches consistently and fully during the past 18 months. If, with the council and the Churches, we can work out a more rational way of allocating the funds, so be it. But there are some difficulties in being as rational as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
  As to whether we should include fittings, bells and stained glass windows, I thought, when I heard the right hon. Gentleman developing his interesting case for the differences of the position in Northern Ireland, that I could have made, in terms of my constituency, a speech on both sides of the argument. I could have argued the case for including the fittings of churches, and I could have argued the case against. My principal consideration was that, in concentrating on wind and weather-proofing, we were doing something which was probably imposed on us anyway by the limited funds available.
  Given that the funds are limited, we are probably better served by following Great Britain practice. But here again I wish to make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that we must review our progress as we moved forward. If it seems to us clear that there is a case for including fittings, bells and stained glass windows as well as the fabric of a church, we must make those adjustments and extend our architectural agenda. But I hope that if I or anyone else reaches that decision, we shall have more resources to hand in order to do so.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East, who has taken a special interest in the provisions of the order, and whose interest has, as always, been helpful, not least in obliging Ministers and officials to look keenly at what they are trying to do, asked several questions. First, he asked me to compare the criteria that we apply in Northern Ireland with the criteria that are applied in England and Wales. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, I set out the criteria that we apply in a parliamentary answer to a
  866
  question from him on 27 February 1985. The exact scales of listings in Scotland and Northern Ireland are slightly different from those which apply in England and Wales, but, broadly speaking, we are applying the same criteria as are applied in England, Wales and Scotland.
  I am afraid that I do not have the precise number of A and B-plus churches in Scotland. It was a perfectly fair question, and I should have come armed with an answer to it. I shall provide the hon. Member for Londonderry, East with an answer as soon as possible. However. I repeat that on a rule of thumb basis our understanding was that we were giving to churches in the Province as reasonable a deal as was being given to churches in Scotland, where at least some of the same problems occur.
  The hon. Member also asked me about the existing ecclesiastical exemption. He has referred on previous occasions to the House of Lords judgment in 1975, in the case of the trustees of Howard United Reform Church in Bedfordshire, that a church that was about to be demolished could not be considered to be in ecclesiastical use. This point was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker). Following that judgment, it has been accepted that no exemption from listed building control could be enjoyed by any church where total demolition was involved. It was that judgment, among other matters, which provoked the interest which led to the issue of discussion documents in England, Wales and Scotland. The discussion document was issued in January 1984 in England and Wales and comments were received by July 1984. A similar document was issued in January 1984 in Scotland, and comments were received by March 1985. Comments on the two documents are being considered by my right hon. and hon. Friends and we shall keep in close contact with them while they consider them. We shall want to take account of the decisions that they reach on Great Britain, but I repeat that I do not feel that our hands ought to be bound by whatever decision is reached for Great Britain, although it will be relevant to Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East also asked about the percentage of Northern Ireland churches that had been listed. I cannot provide him with an answer to that question. The listing process in Northern Ireland is not, alas, yet complete, so it is not possible to say how many churches will eventually be rejected. I hope that the increase in the number of staff will mean that the listing process can be completed more rapidly. I regret that there is a backlog and I hope that it will be cleared as quickly as possible. It relates not only to churches but to all other buildings.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, North referred to a particular case which he has followed with his customary diligence. He has quite properly chased both me and my predecessor up hill and down dale over it. The problem in that case does not arise just because we are referring to a church. The various planning and listed building problems would relate equally to any type of building. However, we are prepared to review the listing of the building in question and examine whether it can reasonably be given a higher classification, and whether it will qualify for grant. I accept that that does not satisfy all the arguments that the hon. Gentleman put forward, but I hope that he will take it as an earnest of our concern.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, North referred to a point that had been made by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth about when the order would come into force.

  867
  order, with the exception of articles 4 and 6(a), will come into force two months from the day on which it is made, and I hope that we shall be able to start spending money this year under the terms of the order if it passes through both Houses.
  I have attempted, within those funds for which I answer in this House, to ensure that during this financial year, we shall have funds that we can start to use. The problem, given how late in the year we shall be starting, will be to spend all of the £150,000 in this financial year. Nothing would please me more than to be able to make substantial progress in spending that money and, before the end of the financial year, to know clearly that we would not have enough. However, because of the time of year at which we shall be starting, I doubt whether we shall find ourselves faced with that problem.
  I note what was said about ecclesiastical representation on the sub-committee of the Historic Buildings Council. What we need on that committee, as on the council and on other advisory bodies in the environmental sphere, is vigorous and independent-minded expertise, and I accept that we may be able to secure that expertise from among those who are active leaders of Churches as well as from churchgoers. If so, we will all be the beneficiaries. The important point is to acquire the expertise, from wherever it comes.
  I have attempted to deal with the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members in this interesting debate. I hope that the arguments that I have put have been relatively convincing; convincing enough to ensure that the order is made and that, as a consequence, churches in Northern Ireland can benefit from its provisions, albeit not on the scale that hon. Members understandably would wish.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Historic Churches (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.

  Soccer Violence
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
  11.58 pm
  Mr. Robert Parry: I am sad to have to raise on the Adjournment the question of soccer violence. Now that the dust has settled and temperatures have dropped after the tragic European cup final between Juventus and Liverpool, perhaps we can take a cooler look at the causes of the disaster.
  Let me, at the outset, make my position clear about the terrible rise of soccer violence and state unequivocally my condemnation of hooliganism at football games or anywhere else. I speak not as a Liverpool supporter but as a lifelong Evertonian. Like a true sportsman, I have for many years marvelled at and envied Liverpool's magnificent record in domestic and European football and its unique record of 22 successive years in European competition. In none of those years were Liverpool fans involved in any violence on opponents' grounds. On 1 March 1984, following violence at the France-England international, I told the Minister that I was concerned about football hooliganism at home and abroad and referred to the examples set by Liverpool and Everton football supporters over the years. The Minister replied:
  "I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and endorse his statement I am confident that on 25 March the two great clubs from that great city will continue with their excellent behaviour." — [Official Report, 1 March 1984; Vol. 55, c. 396.]
  That was prior to the Milk Cup final, when Liverpool played Everton.
  On 4 April 1984, following a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) — he is the chairman of the all-party football committee—I congratulated both Liverpool and Everton supporters on their outstanding behaviour at the two finals. I said that I wished that Everton would reach Wembley in the FA Cup. The Minister replied:
  "I must refrain from partiality, but I pay the highest tribute to the football supporters and spectators from both clubs, not only for their exemplary behaviour in recent weeks, but for their continuing good behaviour over many years." — [Official Report, 4 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. 955.]
  In view of those replies, one must now ask, how did this great Liverpool reputation get trampled in the dust at the Brussels stadium? The name of Liverpool football club and its supporters, the name of our great city and its citizens were knocked by the media hastily in days of tension following the tragedy.
  UEFA's decision to ban English teams from competing in European competitions was a panic decision, but FIFA's decision to ban all English teams from playing in foreign countries was a shattering blow to most sane football fans, including the Football League. I understand that the chairman of the Football League, Mr. Jack Dunnett—a former Member of Parliament—has made his feelings clear. The Football Association has also let its feelings be known.
  I am not speaking as a Johnny-come-lately football supporter or a know-all, like some of the commentators who made wild statements following the tragedy. I played amateur football for many years in the Liverpool boys' association league, the Catholic men's society football league and the Liverpool and district Sunday football

  869
  league. When I was 17 I played in trials for the Everton football club. I have been a lifelong Everton supporter and have a great love for the game.
  I had the misfortune to fracture my right ankle and break my nose when playing for my local team of Holy Cross. I am therefore aware of football violence in the field, not off the field. For the past 14 years I have acted as president of the Liverpool and district Sunday football league—the biggest league in Europe.
  Now that temperatures have cooled, UEFA and FIFA should think again and allow innocent teams to compete in European competition. A small team like Norwich City, which has been relegated from the first division of the Football League but which would have had its first taste of European football, should not be penalised or its fans prevented from seeing their team play in Europe.
  A team like Everton, which won the first division championship by a record number of points, should not be banned from the champions' cup. We all recall that Everton played in Rotterdam only two weeks before the Brussels disaster, and 20,000 Everton fans attended the game. The Dutch police made it quite clear that they felt that the Everton fans were the best supporters they had ever seen. Everton football club went to Wembley not once or twice but four times last year, and there was no trouble whatever among Everton fans at any of those games. Therefore, a team such as Everton and its fans should not be penalised.
  I believe that appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that there is never again a disaster such as the one in Brussels, and I hope that the Government will give deep consideration to the question of sensible measures to prevent such a disaster.
  I have given my deepest condolences and sympathy to the families of the Italians who were killed. I also offer condolences on behalf of scores of thousands of my constituents and Liverpool citizens who grieve deeply for the people of Turin. Recently there were services at the Roman Catholic cathedral and the Anglican cathedral in Liverpool. Both those great cathedrals were full to overflowing. At the latter service the Italian ambassador and the Secretary of State for the Environment were present, together with other people showing their deep distress at the Brussels disaster.
  I am greatly concerned — as are many of my hon. Friends — about the large number of National Front supporters who were present at the game. I have here a book called "Hooligans Abroad". It is a first-class book and I urge the Minister to read it. On the front cover it shows a Fascist thug with a Union Jack painted on his face. Anyone who has watched football on television in recent years will have seen those people, in different parts of the country, carrying Union Jacks with them, sometimes with Union Jacks tied round their necks, and shouting racist slogans from the terraces at coloured footballers. I am sure that those people played a part in the Brussels disaster.
  In a ground with 60,000 people the tensions are very high. It does not take many people to get others excited. Unfortunately, when flags are flying all over the ground, people tend to become nationalistic or patriotic. The chants and the shouts then tend to bring out the baser instincts of ordinary, decent football supporters.
  I believe that the Brussels stadium was in a very bad and dangerous condition. There should be a full investigation into it. I hope that the Government will take a keen interest in the state of the ground. Indeed, the chief
  870
  fire officer of the London fire brigade has made it clear in a recent report that the ground was not suitable for staging the match and would not have been licensed even for a friendly game in England, let alone a cup final between teams from two different countries.
  I should like to read the conclusion of the report, which was given by a professionally qualified person with no axe to grind. It says:
  "The stadium is 50 years old and all the installations (in section Z)"—
  that is where the trouble arose—
  "appear to be of the same age. There is no evidence of any recent repairs to the barriers, walls, fences or terraces. The general impression is that of long-term neglect, with the exception perhaps of the pitch perimeter fence which appears to be fairly new. Under our legislation the stadium would not have been allowed to operate. It appears that while the attack by Liverpool supporters caused the panic and the resulting stampede, the main direct cause of the deaths was the collapse of the safety beirriers near the bottom of the terraces."
  I make a plea to the media to realise that the majority of Liverpool supporters are decent people. Anybody who knows the Liverpudlians or the Scousers knows that they are warm-hearted, good people with a sense of humour. We feel this tragedy, and I hope that we shall not be blamed as animals; in fact, I would not even call some of the thugs animals, because that would be an insult to animals.
  I hope that the Government will seriously consider supporting the football league and football associations in appealing against the hasty ban by FIFA and especially UEFA in view of the fact that there appear to be other factors involved in the terrible disaster. It is wrong that English football should be isolated from the world football stage, and that we should be considered as the football lepers of the world. I hope that in the near future we shall see English football taking its rightful place in Europe, that both we in England and UEFA have learnt from this terrible tragedy, and that in future all major matches will be played on first-class grounds, which are examined and inspected regularly and policed by professional policemen who are properly equipped and have experience in dealing with riots and big crowds. 1 hope that the Minister will not speak from a prepared brief but will answer my points.
  12.11am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) is to be warmly congratulated on raising this issue. I am sure that hon. Members will wish me to refer to the fact that the hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) are present, showing the concern of Liverpool Members of Parliament on this sad occasion.
  We are discussing an event the like of which no one would have foreseen. It is of such a scale and magnitude that during its aftermath many decisive measures must be taken and much thought must be given to restoring the position both nationally and internationally.
  I fully respect the view of the hon. Member for Riverside that certain actions taken are detrimental to the standing of English football and to the prospects for English clubs. However, in all seriousness, the scale of the event in Brussels requires action to be taken on a scale which will impose some penalty on English football clubs so that we may put our house in order. That is what the UEFA and FIFA bans are about.

  871
  I shall now deal with certain constructive measures. First, the Belgian Government have appointed an inquiry into events at the Heysel stadium on that ghastly evening. A parliamentary commission of inquiry consisting of nine members of the chamber of deputies has been set up to investigate the causes and circumstances of the disaster and the lessons to be learnt from it. The House will be interested to know that it is intended that it should report by 6 July. The commission includes deputies from the four Government parties in Belgium and from the three biggest Opposition parties. It will therefore be a commission of broad representation, as is suitable for such an investigation.
  The House will also be aware that UEFA is conducted an inquiry into the events, and will recognise that we cannot prejudge its outcome. There is no question, however—the hon. Gentleman was fair enough to make his opinion clear on this—but that English supporters played a significant part in the tragic events. Immediately after the scenes in Brussels the United Kingdom Government offered the fullest condolences to the bereaved relatives of those who tragically died and the fullest assistance in the aftermath. The hon. Gentleman will realise that I have responsibility for the police, and the police in Kent offered the Belgians any assistance that they required. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Merseyside police were subsequently in touch with the Belgian police to offer any assistance required in their investigation. Both the Merseyside and Metropolitan police forces are examining film of the riot to ascertain whether they can identify any of the troublemakers. A number of people have so far been positively identified on the film, and they will be interviewed by police officers.
  Mr. Parry: I am glad to hear that the Metropolitan police are involved in the investigation. In tonight's edition of the Liverpool Echo there is a full supplement on the disaster in Brussels, based on the evidence of those who were there. I shall give the Minister a copy at the end of the debate. There are clear signs that Chelsea, Arsenal and other London supporters were involved. It seems that they had strong London accents and that they were obviously supporters of the National Front. These hooligans must be eradicated from English football.
  Mr. Shaw: Many allegations have been made about the presence at the match of those not connected with Liverpool football club or its bona fide supporters. I assure the hon. Gentleman that any evidence that can be provided —I shall be grateful for a copy of the Liverpool Echo to which he has referred—will be used as source material to secure, if at all possible, the positive identification of those responsible and the organisations to which they belong. The hon. Gentleman will understand that this will require considerable assessment, as well as police inquiries, and that I cannot prejudge that. However, that assessment must be followed up.
  Mr. David Alton: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene and to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) for initiating the debate. Did the Merseyside police give any advice to the Belgian authorities before the match was played? If it was given, what notice was taken of it? Can the Minister say anything about the availability of alcohol,
  872
  especially on the duty-free ferries, on the way to the match and the condition of some of the supporters when they entered the Huysel stadium?
  Mr. Shaw: I can confirm that there we visits by police officers from Brussels to the Merseyside police at, I believe, the invitation of the Merseyside police force, to discuss the latter's experience and knowledge of policing football crowds. I cannot answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question on the availability of alcohol. He will appreciate that what goes on in a foreign country or outside territorial waters is different from that which occurs in the United Kingdom. I accept the relevance that the hon. Gentleman places upon alcohol in terms of football hooliganism.
  Film in addition to that which has been seen already is being sent to the Merseyside policy by the Belgian authorities and Belgian police officers are expected to visit Merseyside police shortly, possibly even this week, in an attempt to identify those involved. I assure the hon. Member for Riverside and his colleagues who are present that every possible step is being taken by the police to provide the assistance that those from Merseyside and elsewhere would wish to see in the aftermath of the scenes in Brussels. Anyone who has evidence that the National Front or any other organisation was involved in organising the violence in Brussels should make it available to the police, who will consider it carefully. That would be the most appropriate step for individuals to take.
  Hon. Members will be aware that, in the aftermath of this tragic event, the Government have seen fit to take certain immediate steps, a list of which bears repetition. We recognise that, as a consequence of this event, firm action to deal with hooliganism has been taken on various fronts, by the Government, the police and the courts, the Football authorities and the football clubs to control this cancer that is affecting the game.
  Mr. Parry: Does the Minister accept that it is wrong for British football to be completely isolated? Is there any way to ensure that at future European cup games, no fans from here can go to the other country, so that the other team can have its supporters in both legs of the game? There must be some other way than isolating English football from the rest of the world, and allowing ourselves to be treated as football lepers.
  Mr. Shaw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's conviction, but there is no way in which the English football crowds, or the English football clubs, can assume that, in the aftermath of what has occurred, the bans imposed by UEFA or FIFA are either unexpected or unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman must note that the football authorities have recognised that these bans are virtually inevitable and have accepted them in the knowledge that the condemnation of international football organisations is a verdict passed on the quality of the English game and its supporters, to enable the English football clubs in time to justify their re-admission to the full competition abroad. This is a severe penalty, but it is a penalty in the light of severe circumstances, which every hon. Member fully understands.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: We accept the serious nature of what happened in Brussels, and no one can condone the action of those responsible for the tragedy. The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the

  873
  Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), because there is now an opportunity for cooler minds to look at the position. My hon. Friend is saying that many people in the city of Liverpool, its clubs and supporters, believe that the problem of hooliganism, which is a decade or more old, has been passed on to the city. The city is suffering a great deal as a consequence of accepting the guilt for something that, as the Minister will know, is not a problem of yesterday or last week, but of two decades—we have seen the thing growing. I hope that everything will be done to contact those who were at the stadium, to ensure that the truth of the tragic circumstances there comes out, and that the guilt that belongs to football as a whole will not be placed wholly on the shoulders of Liverpool.
  Mr. Shaw: I respect the way in which the hon. Gentleman has made that point. I can assure him that we are concerned with a cancer that has afflicted football in this country for far too long. I amplify that by saying that in the Metropolitan police district alone, in the 1984–85 season, some 1,600 people were arrested either inside or in the vicinity of grounds, and a further 1,800 persons were ejected for breach of the ground regulations. Therefore, 3,400 people in the Metropolitan police district alone were in one year involved in hooliganism in football grounds.
  I accept that we are not dealing exclusively with the Liverpool clubs, or any individual club, but with a range of increasing violence all over the country year in and year out. Hon. Members present recognise that the problems have occurred with Birmingham, Luton, Millwall, Chelsea and Leeds. With this disaster, the problem has reached such a level that we can no longer delay purging the problem from the football system. We therefore have to take action.
  The Government's action is on many fronts. We must remember the tragedy of the Bradford fire when considering stadiums and safety. A ban on alcohol is shortly to be introduced through legislation. All grounds
  874
  in the third and fourth divisions are to be designated in terms of safety. There are extensive police inquiries here, in Belgium and in UEFA into what happened at the Heysel stadium. Discussions with the football authorities are in train. They will resume tomorrow when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will try to encourage them to find means, through membership schemes and providing proper access, to isolate supporters who are clearly not part of the normal supporting activity of the game.
  As for the operation of the law, we must ensure that hooligans are identified and brought to justice. The House will be aware that telecine equipment being provided through the generosity of the Football Trust to about 30 clubs will help to control crowds. Much investment must be made in the security and safety of grounds. Separation of fans is important, and alcohol on transport must ve eliminated so that fans arrive in safety and sobriety and so that arrangements in grounds can be more effective.
  There must be progress on all those fronts to restore normality to the game. Football is a national game and should command a substantial family audience. We want to make it once again a normal event to which people can go in perfect safety with their children. We must ensure that there is a national will to do what I have described.
  In the wake of the disaster at Bradford, the Government initiated a judicial inquiry under Mr. Justice Popplewell which, among other things, will have terms of reference broad enough to take evidence about the Brussels event. The primary purpose of the inquiry is to see whether the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 is up to the standards that are now required to deal with the problems that have beset the game. I accept entirely the need for a broad assessment of changes to the game, so that we can—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Video Works (Classification Authority)
  Video Works (Classification Authority)
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Mr. Parvaiz Khan
  Mr. Parvaiz Khan
  Local Government (Consultation)
  Local Government (Consultation)
  Police National Computer
  Police National Computer
  Police Complaints Commissioner
  Police Complaints Commissioner
  Prison Statistics
  Prison Statistics
  Syrian Embassy (Bomb Incident)
  Syrian Embassy (Bomb Incident)
  Prison Hospitals (Complaints Procedure)
  Prison Hospitals (Complaints Procedure)
  Leeds Prison
  Leeds Prison
  Prisoners (Diet)
  Prisoners (Diet)
  Drug Addicts
  Drug Addicts
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Overseas Development Administration (Document Leaks)
  Overseas Development Administration (Document Leaks)
PRIME MINISTER
  EC (Budgetary Control)
  EC (Budgetary Control)
  Soviet Jewry
  Soviet Jewry
  Falkland Islands (Fishing)
  Falkland Islands (Fishing)
  Engagements
  Engagements
  King Hussein of Jordan (Meeting)
  King Hussein of Jordan (Meeting)
WALES
  Dental Technicians
  Dental Technicians
  Stray and Killer Dogs
  Stray and Killer Dogs
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Textile and Clothing Industry
  Textile and Clothing Industry
  Burdens on Business
  Burdens on Business
  Postage Stamps
  Postage Stamps
  Mr. Bill Cockburn
  Mr. Bill Cockburn
  Nationalised Industries (Directors)
  Nationalised Industries (Directors)
  Post Office
  Post Office
  Samanala Wewa (Dam)
  Samanala Wewa (Dam)
  Manufactures (Exports)
  Manufactures (Exports)
  Fairey Engineering Ltd.
  Fairey Engineering Ltd.
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Local Government (Consultation)
  Local Government (Consultation)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Drugs Smuggling
  Drugs Smuggling
  Bank of England Printing Works, Loughton
  Bank of England Printing Works, Loughton
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Industrial Democracy
  Industrial Democracy
  Employment Prospects
  Employment Prospects
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  Young Persons (Wages)
  Young Persons (Wages)
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Hosiery and Knitwear Industry
  Hosiery and Knitwear Industry
  Political Levy
  Political Levy
  Community Industry Scheme
  Community Industry Scheme
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Wages Statistics
  Wages Statistics
  Trade Unions (Ballots)
  Trade Unions (Ballots)
  Wages (Underpayment)
  Wages (Underpayment)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  17-year-olds (Wages)
  17-year-olds (Wages)
  Trade Unions (Executive Members)
  Trade Unions (Executive Members)
  Professional and Executive Recruitment
  Professional and Executive Recruitment
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Skillcentre Network
  Skillcentre Network
  Wages Inspectorate
  Wages Inspectorate
  Youth Wages
  Youth Wages
  Part-time Workers
  Part-time Workers
  Landor Cartons (Dismissals)
  Landor Cartons (Dismissals)
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Health and Safety Commission
  Health and Safety Commission
  Part-time Employment
  Part-time Employment
  Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Industry
  Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Industry
  Government Communications Headquarters
  Government Communications Headquarters
  Employment Rehabilitation Centres
  Employment Rehabilitation Centres
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Terrace Pavilion
  Terrace Pavilion
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Samanala Wewa Dam
  Samanala Wewa Dam
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Chilean War and Air Colleges
  Chilean War and Air Colleges
  Chile (Military Exports)
  Chile (Military Exports)
  United States Legislation (Extraterritoriality)
  United States Legislation (Extraterritoriality)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  "Victims Against Terrorism" (South Africa)
  "Victims Against Terrorism" (South Africa)
  United States Goods (Economic Boycott)
  United States Goods (Economic Boycott)
  Non-proliferation Treaty (Libya)
  Non-proliferation Treaty (Libya)
  Chile
  Chile
ENERGY
  Coal Mining (Subsidence)
  Coal Mining (Subsidence)
ENVIRONMENT
  Docklands (Job Creation)
  Docklands (Job Creation)
  Rates (Unemployment)
  Rates (Unemployment)
  Cumbria (Rights of Way)
  Cumbria (Rights of Way)
  Springfields Nuclear Fuel Factory (Leakage)
  Springfields Nuclear Fuel Factory (Leakage)
  Consultative Council on Local Government Finance
  Consultative Council on Local Government Finance
  Norman Shaw South (Contaminated Water)
  Norman Shaw South (Contaminated Water)
  Building Regulations
  Building Regulations
  Berwick Rangers Football Club
  Berwick Rangers Football Club
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Grant-related Expenditure Assessments
  Grant-related Expenditure Assessments
  Household Survey
  Household Survey
  Geese (Quarry List)
  Geese (Quarry List)
TRANSPORT
  Motor Insurance
  Motor Insurance
  Coaches (London)
  Coaches (London)
  British Airports Authority (Privatisation)
  British Airports Authority (Privatisation)
SCOTLAND
  Broadleaved Woodlands
  Broadleaved Woodlands
  Rates
  Rates
  Community Programme (Dundee)
  Community Programme (Dundee)
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Awards
  Student Awards
  United States of America (Conference Restrictions)
  United States of America (Conference Restrictions)
  Mathematics and Science
  Mathematics and Science
  National School System
  National School System
  Pre-vocational Instruction
  Pre-vocational Instruction
  Studies (Co-ordination)
  Studies (Co-ordination)
  School Curriculum
  School Curriculum
  Education Committees
  Education Committees
  School Meals
  School Meals
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sugar Beet (Rhizomania)
  Sugar Beet (Rhizomania)
  Land Drainage Committees
  Land Drainage Committees
  Poultrymeat Imports
  Poultrymeat Imports
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Support Costs
  Support Costs
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
DEFENCE
  ARWEN 37
  ARWEN 37
  Woolwich Arsenal (Bird Poison)
  Woolwich Arsenal (Bird Poison)
  Chile
  Chile
  Service Hospitals (Complaints Procedure)
  Service Hospitals (Complaints Procedure)
  Prime Contractors
  Prime Contractors
  Avimo Ltd.
  Avimo Ltd.
  Euryalus and Otter (Refits)
  Euryalus and Otter (Refits)
  RAF Aircraft (Chilean Airfields)
  RAF Aircraft (Chilean Airfields)
  Exercise Brave Defender
  Exercise Brave Defender
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Grants and Allowances
  Grants and Allowances
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  State Pensions
  State Pensions
  Bus and Rail Services
  Bus and Rail Services
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Gas Industry
  Gas Industry
  Cold Storage
  Cold Storage
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Dentures
  Dentures
  Rubella
  Rubella
  Board and Lodging Payments
  Board and Lodging Payments
  Pregnancy (NHS Testing and Counselling)
  Pregnancy (NHS Testing and Counselling)
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Diabetics
  Diabetics
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Breast Cancer
  Breast Cancer
  Occupational Therapists
  Occupational Therapists
  Infertility and Abortion (Clinics)
  Infertility and Abortion (Clinics)
  Social Security Review
  Social Security Review
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Complaints Procedures
  Complaints Procedures
  NHS (Pay Reviews)
  NHS (Pay Reviews)
  Mr. W. H. Rose (Member's Correspondence)
  Mr. W. H. Rose (Member's Correspondence)
  Childbirth (Statistics)
  Childbirth (Statistics)

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

Lord Sanderson of Bowden
Sir Charles Russell Sanderson, Knight, having been created Baron Sanderson of Bowden, of Melrose in the District of Ettrick and Lauderdale, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Ingrow and the Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.

Women: UN Conference and Convention
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: 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 is being made towards ratification of the United Nations convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, as I told the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on 4th June, we are still considering the provisions of the convention in the light of domestic legislation. We hope to be in a position to announce a decision soon.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell me whether the signing of the convention is likely to take place before the Nairobi Conference in July? Also, does she agree that it would give very great strength to the British delegation if the convention were so signed, even if it had reservations attached to it?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have of course signed. The decision now is one for ratification. But I can perhaps say to the noble Baroness that we certainly hope to be able to announce a decision on ratification in advance of the conference in Nairobi which will be held from 15th to 26th July.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the excellent work that has been done in preparation for the world conference by nongovernmental women's organisations: for example, the 12 topic papers which have been produced in England, the comprehensive report by the Scottish Women's Joint Action Committee and the Wales Assembly for Women? Is she further aware that in all those papers there is a firm view expressed that the convention should be ratified?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to pay a very warm tribute to the important and impressive contribution made by non-governmental organizations and women's
1124
organisations towards the conference. The Government have taken a range of initiatives during the decade which contribute to what we see as the most important objectives of the decade; namely, eliminating discrimination and promoting equal opportunities for women. But we recognise the important work that has been done by all the organisations which the noble Baroness has identified, and I note her final point.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we warmly welcome the fact that ratification is to take place soon. However, it is well known that certain reservations, which have already been referred to, and declarations have been made by Her Majesty's Government. Can the noble Baroness give the House some indication what the reservations were, how seriously the Government regard them and what declarations were made as well?
Baroness Young: My Lords, if I may just clarify a point, if we decided to ratify the convention we would enter a number of reservations. They are still of course under discussions so I cannot go into all the details. But they would cover such areas as succession to the throne and hereditary titles, the right of education authorities to determine curricula and text books, as they do at present, and the affairs of religious ministries. In fact, a number of other countries, including some of our European Community partners, have entered reservations upon ratification.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is the case that 56 governments have ratified this convention? Does she remember that in a Written Answer to a Question asked by me she has stated that the Government are considering ratifying it, but are concerned whether ratification would not be in accordance with certain domestic policies? I may not have heard, but can she state what those contradictions may be?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the position is that 66 countries have now ratified the convention; but as I explained in answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in deciding whether or not we should ratify the convention we are considering a number of reservations covering some of areas that I have enumerated in my earlier response.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of the great importance of the ratification of the United Nations Convention to a great many women who have worked extremely hard, often on a voluntary basis, for the United Nations Decade and who feel that it should happen before then as evidence of the Government's commitment to the improvement of the position of women in society?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. Again, I am very glad to pay tribute to the immense amount of work that has been done by a great many women's organisations towards the preparation of the Nairobi Conference. We do appreciate the widespread concern among women's groups and organisations that the United Kingdom should ratify this convention.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, what is the justification for the Government's insistence on excluding the Peerage Act? Why are the Government determined to discriminate against the issue of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House?
Baroness Young: My Lords, It would not be appropriate for me at this time to go into the detail of what might be the Government's reservations were we to ratify the convention.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, is one of the reservations the fact that we still have dependent territories?
Baroness Young: My Lords, one of the considerations upon ratification would be consultation with our dependent territories.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her noble colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in answering a Question of mine on 20th May last said that the Government were awaiting the European Court ruling before deciding on their attitude towards the removal of discrimination against women under the immigration rules? As the European Court has given its verdict, can she now say whether the discrimination against women under our present immigration rules is one of the reservations that the Government are considering before they sign this United Nations Convention?
Baroness Young: My Lords, once again the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is widening the Question. If he would like to put down a specific question on that particular point, I should of course be happy to try to answer it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there are very few institutions in this country in which there is an equality of opportunity as great as that in your Lordships' House?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I would be the first to support the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in what she says.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that from the point of view of timing the most important thing is that ratification should take place in time for this country's delegation to take part in the working groups at Nairobi, as access to the meeting itself is available to countries which have not ratified? Can she give us any further hope that such ratification will take place in time for this participation in the working groups?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. As I indicated in answer to an earlier question, we hope to be able to announce a decision on ratification in advance of the conference.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that the moral status of the British delegation which she will lead will be very much diminished if this convention is not ratified before the conference takes place?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. I note what the noble Baroness says.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, why do the Government make a reservation in the case of succession to the Throne, where there is a considerable discrimination against women at the present time? Is it not time that we changed our practice to allow the eldest child to succeed?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be very well aware, this whole matter is an enormous question. It would not be appropriate for me to discuss at this stage the details of what might go into a reservation.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness keep in mind that if all forms of discrimination against women are abolished, all forms of discrimination in favour of women will also be abolished, and that this may not be altogether to their liking?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lady is aware—indeed, as I think all noble Baronesses in this House will be aware—things do not always work out precisely as you expect.

Oysters: Effect of Antifouling Paint
2.58 p.m.
Lord Rodney: 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 on the basis of what tests, carried out over what period of time, they have concluded that the inclusion of triorgano tin in antifouling paint is a serious risk to the culture of oysters.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, tests have been carried out in the laboratory and in affected estuaries over the past two-and-a-half years. These show conclusively that both the Pacific and the native oyster suffer harm from exposure to tri-butyl tin from antifouling paints which use this compound as a biocidal agent. There is also ample evidence of harm to many other marine organisms.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that some 10,000 inshore fishing boats and work boats will be affected by this ban? In view of the in-depth tests that are at present being carried out by the Royal Yachting Association and the paint manufacturers, may I ask him to speak to his honourable friend to see whether this ban could be postponed until the results of these tests are finalised?
Lord Belstead; My Lords, the Government do indeed bear in mind the interests of inshore fishing as well as of yachting. However, I think it is fair to make the point that tests have been undertaken for well over two years and have shown conclusively that TBT paint affects not only oysters but other marine species, including those important to the marine food chain.

1127
In answer to my noble friend's second question, I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will consider the question of timing this matter with care, as indeed he will consider all other responses which have been received in answer to the consultation paper.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in seeking to preserve and protect the marine and aquatic environment from TBT or any one of the 129 substances listed by the EC directive as being particularly dangerous, he will have widespread support not only in this House but outside it as well? May the House be informed of the work being done to reassure paint makers and users that it is possible to satisfy their imperatives without poisoning the ocean and the marine life that lives therein?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, new types of paint have recently become available which rely on a totally different strategy. Instead of releasing a toxic substance they present a slippery surface on which organisms cannot settle.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government have considered the idea of instead of placing a harsh, total ban on TBT-based paints as is being suggested at present, of allowing only those paints which he has just mentioned, with a lower rate of leaching of tri-organo tin compound, which I suggested to the Department of the Environment in my letter of 10th May?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lady Platt is referring to co-polymer paints, which are designed to release TBT at a more steady rate than traditional paints. I understand these are available at the present time. I am told that the difficulty is that such paints do not stop harmful concentrations of TBT building up in nearby waters. This again is a matter which obviously must be examined among the many replies which have been sent in for the consultation paper.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that blanket banning of the use of this antifouling paint by many thousands of yachtsmen on what appears to be insufficient evidence is manifestly unfair, when some of the large tankers at present laid up in our southern ports have on their bottoms the equivalent of about 12,000 times the amount of antifouling paint carried on the bottom of a single yacht?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point. Our primary concern is with small craft continuously moored in estuaries and harbours. We believe that is where the danger lies. I believe the House would wish to be aware that research has shown that less than one teaspoonful of tin-based paint in 1 million gallons of water is harmful to a wide range of marine organisms.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the order he proposes to make will be subject to a statutory order, which can be prayed against by this House? Will he be kind enough to
1128
accept from me that all those who have in mind the interests of the owners of scores of thousands of small working and pleasure boats will fight the proposal with all the might and main that we can?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I be clear in my answer to my noble friend? At the moment we are at the stage of a consultation paper sent out by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, which, nonetheless, makes definite proposals which have been the subject of questions and answers for the past few minutes. I repeat to my noble friend the undertaking which I have already given in this exchange: I know that all the views, including that of my noble friend Lord Harvington, will be taken seriously into account in considering the replies to the consultation paper.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to take note of the fact that any further delay through tests of a substance having slow release properties will probably take so long to reach a conclusion that the damage done to the smaller organisms in estuaries will be almost irreparable? Does my noble friend know that the damage to oysters which has been noticed is merely indicative of the death caused to many smaller organisms which are essential to estuarial life?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is no question in the Government's mind but that the final point my noble friend made is right, and that oysters are only part of the problem. A large number of other marine species are threatened, including those which are important to the marine food chain.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House what has been the French experience, what action the French have taken, and whether we believe that their research is relevant to the situation in this country?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, about three years ago the French introduced controls on TBT paint used on boats. My advice is that there has been a marked recovery in oyster production in France.

Timber Imports: Pest Controls
3.5 p.m.
Lord Sandys: 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 are satisfied that regular checks are being made on cargoes of timber and associated dunnage or ballast to prevent outbreaks of disease among our forests and woodlands similar to elm disease in 1972.
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that brief, emphatic and helpful reply. Can he tell the House what controls are available to the Government and what other means there are of controlling pests entering this country in timber imports?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the main statutory control is under the Import and Export of Wood and Bark (Health) (Great Britain) Order 1980, as amended, which was made by the Forestry Commissioners under powers contained in the Plant Health Act 1967. This is also backed up by further powers under the Tree Pests (Great Britain) Order 1980, which enables the commission to take immediate action. Further controls are undertaken by the Forestry Commission by the setting up of pheromone-baited insect traps at major ports, certain sawmills in the vicinity, and other locations where wood is stored for long periods.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we all know the difficulties which the Forestry Commission has in making checks, because 90 per cent. of our wood and wood products come from abroad. But such checks are essential because none of us wants to see something like Dutch elm disease spreading to this country. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether the dunnage used to pack wood on ships is being checked as carefully as it should he. This is not taken away from the ports, and those responsible are duty bound to burn it or otherwise dispose of it properly. In order to save the expense of doing that, dunnage is often taken back out to sea and thrown overboard, and it is then washed ashore. Does the noble Earl know whether or not that aspect is being checked as carefully as it should be? I know that there were great difficulties about that at one time.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that aspect has been checked carefully. Bearing in mind the noble Lord's concern, however, I shall raise the matter again with the department.

Capital Tax: "In Lieu" System
3.7 p.m.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: 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 are now in a position to make a statement regarding the reform of the "in lieu" system of discharging capital tax liabilities in kind following the assurance given by the Earl of Gowrie to the House on 24th April (col. 1209).
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, consideration of the "in lieu" arrangements is under way as a matter of urgency, and my noble friend the Minister for the Arts will of course inform the House of the outcome at the earliest possible date.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is great concern among the museums and the art world about the need for a decision on this question as a matter of urgency? Can he give an assurance that a decision will be taken within the next four weeks?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on 16th May, in answer to a supplementary question asked by the
1130
noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I gave assurances that an urgent review of the AIL arrangements is in hand. This involves the Treasury, the Inland Revenue and the departments responsible for the heritage. My noble friend the Minister for the Arts will announce the outcome by the Summer Recess.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that works of art are being lost to the nation through this arbitrary ceiling? Will the Government, in the course of their discussions, consider the French dation system whereby works of art are accepted by the nation without any necessary compensatory figure from the Vote? The French museums have been greatly enriched as a consequence.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is true to say that with the rapid increase in the value of works of art and property in recent years not all AIL offers halve been accepted. As far as concerns the detailed point which the noble Lord made, about the French provisions, I undertake that my noble friend will of course consider them.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that until a decision has been made, no objects which are at present being offered "in lieu" will be turned down?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the best will in the world I do not think that I can give the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that assurance; but I can confirm that money is still available this year for acceptance in lieu provisions.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister not agree that last minute rescue operations of the kind which we have seen recently and which are certainly very acceptable when they occur are, nevertheless, not the best way of dealing with a problem which is continuous and certainly, except in respect of timing, largely predictable?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think I can agree with the noble Lord that in matters of timing it is predictable. There is a very great divergence in the amounts of money that are needed at any particular time.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that this is only a notional amount? If the amounts were real money and not notional money the state would be accepting it twice over; both the value and the work of art.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I disagree that this is a notional amount. Obviously if property is accepted for tax purposes, as opposed to revenue, this is revenue forgone.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, the French seem to get on very well. Will the noble Lord consider injecting a little Gallic clarity into the Anglo-Saxon fog at the Treasury?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have already given the noble Lord an answer on the French provisions,

1131
which is that my noble friend the Minister for the Arts will consider the point that the noble Lord has made so stringently.

Berkshire Bill [H.L.]
Read a Third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Transport Bill
3.12 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I believe that this is something of an historic occasion. It is rare for the House to have before it a Bill designed to change so fundamentally the basis on which a whole industry has operated for over 50 years. The structure of licensing and control is substantially the same one which has governed the provision of local bus services since the passing of the Road Traffic Act 1930. Within the period of regulation we have seen two distinct phases: for the first 25 years demand for bus travel rose fast. Profits were made, fares were low and subsidy was unknown. By the end of the 1950s that growth had turned into a decline which has lasted into this decade.
Over the past 30 years the proportion of travel accounted for by bus journeys has dropped from 42 per cent. to 8 per cent. There is no doubt as to its chief cause—the popularity of the private car. In the 1960s and 1970s the operators and Government sought to cope with this enormous loss of demand in their different ways. First, operators used the protection of their road service licences to cross-subsidise heavily between their services in an attempt to keep running as wide a network as possible. That was what the system of regulation encouraged them to do, and at a superficial glance it may seem a laudable reaction. But it meant in the long-term that operators were neglecting their market, keeping fares artificially high where demand was buoyant to help less-used services, making bus services less attractive to their best customers and thereby deepening that spiral of decline.
The reaction of governments both after the war, and again in 1968, was to look to a solution in further nationalisation and restructuring to reinforce the local monopolies which the licensing system had created. This was a part of that era of faith in the planned economy whose results have proved to be so damaging. In the past decade alone, fares have gone up by 30 per cent. more than the rise in the cost of living. The costs of public sector operators have risen by between 15 per cent. and 30 per cent. above inflation. Levels of services have been reduced. Across the country bus services have continually been withdrawn. I fear it will sound familiar to many noble Lords if I say that in many areas each year has seen more villages cut off, more communities isolated and fewer services in the early morning and late evening: and all this despite the growth of subsidies to keep socially necessary services in being. I feel sure that noble Lords of all political persuasions would agree that the introduction of subsidies was necessary and must continue to
1132
maintain mobility for those many people who do not have available their own means of transport. But we are not, under the present arrangements, obtaining good value for the money that is being spent. Revenue support to the bus industry has risen alarmingly, from £10 million in 1972 to well over £500 million today. That is a thirteenfold increase in real terms. Yet it seems not to have produced a satisfactory result.
The conviction on which this Bill is based is that there is no need for this decline to continue. Indeed, it would be unacceptable to let that happen. In spite of the visible increase in car ownership to which I have already referred, nearly 40 per cent. of households still do not have access to the car; in many households only one person can have regular use of the family vehicle. Even for people with cars it is still sensible and convenient very often for many of their most important journeys to be undertaken by bus. The demand for buses obviously still exists. Indeed, in broad terms demand is probably at about the same level as it was in the 1930s. So I put it to the House that the question we have to ask ourselves today in considering this Bill is: does the existing system meet the needs of people who want to use buses to travel? The only answer to that question is, no.
Surely we cannot be satisfied with the pattern of decline which I have described. I think the House would be particularly reluctant to suggest that we should leave things as they are when the people who most depend on bus services are the poorer members of society, the elderly and the young. Change is needed if we are to reverse trends which are there for all to see, and to see the industry successfully encouraging more people to use buses. This Bill seeks to make those changes.
It may be helpful to the House if, before I describe the Bill in a little more detail, I say something about the way in which the Government's proposals have been developed. In July last year the Government published the White Paper, Buses, in which it set out proposals for this legislation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State then published seven consultation papers on some of the principal questions raised by the proposals. He and his colleagues in the Department of Transport have met many of the groups representing the users of bus services, operators and local authorities. The proposals have also been the subject of inquiry by the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport: the Government hope to publish their response to that Select Committee's report very shortly so that it will be available to noble Lords during the consideration of the Bill by this House. In the course of the consultation there have naturally been many representations made to the Government, particularly by people in the industry. All of these have been considered in preparing the Bill which—as amended in the other place—is now before this House.
The principle which runs through the whole of this Bill is that the way to provide passengers with better services, more services, and better value for money is to introduce competition into the bus industry. The present system, based on road service licences, gives operators a virtually exclusive right to operate particular services or networks of services. In other words, we have what amount to local monopolies. Clause 1 removes that system of protective licensing.

1133
In the Government's view it is inevitable that in monopolies of this sort the operators and their staff are protected from the normal pressures which force businesses to consider what their customers want, to think of new ways of meeting that demand, and to control costs and operate efficiently. In saying that, I do not criticise the bus drivers or managers who have always dedicated themselves to providing their local service. I only say that the existing system—based on monopoly and restrictions—is not the one designed to meet the changing needs of today's travel market. One of the problems in the bus industry is that under the existing system services which obtained licences many years ago—when the market was much healthier—have been protected from competition. They are not necessarily the right routes today; nor are they necessarily being operated in the best manner.
The first object of this Bill is therefore to see that more operators provide a greater variety of services at competitive prices. That is the key to stemming the flow of passengers away from public transport. Competition is the best way of introducing pressure on the industry's costs, so that more routes become viable, more services can be run, fares can come down and the fare payer and ratepayer both get better value for money.
This is what happened with express coach services, which were opened up to competition by the Transport Act 1980. All of us know that since 1980 there has been a visible increase in the quality and frequency of services between our major towns and cities; that fares have come down; that operators have invested in vehicles with greater comfort and facilities; and that more people are now using the services. The number of passengers using the National Express network increased by 45 per cent. between 1980 and 1983. This is precisely because the services which existed in 1980 became subject to competition. They were forced to think harder about what their customers wanted and to redouble their efforts to meet the demand. I congratulate many operators on the way they responded to that challenge.
The trial areas which were set up under the Transport Act 1980 provide a little evidence of the effects of competition in local services. In three areas—Devon, Norfolk and Hereford—route licensing has already been removed. The most populous of the three areas, Hereford, has indeed shown the characteristic effects of competition—more services, lower fares, more people travelling and better value for subsidy. There have been lessons to be learnt, too. But the passengers in Hereford are in no doubt that they prefer the services which they now have to the ones which existed under the licensing system. They like the fact that there are more services, that fares are lower and that drivers are more obliging. These are the benefits which we want to offer to all bus users.
I should also like to mention one striking example of the scope that exists for developing markets and why the Government are optimistic about the future for local services provided we can supply the right environment. The National Bus Company in Exeter has started a system of minibuses running at high frequencies; and what has the result been? It has been a doubling in the number of passengers. Different solutions will be needed in different places, but they
1134
are more likely to emerge in a competitive environment, when new operators can come forward to provide new services, than they are under the present system where innovation is not encouraged but must be battled for in the traffic courts.
The great change from regulation to competition will not take place overnight. To make a success of the free market we have to tackle the structure of the industry, the dominance of the large public sector operators and the system by which subsidies are paid. We have also to ensure that change does not become an opportunity for lower standards. The remaining clauses of the Bill are all about establishing that framework for fair competition with careful safeguards for the protection of the public.
The first safeguard is provided by Clause 6, which establishes a system of registration of local services. The clause provides that all services must be registered with the traffic commissioner. It also provides that they must be operated in accordance with the details of the route, stopping places and frequency which the operator registers.
Registration has two purposes. First, it provides a means of ensuring that everyone who needs to know about services has the relevant information at their disposal, in particular the local authority, which will have the responsibility for formulating its general policies on transport in the area and providing appropriate subsidies, and other bus operators, so that it is possible for them to see the shape of the market and decide more easily where new services might be welcomed.
Secondly, it commits the operator to running reliably what he has said he will run. If he fails, clause 25 provides the traffic commissioner with new powers to prevent incompetent, unsafe or unreliable operators from running either particular services or any local service at all. There is a further sanction against the unreliable operator in Clause 97, which provides the Secretary of State with power to withhold payments of fuel duty rebate to any operator who is the subject of a determination by the traffic commissioner that local services are not being operated reliably as registered under Clause 6. This is an important sanction. It demonstrates that the Government intend to see the registration system properly enforced.
These sanctions are additional to the quality controls on all bus operators embodied in the existing licensing system. This system has been tried and tested for both the bus and road haulage industries, and already it oversees nearly 6,000 private bus operators working mostly in the unregulated parts of the bus industry—in contract and private hire, excursions and tours and express services. Anyone wishing to operate a service will still be obliged to have a PSV operator's licence, which requires him to satisfy the traffic commissioner that he is fit to run bus services, that he has adequate maintenance facilities and that he is of sound financial standing. This system will continue and is, indeed, to be strengthened not only by a number of legislative provisions in Part I of this Bill but also by the commitment given by the Government in another place to provide the necessary resources to ensure that safety standards are maintained. There has never been any suggestion that the regime of quality control should be relaxed. That would be quite

1135
irresponsible, and indeed in these provisions the Government recognise that with the introductions of competition it is right to strengthen supervision.
Much of the remainder of the Bill is directed at establishing the framework for fair competition. One vital element here concerns access to subsidy and the role of local authorities. It is, as I have said, a firm principle of the Government that the free market is the first means of providing services. Clauses 57 and 61, which deal respectively with the functions of passenger transport authorities in the metropolitan counties and county councils, contain the vital duty for authorities to secure services which they consider are needed in their local area by the payment of subsidy supplementing the services the market provides. The Government realise that there will be unprofitable services which will be vitally necessary to the communities who depend on them. These clauses give authorities clear duties to secure such services.
Clauses 82 to 86 require local authorities to seek competitive tenders before letting service contracts, giving all operators the chance to compete for these contracts. This will ensure that local authorities get the best value for their money and that local passengers get the best available service. But the Bill does nothing to reduce the importance of the role of local authorities in subsidising services. Nor is it the intention of this Bill to influence the amount of money which local authorities make available to services.
Clauses 57 and 61 also give local authorities wide power to promote the availability of services generally; and this would allow them, for example, to talk to operators about the best way of meeting the demand for unsubsidised services, to suggest ways in which services by different operators might be co-ordinated and to publish information about services. I am sure that local authorities will continue to have a very important role both in securing subsidised services and in promoting bus travel more generally.
Parts III and IV of the Bill restructure the public sector operations to ensure that they will compete with private sector operators on an equal footing and provide for the return of the various parts of the National Bus Company to the private sector. Part IV requires bus undertakings of passenger transport executives and local authorities to be transferred into separate companies, which must stand on their own feet, competing for subsidy alongside other operators. These structural changes are an essential element of the strategy to introduce competition into the industry. We cannot expect the benefits of competition to emerge if some operators have greater access to public funds than others or if their sheer size and strength are enough to supress competition. That is one lesson we learnt from the dominance of the local NBC subsidiary in the Hereford trial area. The Bill therefore provides not for the disposal of the NBC as a single entity, but for disposal in a number of operating units. Clause 48 spells out the main objective for the board of the NBC in preparing its proposals for disposal of its operations and in the conduct of its business meanwhile to promote sustained and fair competition.
This is a long and complex Bill and I do not wish to detain the House longer than necessary, for I can see
1136
from the names of noble Lords who have indicated their desire to speak that we shall have an interesting debate. There will doubtless be many points for my noble friend Lord Belstead when he comes to reply to the debate. But it may be helpful to the House if I briefly mention some of the other clauses in the Bill which will be particularly important for our debate this afternoon.
Clauses 10 to 17 of the Bill make it possible for passengers to hire taxis for shared journeys while paying separate fares to the driver. They also provide for an increase in the number of taxis where demand exists by defining more narrowly the grounds on which taxi licences may be refused. These clauses do not purport to be a full revision of the legislation governing taxis and hire cars. But their relationship to the rest of the Bill is important. The provisions for shared journeys will bring down the cost per person of travelling by taxi, and so for the first time it is a realistic proposition for many people. It will be of particular value, I suggest, in rural areas, where larger vehicles cannot always operate effectively along some of the routes on which services are needed, and a shared taxi might well fill the gaps.
Part II of the Bill deals with London. It is largely re-enactments of existing legislation, with minor modifications. It does not, therefore, abolish road service licensing in London for the time being, for the capital must first settle down after the changes which your Lordships debated last year in the LRT Bill. This Bill, however, gives the Secretary of State power to repeal by order the clauses relating to London. The order would be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament and could apply to London the new system which is created by the rest of the Bill. The Secretary of State has made clear that he fully intends to do this before long.
The clauses relating to travel concessions, Clauses 87 to 94, do not, as some people have feared, restrict the concessions which local authorities provide for travellers in their area. Indeed, these clauses provide a new right for every operator to participate in a local scheme and following debate in the other place there is also provision for local authorities to oblige any operator to participate in the local scheme, subject to appeal under Clause 90. I hope the House will agree that the eight clauses now before us on this subject provide a full demonstration of the Government's commitment to provide ample powers for local authorities to organise and enforce the scheme which they judge to be suitable for their area.
Finally, I should like to draw attention to Clause 95, which provides a new power for the Secretary of State to make grants to operators of services in rural areas. It is in rural areas that the effect of the decline in the bus industry has been felt most acutely. The Government believe that this Bill offers much better prospects for rural services in future, but the benefits of competition may not flow through immediately. The grants which the Government intend to pay will both help to sustain existing services and foster new initiatives.
Before concluding I should like to say a few words on a personal note. While I look forward to the battle to come with the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, we on

1137
these Benches are sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is not in his place this afternoon. As we know, he would have made a valuable contribution to the debate today. We send him our best wishes and our hopes for his speedy recovery. We hope that he will be able to rejoin us for the later stages of the Bill. I should also like to wish my noble friend Lord Zouche of Haryngworth best wishes for his maiden speech, which I very much look forward to hearing.
I have not been able, in the time available, to take the House through this long Bill clause by clause, but I hope I have referred to all its main elements. I also hope to have demonstrated to the House that this substantial Bill provides a strong framework for the future of bus travel, which will allow new services to develop to meet the demands of the travellers of this country. The Government believe that this Bill is the right solution for the problems which have been growing in the industry over the past decade. We badly need to address those problems. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
3.33 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for his kind remarks about the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. We all wish to be associated with them. He is greatly missed and I know that he will be following today's debate with great interest. He has been reading all the material covering the fields in which he was involved while he was active in the House, and I hope that he will be able to rejoin us very soon, perhaps even for the Committee stage of the Bill.
In his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, spoke of the decline in public transport. It is true that it has been steadily declining over the last 30 years. The bus sector has declined most sharply. The Commons Select Committee tried to find an explanation for this and concluded that the cause of the decline was complex rather than simple. However, it stressed that the answer was not to be found solely, or even largely, in the matter of the regulation of buses. It suggested a number of other causes.
One suggested cause was obviously increased car ownership, which is a factor which leaps to mind. Now that there are between 16 million and 17 million motor-cars on the road, there must be a reduction in the number of people using buses. Another suggested reason was the lack of investment, particularly in terms of the provision of common change points and proper kinds of depots for buses. That has also had some effect.
Another suggested cause was high fares. As traffic was reduced, the fares had to be spread over fewer passengers. Fair enough, the failure to meet market needs is due in some respects to regulation. However, the committee stressed that although regulation may have led to some additional decline in some places, it had not, in the view of the committee, been the major cause of decline.
Another factor which the committee mentioned was the demographic and social changes that have taken place over the last 20 or 30 years. Nineteen-fifty is
1138
rather an interesting year to look at because that was when television began to become popular. Television alone has meant fewer evening journeys. Many noble Lords will remember how in the early evening there was a mini peak, as people went out to visit fiends or go to cinemas, and another mini peak as the) came back at night. The growth of the suburbs has meant that fewer and fewer people go home for lunch, whereas previously in many of the smaller towns there had been another small peak in the middle of the day which contributed towards the viability of the buses.
Other causes of the decline are examined in the report. However, the Secretary of State has decided that there is only one overpowering reason, and that is the fact that since 1930 there has been regulated entry into the field of public transport. In the debate on the White Paper on buses, and again today, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, stressed,—though this time perhaps in different words—that Britain needs good bus services. He went on to say that over 10 per cent. of all journeys are made by bus and that three-quarters of these journeys are for essential purposes—work, school, business and shopping. He also said that he wanted to set the industry free so that it could give a better service to passengers and better value for money to the ratepayers and taxpayers, which was to be the object of the Bill. He said this when discussing the White Paper.
The method that the Secretary of State has chosen for this highly laudable aim, which we should all like to achieve, is now in the Bill before us. It is called "deregulation". I am certain that a great many noble Lords in this House who will be speaking on this Bill will have a great deal of knowledge, understanding and personal experience of the bus industry. I am sure that they will want much reassurance before they are satisfied that deregulation is the way forward.
It is both surprising and, I believe, illogical, that a different framework is being proposed for the PTEs in the provincial metropolitan areas compared with London. Although the Minister said that London would be brought in at some point, I am rather surprised that it has not been brought in on this Bill. Over the last 10 to 15 years the PTEs have implemented integrated public transport systems in their areas designed to meet the needs of those areas. It is not a case of having failed to look at the markets. They have made surveys and tried to discover what people in their areas need. The solutions adopted, though different in detail, have all depended on the PTEs being in a position to take an overall view of the public transport provision in their areas. The different modes, operators and services have been brought together to achieve the following features: coordinated services; through ticketing and travelcard schemes; better interchange between bus and rail services; improved infrastructure, including purpose-built interchanges; better use of assets; facilities for the disabled—a very important factor which I do not think is really catered for in the Bill as we should wish: and no wasteful duplication of services. These innovations have all been introduced, in particular by Tyne and Wear PTE. Incidentally, the number of people travelling on public transport in Tyne and Wear has increased very markedly, due to this integration and the good service which is provided.

1139
Other PTEs have certainly followed the same system of integration, although none quite so fully, in all the ways I have spoken about. The Transport Bill puts these ventures at risk. It is also noteworthy that the Secretary of State for Transport, in setting targets and objectives for London Regional Transport, has set out almost exactly the requirements that have been operating in the PTEs. If the benefits of co-ordinated public transport are seen as being correct and necessary for London, there can be no doubt that a similar situation should exist in the provincial metropolitan areas. It can be argued, I believe, that the example of some of the metropolitan areas led to the Minister or the department deciding that this was the way forward for London.
The basis of the Bill is that competition will solve the public transport problem at much cheaper cost than the existing system. To test this theory, a number of trial areas were set up. Although too much, almost, has been said about the various trial areas over recent months, particularly during the Committee stage in another place, the conclusions drawn from a general examination of the trial areas enable us to make a few observations that must at least be studied. In Hereford—one of the trial areas-25 per cent. of the population are without a car. But in Merseyside and Strathclyde, where the same standards will be applied and the same system will operate, something like 75, per cent. of the population have no car. In the trial area, only 10 per cent. of the people take the bus to work. Yet the city surveyor of Hereford still deplored the "totally unacceptable" pollution brought about by deregulation. I shudder to think of the situation in an area like Strathclyde where far more people—something like 100 times the number of people—depend on public transport.
The Bill seems to be aimed at encouraging small businessmen. In fact, the Secretary of State, in a much earlier speech, talked about people using their redundancy money to buy a bus. I am not concerned here about the small businessman and the small firm. There are many well-established small firms in the country which have an interest and an investment, perhaps a family investment, going back many years in the bus industry. I am talking of the people who, according to the Secretary of State, might use their redundancy money to buy a single bus. He actually spoke about one-bus firms being a possibility. These would almost certainly be secondhand buses, perhaps pretty well clapped-out, with a new body fitted, costing between £30,000 and £40,000, if it is indeed possible to buy a decent bus at that price. How long they would last and how safe they would prove can be guessed from some of the trial area results.
Although there might be a temporary direct transport saving in this situation, there would be great potential for loss in other ways. I take, for example, our own indigenous bus manufacturing industry. Fewer new buses would be bought. The bus manufacturing industry that has already seen home output down from 6,000 in 1979 to 2,500 last year and its export market down from 5,000 to 800 in the same period could hardly survive. We could find ourselves, after about 10 years, importing all our buses. And we used to have a proud record in
1140
exporting buses all over the world. Surely these figures cannot be ignored. It is perhaps a side issue, but nevertheless a negative spin-off that I do not believe can be ignored.
No one connected with public transport whom I have met—even the few who believe that there might be just a grain of wisdom in the Bill—believes that the measure should be implemented on the basis of an idea of the Secretary of State and the doubtful results of a few unrepresentative trial areas. At least one reasonably sized town should have been used—a town, say, of a quarter of a million people or 100,000 people. It has been suggested to me that a real trial area would have been Bradford or Nottingham. Most of my noble friends, I believe, would be happy if a solution could be achieved on the basis of using a proper trial area. To use the areas chosen by the Secretary of State is quite unfair.
I believe that Bradford, Nottingham, or some similar town, would have been much more representative of the types of problem that are likely to arise on deregulation day. As things stand, the Government are embarking on a high risk approach to unknown territory. After all, Hereford is less than one-twentieth the size of Greater Manchester. That shows the measure of the problem.
I should like to speak briefly on the subject of cross-subsidy, to which the Minister referred. A great deal has been made of this and the Select Committee dealt with it at some length. The National Bus Company estimates that at present it provides about £120 million to the bus industry through cross-subsidy. Figures for the rest of the country are not easy to estimate. But including Scotland, the municipal operators and the PTEs, the total figure is probably around £180 million. However, the only new money—the Minister made quite a lot of this when introducing the Bill—to be introduced by the Government is £20 million in 1986–87 reducing by £5 million a year until it disappears altogether in 1990–91. Therefore at least £180 million will have to be made up.
The Minister believes that efficiency in the new setup could perhaps save 30 per cent. Again, the industry, the consultants to the industry, the academic consultants, those practising within the industry, and the local authorities all believe that this is a considerable overestimate. They believe that, at best, 5 to 10 per cent. may be possible over a three- to five-year period. The shortfall can be made up only by operating cost savings. This means either higher fares, which will lead to lower passenger usage, or the loss of services. With the abolition of cross-subsidy, we shall have two classes of local services—a commercial service and a non-commercial or subsidised service. Both classes of service are subject to deregulation. I should like to say a word about this, and particularly about the time-scale allowed in the Bill for its implementation.
The Bill has transitional provisions in Schedule 5 to move from the present network based on subsidy to open tendering. The Minister of State in another place has outlined these as starting in January 1986 when operators have two months to notify county councils of the services that they might provide on a commercial basis. In the following two months, they

1141
can reduce their list but they cannot add to it. Then, on 30th June 1986, they have to register what they will actually provide. That will be the first time that councils will know for certain the routes and the timetables which are to be run commercially. It is interesting that this does not have to be duplication of existing routes. It can cover any routes from any part of the area to another—totally new routes, devised, invented or worked out by the proposed operator. This gives an idea of the incredible amount of work that will be involved in the evaluation of such a situation.
The county councils have July, August and September in which to assess the situation; draw up details for tendering—that is, proper, hard tendering; issue tenders; obtain a response; validate the answers and see whether or not they are really serious tenders; assess the "best buy"; and issue a contract. Deregulation day is to be the nearest Sunday to 1st December. Therefore, in three holiday months the counties have to implement the largest change in bus services for over 50 years. More time and a more sensible date is needed if there is to be any hope of keeping existing rural services and local town services running before the new services are brought in.
I could speak for a great deal longer because there is a great deal more to be said about the Bill. However, we shall have a fair amount of time to discuss the matter in Committee. I should like very briefly to conclude by referring to some of the matters which I am sure other noble Lords will mention and which certainly I intend to raise on this side of the House when we reach the Committee stage. There are many matters that we should like to raise. Some of the very important implications of the Bill were not dealt with in the other place because of the time difficulty. I hope that during our Committee stage we shall be able to deal with those matters. I am thinking, for example, of concessionary fares which were dealt with in the other place but which in my view require a great deal more probing than they were given in that place. Travel for the disabled was almost glossed over in the other place for a number of reasons.
Another very important matter which is causing great unhappiness and great problems for many people, as I am sure our postbags tell us, is the pension rights of employees and ex-employees of the National Bus Company. Another matter which I thought the noble Minister in his introduction of the Bill rather glossed over, although I accept at the moment time is the enemy of us all, is the very difficult question of taxi regulation. That is not a matter that will be easily dismissed. I hope that that and all the other problems will be fully debated when we reach the Committee stage of the Bill.
I am sure that we can be constructive in Committee and, who knows? perhaps the arguments in this House will persuade the Minister to take a little more time, to give a little more thought and perhaps to carry out a few more tests before he rushes into something that is fundamental to so many people in this country.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the first note which I have on the piece of paper in front of me is, "Lord Underhill". Like the two previous speakers I greatly regret that the noble Lord is not here and were it
1142
possible through the wonders of modern electronics for him to be looking in on our Chamber today and were it proper, for me to do so, I would say, "Hurry back Reg, we need you". I say that without any disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, because I am sure that he understands what I mean.
I do not think that I have ever in my short period in this House received so much correspondence on a subject. There has been a mass of correspondence not only from professional lobbyists or people who are described by Mrs. Kellett-Bowman in another place as "vested interests", but from ordinary people the length and breadth of the country. Therefore, we need to take the Bill extremely seriously and I am glad that for once a transport debate in this House is well attended when it normally boils down to about four or five people who have an interest in the matter. However, perhaps we shall get to that by the Report stage.
Like the other speakers who have spoken so far, clearly I accept the need for change. It is not an easy thing to do, but there is a need to increase efficiency. There is a need, while doing that, to guard safety; to improve reliability, which in my view would improve the bus services enormously, particularly in urban areas; and also to stimulate new ideas. Nothing that I say this afternoon will go against that view. Above all, we wish to encourage more use of buses. The more we can get people back on the buses and out of their private cars the better it will be for all of us, particularly those in the centre of major cities and big urban areas.
As has already been said, there are many people in this country who do not have access to a motor car even if there is one in the family. It is often the case that the husband goes off with the company car and leaves the children, the elderly relatives and the housewife without a car and having to go on the buses to school and to do the shopping, and having to go to collect their pension from the post office, which may be somewhat distant if they happen to live in a rural area. We have to judge the Bill by its effect on those people—by its effect on the elderly, the school children, the housewives and both the urban and suburban communities.
I believe that this Bill fails to deliver what the Government want and what we on this side of the House also want. Yes, we believe in competition as a stimulus to improving efficiency and ideas, although I reject the analogy the noble Lord drew with the competition between the express bus services and the National Bus Company. We must really talk about like and like. In that case there was a totally different problem where they were competing also with British Rail and where the express bus company, by reducing their fares, took a considerable amount of traffic away from British Rail in order to produce the results which they have produced. I am not saying that it is wrong; I am merely saying that it is not applicable to this particular Bill.
I do not believe that there should be a totally free rein in the area of buses, because at the end of the day the net result will simply lead to another monopoly. I do not believe that that will he prevented even by the Office of Fair Trading with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission behind it, and I shall come back

1143
to that matter when I, like everyone else, say a few words about Hereford. If we get back to a monopoly situation, it will again lead to increasing costs; to loss of services; and to lack of investment.
The central problem has already been set out before your Lordships: it is the contradiction of trying to have deregulation and tendering at the same time. I agree that cross-subsidies should be transparent. If cross-subsidies are concealed there is a danger that they will become phoney and the whole system will become more expensive than it should be. Indeed, that is probably the case today. However, we must think about the ways of doing that. It seems to me that the Government's obsession with cross-subsidies is leading them down a blind alley, because it is, frankly, an obsession to want to remove cross-subsidies at all costs. I believe that it is necessary to make those cross-subsidies transparent and to decide whether or not we want to retain them.
If we remove cross-subsidies the result will be inevitable—it will lead to an increase in public subsidy or to a loss of services. I am talking specifically, of course, about the unprofitable routes. However, it might also damage the profitable routes, because we should not forget that cross-subsidy covers routes and parts of routes, and certain days and certain parts of days. Part of a route may be profitable and the rest of it may not be profitable; certain days may be profitable and certain days may not be profitable—for example, Sunday and night services. However, some of the unprofitable services actually feed the profitable services and provide customers for the network. Therefore, in many cases it is necessary to keep them going and that is why cross-subsidy has worked to a degree in the past. However, I say again that it needs to become transparent.
Therefore there is a basic contradiction between deregulation and tendering with no protection for the subsidised routes at all. We shall have a position where somebody can go out to tender for a contract for a subsidised route and then find himself undercut by somebody operating in the free market. The net result of that, of course, will be that people will put that into the calculation when they are submitting their tender in the first place, because if they do not they will go out of business, with the result that the average price of tendering will be inflated. The benefit from the tendering system is lost, and therefore the local subsidy must go up to cover the lack of cross-subsidy; but it cannot because the Government are controlling local government expenditure. At the end of that long chain of reasoning, we come to a loss of services, particularly in rural and suburban areas, and especially at certain times of the day.
The Government rest their case, as they have done this afternoon, on the efficiency which arises from competition as a means of reducing the overall cost. The theory is that you remove cross-subsidy and you have competition which leads to lower fares in urban areas, and at the same time the competitive tendering is going to reduce the unprofitable areas and reduce costs in those areas. But I do not believe that this is going to happen.
The fear that we and others on this side of the House have is that there is not sufficient control mechanism.
1144
The only control is by the traffic commissioners, and frankly they are not going to be in a position to exercise the control at present exercised over the system by the PTEs and the county councils, because there are too few of them. Presumably, unless the Government are going to increase their staff remarkably, there are not going to be enough people about to police this complicated system.
The fear is that we shall have urban traffic jams; we shall have them fighting it out on the streets; we shall have extra bus stops. There is also a genuine fear about falling safety. I know that the Government genuinely believe that they have put in sufficient safeguards to maintain a safe bus service, but I ask them to look again because I believe that in the large number of cases they are going to be dealing with safety is in danger, particularly where they are going to have a lot of small operators working. It is much easier to police a system where you have a small number of large operators who have been in business for a long time and you know where to look for problems, rather than a great upspringing of large numbers of smaller operators with too few safety inspectors to police the system.
The basic problem is the danger of a decline in rural areas as a result of the decline in bus services. The decline has gone on too long, as the Minister said, and it has to stop. I do not believe that this is the way to stop it. In another place, whenever this was raised and whenever they were asked what will happen when rural areas say, "We want buses", the Minister seemed to take a Marie-Antoinette line and say, "Let them have taxis".
Certainly one is pleased at the deregulation of taxis which is going on in the sense of people being able to share taxis and share fares. That is a step forward. But there are an enormous number of problems in the taxi area to which we shall undoubtedly come back at later stages of the Bill. Certainly taxi drivers are worried about it. You might well say. "Yes, they would be", but there is the worry about things like shared taxi stands where people have put money into setting up organisations for taxi drivers which are now going to be open to any Tom, Dick or Harry who comes along with a taxicab.
There are genuine worries among the licensed taxi drivers that the standards of safety are going to be relaxed in favour of the hire-car operators. There is a genuine fear of a move away from licensed taxis to hire-cars. I do not want to go into that in detail today. However, although I welcome the idea of taxis being given a freer range, particularly in rural areas, I do not believe that it provides an answer to many of the problems caused by lack of buses. I am not against flexibility in taxis or in minibuses, but there must be fair trading whether it be in the taxi field or in the bus field.
The Exeter experiment has been referred to. I think that is an interesting experiment. It seems to be working reasonably well, although in a limited way. I understand that it works on what was already a profitable route, and not a very widespread route at that. I hear disturbing rumours that perhaps the overheads are not altogether being costed in the way that an eagle-eyed cost accountant might like to see them costed, but I do not want to knock that

1145
experiment. It is something which ought to be examined and ought to be developed wherever possible. Certainly in the Lake District the Mountain Goat service, for instance, has proved very useful for people in that part of the world. All I would say about minibuses is that what will take a lot will take a little, and there is an argument that larger buses can often do all the things that minibuses can do, and more. That is an area where we ought to be experimenting more.
Now we come to Hereford. I suppose we have to talk about Hereford today. It has been talked about a lot by those of us close to this Bill and who have read what went on in another place. But it is important that those who come fresh to it today understand what is happening in Hereford. The Government take a rosy view of it and the rest of us take a poor view of it.
As I have said before, and as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has said, it is criticised for being in the wrong sort of area. Frankly I think that a dispassionate observer would believe that it was a flop. It may be that some of the stories that one hears are apocryphal. One has heard stories of servicing buses in laybys, of racing to stops in the city, and turning round halfway and going in the other direction because there were more people on the other side of the road. This may not be totally true, but at least the Select Committee in another place believed quite a lot of it. It is perhaps unfortunate that the Goverment have rushed ahead with this before they have seriously considered the report of the Select Committee in another place and made a response to it, because it was an important input.
Certainly there was an improvement in bus availability save, I understand, on those days when the Hereford football club was playing away from home and then the private operators turned their buses to running football excursions. Certainly there were cheaper fares, but at what cost? The leader of the Liberal group on Hereford City Council—Hereford is one of these few fortunate places in the country which has a Liberal, or I should say an Alliance administration—described it as being like a Glasgow ice-cream war. The cost to the city is put at some £50,000 extra for bus stops and so on. The cost to the environment is incalculable.
What, at the end of the day, do we have? We have Midland Red having used its clout, and most of the private operators have now gone out of business, some via the courts and some because of safety reasons. The situation is, if anything, slightly worse than it was before the experiment started. The Minister understandably said that that is one of the lessons from which we must learn in the Hereford experiment, and the fact that Midland Red used its heavyweight monopoly is something which will be sorted out by the privatisation of the National Bus Company and its breaking down into small units. I doubt whether that is true, unless the Government intend to break it down into much smaller units than they have given an indication of so far.
In another place the Minister was asked on many occasions whether he could give any evidence of any cities or towns in which this system would work. He said no, he could not, but that he did not mind being a pioneer. The only evidence that we have is from the trial areas, and I submit that the trial areas have failed.
1146
The other matter on which I believe we have to look to the trial areas for illustration is concessionary fares. There has been a lot of alarmist talk, and members of the Government are right to complain that certain people have been stirring up this sensitive area for purely political purposes. But we have received a large number of letters from people who are extremely worried.
In response to that sort of thing I have said, "Look, I believe that at the end of the day something will be sorted out. Concessionary fares will not totally disappear". But we have to look at how they will be put into operation. It is clear from the Hereford experiment that the pressure is all the time to move on to the use of tokens. Tokens are not as good as some of the bus passes which have been in existence in areas such as Lancashire, which has a highly integrated system of bus services where virtually the whole of the country service operates on the basis of a single bus pass system. It is hoped to extend that arrangement into Greater Manchester and Greater Merseyside in the future. In the deregulated situation I fear that will be extremely difficult to achieve. People will have tokens in the future because, I am afraid, that is the only way that the system will work. Tokens are not as good either for the user or for the operator, and they are more expensive for the local authority than bus passes.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I could continue for some considerable length, but I am aware that I have already been doing that. I shall come towards the end of what I have to say. One of the major problems we have is the lack of co-ordination that goes with deregulation. But what can we expect when the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in the other place (at col. 944 of Hansard on 21st May) said:
"There is nothing wrong with co-ordination as long as it arises out of the transport requirements shown in the market place".
It is this market place approach and the lack of understanding of what public transport is about that is the worrying aspect. The needs of the public do not necessarily equate with the profit of the individual operator. In the case of the interchange with British Railways that Manchester has at Altrincham, one can see that they virtually had to rejig their timetables in a way which was not the most profitable for the bus section but it was the optimum for the integrated service. One cannot do that with a disintegrated service if it is a totally competitive situation. Those opportunities for encouraging people into an integrated transport service will go.
The pensioners served by the bus companies are extremely worried about what will happen. I believe that we shall have to consider this point in considerably more detail at Committee stage. This concerns not just the pensioners but some of the existing organisations. For example, Burnley and Pendle have run a delightful little bus service very efficiently and competently, but they are extremely worried that the overheads they may have to carry after they are privatised will break them because they have continuing costs of pension funds for people who have already been made redundant and other long-serving employees.
Similarly, there are concerns about the overheads being carried by the Maidstone undertaking which

1147
have about 35 buses; but the overheads of the management are shared over a much broader spectrum than just buses. They undertake the purchasing of fuel oil for heating swimming pools, and so on. There is a whole series of details that we have to go into at Committee stage which do not seem to have been thought out or understood by the Government.
My noble friend Lord Banks will be returning in detail to the subject of pensions, and we shall be pressing the Government to accept their responsibilities on pensions. The Secretary of State seems to have washed his hands of this matter. When the Government shout, as they rightly do, against renationalisation without compensation it seems to me that denationalisation without safeguards for the employees in their pension rights and their future welfare is something which is perhaps even more deeply offensive. The Government must accept the moral responsibility which they undoubtedly have on behalf of the nation for seeing that these people are treated properly. There are many other defects: there is a lack of consumer protection. However, we shall return to all these matters at Committee stage.
It will not be easy to change this Bill especially as we have a Secretary of State who says that he regards public transport as a commercial undertaking and not as a social service. On these Benches we do not regard it as merely a social service. The fact is that there is some of both in it. It should be a service to the public but it should also be run commercially. That is what we are trying to achieve, and we shall seek to achieve that at Committee stage. Undoubtedly this Bill will be given a Second Reading. But I wish the Government would take the Bill away, think again and come back with something which is more constructive and less destructive to the bus services of this country.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships for the first time. I have to admit that I find the task most daunting. I understand that the tradition of your Lordships' House requires that a maiden speech should be non-controversial. In choosing to speak to this Bill I could hardly have selected a more controversial issue, but I shall take this opportunity to speak on an aspect of transport provision that must surely ride above the level of politics.
My concern is with transport provision for the aged and disabled. I must declare an interest. For the last 12 years I have been a director of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Victoria in Australia, where I was living for the past 19 years. I am currently serving as a committee member of the International Federation of Multiple Sclerosis Societies. Therefore the subject of disabled people is very close to my heart.
This Bill contains proposals that will result in a complete overhaul of bus provision. Such opportunity for reform is unlikely to take place again for many years. We have this marvellous chance to make sure that the needs of the elderly and disabled people are given serious thought, and provision made accordingly in the Bill. During the last decade much has been done to improve the general transport facilities for the disabled, but we still have a long way to go. Whatever
1148
comes out of this Bill, we must ensure that at least the current improvements are able to continue. My own fear is that the elderly and disabled may well be forgotten and then they may end up with a worse deal.
With the increasing number of small operators the needs for the elderly and disabled people may well become neglected. Smaller operators will be less able to find out how they might make their transport more suitable for disabled people. Currently large companies, such as the National Bus Company, can afford to employ a full-time consultant on disability and buy the best advice. That is all very well for the national companies, but what about the small operators? Will they be able to afford consultants to advise them on the needs of the aged and disabled? Will they be able to commission expensive study reports? I doubt it.
There is no mechanism under the Bill which will make information available to operators on how transport can be improved for disabled people. Information is needed on how both existing vehicles can be adapted and how new vehicles can be designed for disabled and elderly people. Their needs must be accounted for at all stages of transport provision. Manufacturers and operators alike must be made aware of how this can be done.
In fact, there is so much that can be done for relatively small outlays, but there needs to be a national advisory body to educate operators on what can be done. For instance, it is inexpensive to have thick handrails in the right position, split-level steps, tactile symbols for blind and partially-sighted people and also tactile symbols indicating seating layouts. The West Midland Bus Company has done this most successfully on 2,000 buses. Pads of paper can be supplied for people with communication difficulties. This has been done most successfully by the Bristol Omnibus Company. It goes without saying that driver training and many other aspects can be covered which do not cost a great deal of money.
All these facilities which I have mentioned are cheap but are remarkably beneficial to many people. I am not talking about a small minority of disabled people. For a moment, disregarding those people in wheelchairs, it must be recognised that it is estimated that between 30 and 40 per cent. of bus users require the types of aids I have just mentioned.
The problems for wheelchair users are different in that facilities cannot be provided on mainstream transport on a commercial basis. Very largely, therefore, there is little provision for wheelchair users on public services, though there are some notable exceptions. For instance, wheelchair access is provided on certain routes in Doncaster, Plymouth, Leicester and Nottingham, to mention but a few. Despite the fact that these vital services are totally uneconomical, we must ensure that private operators do not put them in the "too hard" basket and do not close them down because of their non-commercial viability. Perhaps assistance could be given through a system of grants or funding aimed specifically at this area.
The Government are obviously most sympathetic to the needs of the aged and disabled. They have already said that they will amend the construction and use regulations to make provision for the disabled. This is

1149
a most welcome development, but of course it affects only new vehicles, which will not be on the roads for a long time yet. There is no provision to modify vehicles currently in operation. The Government have also said that they will consult on the possibility of amending the drivers' regulations. This, too, is a most welcome move, but it is also limited. It is limited to the extent that driver training is of little use unless people can get on to the buses in the first place.
I support this Bill. I am a firm believer in the free enterprise system, but I should like to see some further provision in the Bill to protect the elderly and disabled people. I hope that your Lordships will support me at Committee stage when I may ask for some uncontroversial amendments to the Bill to cover some of the points I have outlined today.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, one thing is certain: that I can speak in complete unanimity with all quarters of this House in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Zouche of Haryngworth, not only on making his maiden speech but on the quality of the speech that he has delivered today. It is a clear message to this House that when one talks about business—and I shall be talking a good deal about business—and the commercial aspects of bus operation one has to recognise that there are many within our society who require special understanding and assistance. The noble Lord referred to the consultant that my old company employed, Mrs. Claudia Flanders. I well remember one thing she said to me: that if you can improve the quality of service to the disabled and those in need you have the repercussive consequences of raising the standards for all your passengers. Therefore when one is doing it for the disabled one is not doing it out of a sense of charity; one is doing it in a straight business commercial sense.
I think I should declare an interest. For six years until the end of December I was chairman of the National Bus Company. I should like to make it clear at the outset that I do not speak on their behalf today; nor, for that matter, at other stages of the Bill. But that is in the past. In the present, since the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, himself referred to it, there is a very grave question of pensions. I therefore may have a present interest since I am a small pensioner within the National Bus pension fund.
I view this Bill with mixed feelings. There are some parts which follow very closely a paper that the National Bus Company produced about the future of road passenger transport in the United Kingdom. I then shared with my colleagues the sense of a need for change within the present system. But certainly we never had in mind the sort of radical approach that is being proposed in this Bill. We are not against change. My anxiety, I suppose, is about timing. My noble friend Lord Carmichael himself drew particular attention to the very short period during which some major adjustments will have to be made and what may be very severe financial problems arising for those shire counties which today have a statutory duty in the provision of road passenger transport.
I suspect I shall be in difficulty with the Government; but that is not unusual. I have to say that
1150
I think I shall be in difficulties with some of my noble friends because there are some parts of the Bill which I certainly support in principle, I should need further reassurance on them in Committee. Perhaps it might be wise to get those out of my system, and then deal with my major anxiety in terms of the Bill itself—that is, the question of deregulation.
I support the introduction of private capital into the National Bus Company but, I suppose, for very different reasons from those the Government themselves have in mind. Some three or four years ago, as I say, I had as chairman to give consideration to what was the proper interest of the National Bus Company, its management, its employees, and those we served. I took a view that the National Bus Company no longer needed to be a public sector company. We no longer had to borrow from the Government. We were turning in fair profits. In the last two years we have had an operating profit of the order of £46 million; and, after interest and charges on capital, we had a net profit of some £22 million. Put in another way, we had some 17 per cent. return on shareholders' funds. Such financial strength made it possible to consider a new financial structure.
I took the view that the National Bus Company, if it was to serve the general travelling public, had to have the ability to maximise all its assets, both physical and in manpower, and to use all its resources in a flexible way. I came to the view, most reluctantly, that the only possibility of achieving that lay in freedom from the restraints of present legislation, freedom from the Treasury view, and freedom from the changing moods and attitudes of successive Secretaries of State for Transport. I therefore reached the view, and I still retain it, that it would be right in the interest of the employees, the management and the people we serve, that the National Bus Company should go into the private sector.
The National Bus Company is not a monoply. It represents only some 24 per cent. of the total of the road passenger transport industry. It is a sizeable force, but I do not believe that, even in its present situation, if the Bill itself is passed one could not so structure the balance sheets of the subsidiary companies that it would be possible to achieve competition not only within the industry as a whole but between the subsidiaries of the National Bus Company. As an illustration, I may say that during my period of time we had competition within the National Bus Company as to the servicing of vehicles. A general manager is not required to send his engines to be rebuilt and repaired to his own central works; he can send them to any central works if he wishes if they can quote cheaper or quicker delivery. So competition is not a problem in that respect.
I also support the view of the Government that the transport organisations of the PTAs and the municipals should be further removed from what I may call political control. I passionately believe that the executives of organisations who are providing services such as buses should be free to develop their own professional expertise; that they should have a remit, a direction, from their political masters as to what is wished to be achieved but that the professionals should be free to get on with it and to provide it. I support that.

1151
I also support the view of the Secretary of State that there must be an increase in the powers of the traffic commissioners over quality control. I have no doubt at all that the Secretary of State believes that. However, I have to say to the House that I do not see within this legislation enough assurance that that will be provided. I think that I can remember a debate some time last year. I am glad to see that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, is speaking today because, if my memory is right, he had been an assistant traffic commissioner. There was, in his knowledge, shortages of staff and difficulties in the terms of inspection of vehicles, and I know that from my own experience. If you are going to have competition and far more companies, many of them very small, some of them running with rather antiquated vehicles, as we saw in Hereford, then if you are going to maintain the quality standards which I am sure this House would require to be maintained, full resources have to be available to the traffic commissioners. As I have said, I do not find enough assurance in the legislation. That is something that we shall need to look at in Committee.
I now come to deregulation, because this is really central to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, when he was referring to competition and what it would bring in terms of innovation, was kind enough to mention the National Express, a great symbol of success of the National Bus Company, and of course the minibus operation in Exeter. There are many other innovations within the group and, if I may say so to the noble Lord, under the present régime, under the present legislation. All this was done in the existing situation.
I think that the Government ought to be careful in relying upon coach operation as a case for deregulation of stage carriage. That is not comparing like with like; they are very different. For one thing, although there was anxiety on my noble friend's Benches as to what would be the consequences of the 1980 Act, I have to say to the House that the National Bus Company were rubbing their hands with glee. We perceived an opportunity which I do not believe the Department of Transport themselves had perceived. I think that they saw the 1980 Act solely as a means by which competiton could be created between coach competitors and others. We, however, saw British Rail as the target, because it was British Rail who had always objected to the traffic commissioners prior to the 1980 Act when a coach operator asked for permission to run a service from, shall we say, Brimingham to London or from Glasgow to Manchester.
Deregulation in 1980 set the coach business free of the restraints of British Rail. It is a very different-sized market. It is an increasing market of leisure that made possible the success of the 1980 Act. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, since I like patting my own back, that there would not have been that success if it had not been for the understanding to use all the resources of the National Bus Company, with some 1,400 vehicles, to use all the booking offices and facilities so that we could market nationally. If someone wanted to go from London to Truro and he lived in Edinburgh or Newcastle, he could book his ticket in his home town.
The failure of the private operator in this field arose
1152
because he did not have those resources. We had them, and we used them. But coaching is very much a horses-for-courses situation. Where National Express did well on coaches, the private operator did better than we did in hire and excursion business. So we all did well. But the 1980 Act cannot be used as justification for saying that similar success would follow automatically for stage carriage.
My anxieties over deregulation are these. I shall put aside until Committee stage and leave it for others to talk about the PTA areas and the municipals. I shall direct my thoughts more to the shire counties. The National Bus Company estimate, very conservatively, that they cross-subsidise by perhaps £120 million or £150 million a year. This is based upon examinations by transport consultants and is a conservative figure. If you have deregulation and you are a manager of a bus company, you will have decided already to break up or will already have broken up your operational base into broadly three groups. One group will be your highly profitable services. They are services mainly between towns and major villages and towns, but not the network. It is the network that has proved its great success in the provision of transport within the shire counties.
The second group is a more marginal one. It is a group of routes which is not exactly profitable but which makes a contribution to what I call the poor routes, that is, the first group. The third group consists of the services which are socially desirable but are completely uneconomic and make no contribution to the company. Those are the services that are largely provided by Section 1 grants. The National Bus Company received last year some £65 million under that heading.
I should like to say this to the Minister, because it rather appeared that subsidies were easy to obtain. I can tell your Lordships that negotiating with shire counties is like getting blood from a stone, and I suspect that shire counties probably get far better services than their moneys actually provide. The services that are being provided within the shires, so far as the National Bus Company is concerned, are largely obtained by that element of crosssubsidy—£125 million and £150 million. On deregulation, I have no doubt whatsoever that a manager will say. "Those are the services that I shall run—those poor services—and I shall fight against anyone who seeks to intrude upon that route."
There is nothing immoral in that. That is a straight commercial approach. What it will mean is very much lower fares and far greater frequencies. That is what, in a sense, happened in Hereford. Overnight from £120 million to £150 million of cross-subsidy on which services in the shire counties have been absolutely dependent will be siphoned out. It will not be siphoned out over a long period. It may even be siphoned out before deregulation, because a prudent manager may say, "I shall establish what fares I shall charge and what frequencies I shall operate prior to deregulation", and there is nothing to stop him because the 1980 Act removed from the traffic commissioner any control over fares.
I beg the Government to appreciate the vacuum that can be created—a vacuum which I believe will be created. The shire counties, even if they have the

1153
resources, will have very great difficulty in matching the timetable, to be able to ensure that the services that are now being provided will continue to be provided after deregulation.
There is one other factor, When I was the chairman of the National Bus Company and I heard of deregulation for the very first time, I asked the general managers of six companies to undertake a desk study on what would be the consequences of deregulation. As general managers, they were given the responsibility of running a commercially profitable organisation. I have to say to the Government that I was absolutely shocked at what I saw in the results from the desk study of the services that were going to disappear. So my next question to my colleagues was: "If that is so, and you withdraw, what will be the cost?" That is the cost of closure and the cost of redundancy. I do not think the Government have given any thought to this aspect, but I shall give a conservative estimate. What I believe will happen is that in order to maintain a commercial base and to do it quickly, the National Bus Company will be faced with a situation quite different from what it faces now in repaying its capital debts. It will have to go back and borrow probably between £60 million and £100 million to cover the cost of redundancy and closure. My Lords, is it necessary?
We have heard from the Minister that the bus industry has declined. We all know why it has declined. One had a feeling from the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, that the bus industry was in a parlous state. One fact is very clear: compared with Europe the bus provision in Britain comes out extraordinarily well, and in terms of subsidy Britain and Greece are at the lower end of the list of the provision of subsidy for the provision of road passenger transport. So, what do your Lordships make of it? I hate to say it, but I believe that the Government acted for doctrinaire reasons, I believe that this Bill did not really emerge in the Department of Transport, but emerged in some earlier exercise in one of these rather strange organisations that look at the economic health of the country. Given the state of the industry, with all the fears that are expressed by all the professional busmen that I know and all the shire counties that I have had any connection with—they all had unanimity of concern, the only difficulty being what would replace that of the Government—although change is necessary, I do not believe that this high risk policy, this radical policy that is being adopted, is the right approach.
I live in Kent, and we have fruit trees. I see little point in tearing up a fruit tree by the roots when, by careful pruning, you can improve the quality of your fruit and increase the yields. I would have taken a much more pragmatic approach to change based upon my experience within the bus industry, and I believe that I would be supported by all the professionals within the bus industry. If the Government find themselves at loggerheads, as they do, can they not say to themselves, "Have we really got this right?"
My own wish would be that this Bill should be delayed. I doubt whether that is possible, but I sincerely hope that in Committee we shall make a real effort, right across party harriers, to see whether it is possible to bring this Bill into a better order. This will
1154
not only be for the benefit of the ratepayer and the taxpayer, who have a right in this matter, but, above all else, for the proper provision of bus services, particularly to the people in the counties. And, if I may say so, to the noble Lord, always remembering the disabled for whom the bus is usually their only means of transport.
4.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords. I hope it will not be thought impertinent of me, as a very new boy in your Lordships' House, if I add my respectful felicitations to the noble Lord, Lord Zouch of Haryngworth, for the very powerful and moving maiden speech which he has just made. It is something on which we shall clearly all have total unanimity, although it is a unanimity which I fear may not continue with regard to other details.
I have been asked, both publicly and privately, "What have Bishops to do with buses?" I suppose that could be turned more grandly into the question, "What has theology to do with transport?" The only obvious statement linking the two which springs immediately to mind is a recollection of a song of my youth in which it was asserted that you cannot get to Heaven in a Chevrolet. Whether one would have a better chance on a subsidised PTE bus is perhaps a point which I should refer to my backroom boys for disputation.
But in a practical and political forum, the connection between Bishops and buses is obvious. It is people. It has been represented to me by a wide range of persons and interests in Durham and the north-east that this Transport Bill, enacted without some fairly radical amendments, will have the immediate effect of making very many people who are now badly off, worse off, and the longer-term effects are also viewed with the utmost distrust and disquiet. People expressing this worry to me include members of all the county councils in my diocese, a number of the district councils, various trade union bodies, community associations, old-age pensioners and a variety of persons who have made studies of the deprivation and difficulties of the north-east and who also are concerned with producing innovations and enlightenment in it. The concern is very widespread and the documentation backing this up seems to be very impressive and disturbing.
So as someone who believes very deeply that my Christian faith obliges me to be concerned with all the factors that affect people, and not just the so-called religious ones, and as a person who seems to have been appointed to an office which places me in a certain sort of representative position in my diocese and area, I could not avoid getting involved in the debate and therefore in the politics of the debate. But I assure your Lordships that the point of entry for me is not politics or even buses, but is actually people.
However, when I came to investigate the details I found that not only are the proposals in the Bill about buses likely to have a very great effect on the quality of life of a large number of people but also that the Bill is based on something which might reasonably be called a faith—a faith which I think has been indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, in introducing the

1155
Bill. It is a faith about the nature of our society and the forces at work in it. I fear that it seems to me, on further consideration again, that this faith is very probably a false one and quite possibly verging on idolatry.
So there are two levels of disquiet about this Bill. The first is about its likely effect on people, especially on people who are already badly off—that is to say, the unemployed, the old, the underpaid, all those who find themselves without a car, and so on. In my part of the world, there are at least 50 per cent. before you even start having a one-car family. But the second level of disquiet is to do with the grounds on which this very probable threat to the already precarious and limited lives of so many people is being presented. I was alerted to this second level by two things, principally. The first is the way in which the supporters of the Bill, at any rate at one stage, talked about groceries, and the second is the way in which they talk about risks.
It is argued that bus services should be completely deregulated, so that these services can be organised and sold like groceries. As the Bill makes plain, that is not what is actually proposed. What is proposed is that all regulations which prevent a particular form of what I can only call atomistic and individualistic competition should be abolished. All those regulations should be abolished, but any regulations that are necessary to preserve and protect that form of competition should either be in the Bill or at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
In passing, I think it is worth noting that it is precisely this sort of internal contradiction—though this may be rather academic of me—which strengthens one's suspicion that this Bill is an exercise in theory determined by an ideological faith, rather than a considered pragmatic approach to the undoubted practical difficulties involved in both the cost and the organisation of a public transport service. The Bill has far more in it about regulations than about deregulations, and also far more in it about centralisation than about setting local initiatives free. It is only one sort of freedom and initiative—and that a very fragmented and atomised one—with which the Bill is concerned, and if this form of competition needs so much protection and so many regulations, either proposed or at discretion, then I should have thought it was a pretty bad candidate for acts of faith, anyway. But that is only in passing.
The really diagnostic item is the repeated comparison, which I have heard again and again, of the provision of bus services with the provision of groceries. As this comparison is used to justify a system which will ensure that each single route is in isolation the subject of uncontrolled competition or of competitive tendering, it is clear that the sort of grocery-selling operation, which is in the minds of those who want the provision of bus services to be like the provision of groceries, is the single local or corner grocery shop.
This is a very pleasant idea. We all long for the good old days of small, viable and intimate communities. But I wonder whether anyone has informed the proponents of this view that groceries nowadays are largely supplied by multiple stores, with highly co-ordinated marketing policies and with provisions
1156
coming from an immense range of food-producing and processing corporations. The grocery comparison, besides begging the whole issue of whether bus services should be regarded as largely a social service and a public utility, is in an out-of-date form, anyway.
That puts me on to something that has bothered me about the Bill, which is the quaintly archaic air of romantic unreality which pervades the whole Bill, with a rather fragrant but faded nostalgia. There is a nostalgia for the great days, if they ever existed, of hordes of busy little men and busy little women ready, if given the chance, to set up little local enterprises, whether of the one-family grocery store type, or of the one or two man or one or two bus type. Surely that is a romantic dream, and a dream which can be introduced and legislated for only by persons in the grip of a strong but over-simplified faith. Your Lordships will know that I am not in favour of an over-simplified faith.
In this case, however, it is the faith in the market, conceived of as that which is produced when little men are set free from all constraints in strictly localised and divided units. This does not correspond to any existing reality or to any reality which we are likely to be able to cause to exist. Similarly, we are told that it is worth risking everything to enable this setting free of the competitive market for the provision of strictly local services. But why is it worth taking this risk and not, say, the risk of letting local authorities continue to wrestle with the provision of services, which they and their constituents judge to be locally required and possible within the constraints of money, not only money made available to them but also money which they can raise either by rates or by revenue?
It is true that many local authorities do not do as well as they might, but entrepreneurial competition on its own is by no means the most efficient way of doing many things, especially if you take into account social costs as real costs, along with economic costs. Why risk deregulating and destabilising everything, including serious attempts which have been made to get co-ordinated services going, like the Tyne and Wear co-ordinated system and others in other counties, and not risk trying to negotiate with and improve these local efforts built up painstakingly over a number of years? The answer seems to be: because we believe in competition as we define it.
Given the complexity of life as it has built up over the last 150 years, this seems to me to be a naïve and almost certainly a false faith, and when it is used to refute, or more often to ignore, very many serious arguments about transport as a public and social service, about the proper use of cross-subsidies for properly designed networks and about the need for local co-ordination and local sensitivity placed in the hands of, and in the reach of, local people and so on, it begins to look dangerously like an idolatry. And because of the expectations that are invested in a mistaken god, there is danger that people are determined to ride fiercely over objections and genuine requests. This is very dangerous, especially when it is accompanied by an alarming amount of centralisation of regulatory powers which goes with this Bill, as with so much of other Government activities.
Surely it is proper to ask the Government to think

1157
again, and we should assist them in this by the promotion of and, I would hope, insistence upon serious amendments, at least in the areas of the timing of the implementation of the legislation, of the provision of possibilities for more local authority influence, together with the opportunities for more co-ordination and, quite possibly, comprehensive tendering, and in the area of allowing local enterprises such as those in Tyne and Wear and Yorkshire to continue through negotiating an experimental period.
There are grave grounds for disquiet about this Bill, a disquiet which is moral, political and practical, and all are focused on people. The moral disquiet—I venture into this area in fear and trembling, but I feel obliged to do so—lies in the valid question which can be put to the proponents and the principles of the Bill. Are you not putting your faith in a simplified view of the market and asking that faith to hear far more than it could or should bear, not least in the risks you take with people for the sake of a very doubtful principle? It seems to me that this may well be a typical example of a common form of idolatry which is that people promote that which is good to the role and status of gods.
Personally I believe that competition is a necessary element in all our lives, and the proper and responsible promotion of competition is therefore a necessary good. But by making it an overriding element you get a destructive god. Moreover, in the pursuit of it, you are choosing, I think without sufficient reflection, whose freedom you promote and which risks you take without considering sufficiently the bonds of poverty and deprivation which you thereby tighten on some other people. How can people in an area of 20 per cent. or even 30 per cent. unemployment produce sufficient purchasing power to benefit from the deliberately liberated play of entrepreneurial competition for a public service which they desperately need in order to get out and about?
That brings me to the political disquiet. Surely to rush on with this rather theoretical Bill is singularly untimely. Our society is deeply divided and everything so far, although there may well be hope for the future, seems to bear more and more hardly on the already "have nots". It will be said—of course it has been said and it will be said again—that subsidies are still possible. Yes, indeed, they are still possible—but under conditions which will make them more 'and more expensive and less likely to appear; first because the competitive creaming and so on makes it certain that the remaining routes will be as expensive as they possibly can be; and secondly, because of the general climate and many other Government measures which are making less and less money available to those who must subsidise. Surely, then, it is verging on cheating to say, "you can still get your subsidised routes and your concessionary passes, and you will". The chances are surely that you will not. But this is not time to further marginalise those who are already handled very hardly by our society. Why harass them by one more measure which is being rushed through on such insufficient principles and with such determination not to listen to other points of view? Could the Government not risk holding up another and further threat to the poor for the sake of a contribution to pulling our society together—a pulling together which
1158
we certainly need if we are to face the very tough economic climate and the demands for innovation which our community as a whole has to face? Surely it would be more politically prudent on a wide front to compromise and negotiate about this Bill.
That leads me, finally, to the practical disquiet. If the Government would set aside their ideological blinkers, they might very well see that there are very considerable arguments on a number of sides and on a number of issues. Why not negotiate about them therefore and consider substantial amendments to the Bill, including a slowing up of its timetable? This is a point at which serious consideration for people, especially the people who are suffering most from our economic, social and political problems, makes toughness and determination to pursue a previously announced programme become very close to bullying and stubborness, I fear.
I hope, therefore, that your Lordships' House will be able to assist the Government to think again about many of the provisions and processes of this Bill and that the Government will show themselves ready for a more pragmatic approach so that it can be, even in very difficult circumstances, a more caring approach not only for the sake of the half of the population of my area who are wholly dependent on public and co-ordinated transport, but surely also for the sake of the country as a whole.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, can he say whether in the material he has been using he has drawn on anything provided by Church Action on Poverty?
The Lord Bishop of Durham: No, my Lords. It arrived today, but I had already made the points for myself.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I may first join your Lordships in offering very sincere congratulations to my noble friend Lord Zouche of Haryngworth on a very distinguished and able maiden speech. I am sure that all of your Lordships will look forward to hearing him again regularly and even during the Committee stage of this Bill, though I am bound to say that my own enjoyment of speeches during Committee stages is severely limited. Nevertheless, I say to my noble friend how much we all enjoyed his speech on this occasion and how much we look forward to hearing him again.
I do not want to make too many comments on the speeches of noble Lords who have spoken before me, but I should just like to observe that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, surprised me somewhat by his apparent enthusiasm for controls and by his experience of being altogether more comfortable with large operators and finding small ones really lacking in credibility. His comment that Marie-Antoinette might have said, "Let them have taxis", seemed to me to be very wide of the mark. Had that lovely queen offered the people of Paris taxis or something similar, I very much doubt that she would have had her head cut off.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, if I may refer to him briefly, made a very interesting speech. Some of the comments he made on the National Bus Company and deregulation will I hope receive the very serious

1159
attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
I now come to the speech we have just heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I hope he will allow me to say that it left me in a state of considerable confusion, as indeed have some of his other previous utterances. When he came to a faith bordering on idolatry, I was eventually driven to the conclusion that idolatry consisted of those things in which he was unable to entertain an energetic belief. The right reverend Prelate compared the transport of passengers with the selling of groceries. I was left in a state of very great uncertainty as to who else besides him had made that comparison. I am quite unaware of any spokesman in Government—my right honourable friend or any Minister—who has so far likened the problems of selling groceries to those of conveying passengers on buses.
The right reverend Prelate seemed to reject everything which he did not find acceptable. Competition was regarded as quite an unreal force. What distinguished the speech of the right reverend Prelate, if he will allow me to say so, was the lack of any real attention to the serious problems of the industry or any indication whatsoever as to what he would actually do if he were faced with the heavy responsibilities which Ministers of the Crown carry. Like the right reverend Prelate, those who oppose this Bill, who resist it and even appear to resent any serious attempt to bring about change, give me the impression that they actually believe that we in this country are the happy possessors of an adequate bus system at reasonable cost, giving general satisfaction.
Such is their dedication to the status quo that they seem altogether unconcerned with some of the unpalatable and eradicable facts; fewer services, higher fares, fewer passengers and spiralling costs. Even the right reverend Prelate is under some obligation to grapple with these, the stern facts of the situation.
So many spokesmen for the industry—some of them being on the verge of politics—seem protective of themselves and their industry. I believe it is necessary to remind your Lordships of just a few figures. They have been much deployed but they are still as frequently ignored. In the past 30 years, journeys by bus—and my noble friend on the Front Bench quoted some of these figures in his opening remarks—have fallen from 42 per cent. to 8 per cent. of the total. In the past 10 years, fares have increased by 30 per cent. more than inflation. Revenue support has increased from £6 million in 1971 to a total of £575 million in 1983. Total support has risen from £71 million in 1972 to more than £1 billion in 1984–85.
The system of road licensing is now 50 years old. Times have changed and the world has moved on. Are we to be altogether surprised that the system is beginning to look a bit frayed at the edges? The Government now seek, as I understand it, to ensure that those who support the industry by means of fares and taxes get value for money, and that those who require a service will not be denied it simply because of a great complex of old, outdated rules to which some people are unduly dedicated.
We have been told so many scare stories. The
1160
general view and purpose of the Government seems to be brushed aside by the opponents of the Bill in their hurry to stir up anxiety. Children, old people, shoppers, those who live in the country, those who have weekend visitors, and even those who are having their cars serviced will, we are told, be put to very great inconvenience as a result of this Bill. It is said that vehicles will become dangerous and that services will be unreliable. What are they today?
There is then the treasured phrase, although I am glad we have not yet heard it in your Lordships' House and I trust we shall not; the threat that the "cowboys" will be everywhere. Whenever anyone cannot think of any other argument and their mental state is bereft of thought, they resort to the idea of cowboys on the rampage, destroying everything and embarrassing everyone. I ask whether your Lordships would not be well advised to apply your minds to replacing a system the costs of which have grown and the usefulness of which has diminished, rather than to oppose wholeheartedly, root and branch, any proposals which come from the Government.
Brevity requires that I concentrate my remarks, as I have done, on the road licensing system. But I should like also to take a few moments to welcome the decision to leave London alone. Last year, London was visited with a great wadge of legislation from Parliament. There must be time for the digestive process to be carried out. I should like to say how much I welcome the decision—I suppose it is such—of the Secretary of State not to tamper with the London taxi service. In an age when the customer's needs are very frequently disregarded and put on one side, the service which the customer gets from the London taxi driver is equal to anything he will find anywhere else in the world—and probably a good deal better.
I will end by commenting briefly upon what seems to me to be the extraordinary way in which we handle our affairs. We cherish a belief that the world will wait while we quarrel. Only too often, with the encouragement of the media, we allow discussion to degenerate into confrontation. We adhere to the convention that change and innovation may be good for other people but are what we ought to resist ourselves. Finally, there is that long and awful process of legislation—the long, and, winding lanes of protest and often unprofitable argument along which any important measure has to be dragged before it is allowed to reach the statute book.
I am sure it is unnecessary to remind your Lordships that we have just endured the protracted Committee stage of the Local Government Bill. I ask myself with some dread whether we are going to repeat that experience again over the next few weeks.
Noble Lords: Yes, my Lords!
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is it too much to hope that those with real anxieties about the possible effects of this Bill may recall that many parts of the country do not have buses at all; that in others, services are scarce and unreliable; and that in most, they are too costly both for passenger and for taxpayer? Is it too much to hope that they will also reflect upon the fact that no responsible government can continue for ever to stand aside from problems just because they are

1161
difficult, just because they are thorny, and just because they are intractable?
Now that I have come to the end of my remarks, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will not think that anything I have said is intemperate or malicious. All I want to say is that I find this endless business of protest, criticism and destructive comment thoroughly unacceptable when no alternative is readily put forward.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him one question? I appreciate that he did not agree with what the right reverend Prelate was saying. But at the very beginning of his speech, the noble Lord said, in an attacking way, that the right reverend Prelate seemed to reject everything that he found unacceptable. Does not the noble Lord do so? It seems to me that he does exactly the same.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I should have used the word "incomprehensible".
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: That would have been much better, my Lords.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his kindly correction; I take it that it was meant in a kindly fashion and I am grateful to him. The noble Lord tempts me to prolong my answer. I was saying that the right reverend Prelate gave me the impression that anything he does not find comfortable, acceptable and comprehensible he tends to reject. That is an attitude which I do not share.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I found myself engrossed by that piece of artistry. I remember the days when the noble Lord was concerned with transport in another place. Having worked with him on the possibility of getting a bridge constructed between Britain and France, I think I had better leave the matter there and get on with my own speech. I may say that, out of kindness to myself as well as the House, I shall not take more than about six minutes. That should please your Lordships, no matter how bad it may sound to others.
The point I make is this. We were told that the country was going adrift. I consider that its people have drifted further apart since this Government came into power—and I make only this one political point—than they were before. I object to that. The Transport Bill is yet another example of where the voice of the people is completely overwhelmed. We are confronted in England with an and philosophy of government that has no relationship with the historiacally compassionate attitude of the old Conservative Party, which I remember when the right honourable Winston Churchill introduced wages councils way back before World War I. All that has been destroyed by the present Government.
We were told by the lady who now leads us—and she probably meant it—that the country was divided and that she wanted to reunite a divided and disillusioned people. Looking at Britain now, we can see, so far as I am concerned, that the screws are being turned tighter on the underprivileged. If the Bill goes through as it stands—I am sure the House will want to make some
1162
progressive changes—the poor and the underprivileged will suffer. We now face a period of total turmoil and commotion through the policy that we are asked to accept in the Bill; namely, the deregulation of services and enforced privatisation.
There are moments when I think that the Conservative Party of today—I do not like to use the word "conservative" because the party is not conservative—is more ideological about privatisation than is the Soviet Union about communism. The Conservative Party is more emphatic that the problems of the world will be solved by privatisation than the Russians are emphatic that communism will save the world. It is an interesting point. What is happening to us?
The Government's proposals will not ease life. The needs of the old and needy in rural and remote areas will be increased if the Bill is unamended, but I am sure that the Bill will not be left as it is because there will no doubt be many amendments from all parts of the House. The Bill proposes the most draconian effects on underprivileged human beings. As usual, the whole thing has been rushed upon us without thought. A hundred years of know-how in transport will be destroyed in one lumpen fell swoop.
A number of municipal undertakings have carried out studies into the potential effects of the Bill's provisions on their local services. They have found, for example, that six of the largest city undertakings will need £2.6 million more in subsidy to maintain existing service levels; or else they will need to make extensive evening and weekend cuts in services and cross-subsidise bus journeys to make them profitable. An independent consultant's report on Plymouth's bus services has found that the most likely effect of the Government's proposals will be to increase the costs to the city council of maintaining the local desirable level of bus services by some £392,000 a year. This would result in an increase of 22 per cent. in the district rate. If similar results occur throughout the rest of the country then it is possible that bus services as we know them will collapse as a consequence of one piece of, in my estimation, unnecessary legislation.
To summarise, I would say that local democratic control over transport services will be considerably weakened. The loss of £100 million in cross-subsidy and of a "network" approach means that many routes will be under threat unless councils spend more to maintain them. The National Bus Company has warned in an annual report that there is little room left for increased efficiency and that deregulation will force it to cut services by some 30 per cent. The Bill will cause massive job losses in the industry, in addition to those already faced in bus manufacture. There is no protection for the existing pension rights of current employees. There is no protection for the welfare of long-established family firms. The main desire of bus users is for a regular and guaranteed service upon which they can rely in the future.
I fear—and I am sure the House will fear and will, therefore, make some amendments—that the Bill will provide confusion rather than clarity. The effects are likely to be muddle, waste and uncertainty, with chaos in many of our city centres. I sincerely hope that when the Bill is before us in Committee we shall have constructive amendments from all party points of view

1163
so that, ultimately, we send the Bill from this Chamber a better Bill than when it came in.
My Lords, I have taken seven minutes!
5.27 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, as a professional economist of a strong market tendency I was held fascinated and almost hypnotised by the oration which fell from the lips of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. His central objection seemed to be that the Bill was treating the sale of bus services like groceries. Before he sat down it was clear that he did not really think that groceries should be sold like groceries but rather be an extension of the social services. When there is time I should like to give the right reverend Prelate a refresher course on economics. Economic theory has long since abandoned the vision he held up of atomistic competiton and has adopted the more robust concept of workable competiton and contestable markets, with which this Bill is in full accord.
Although I personally prefer to repeal legislation rather than acquiesce in new laws, I strongly support this Bill. Among its many considerable merits it has the effect of removing the mischief—however well intended—of many of the 50 transport Acts that have come to clutter up the statute book since 1919. I do not contemplate the prospect of the protracted debates on detail at Committee stage with any great anticipation or eagerness and I venture to make a special appeal to some of my noble friends on the Cross-Benches that they should be alert to resist the temptation to join in those jolly rebellions that we can expect to be got up for party purposes from the Labour Benches. We shall no doubt be blinded by the grinding of axes, as I shall show in a moment.
Much of the factitious propaganda with which we have already been bombarded is no more than a rhetorical smokescreen to conceal the fear of freedom and competition which is needlessly felt by many of the entrenched interests in the trade unions, in the protected taxi services, in the local authorities and among their less enterprising bureaucracies.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Lord said that we would be blinded by the grinding of axes. I think he probably means that we shall be deafened, does he not?
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, the sparks coming from the axes might also blind, but I thank the noble Lord for that correction. I shall try to abate my later remarks about the Liberal Party as a small reward.
I have to be fair and say that the opponents are guided to some extent by reference to a sort of principle. That principle seems to me to be the strictly paternalist view that the critics and their political friends know best. They rather immodestly assume to know better what is good for the customer than the dispersed judgment of entrepeneurs and managers whose livelihood will depend directly on serving the travelling public and catering for their changing needs.
It seems to me that the central question is as follows. If the concentrated sectional interests have their
1164
spokesman on the Labour Benches and beyond, who is to speak up for the wider but often inarticulate interests of the taxpayer and the consumer? On transport, as on many other economic issues, I detect in recent years a reversal of political roles. At one time, in its proud heyday, the Liberal Party could be relied on to champion the classical economic principle of competition and open entry against the old fashioned Tory defence of vested interests and the status quo. I shall say no more than that we can no longer rely on that happy confrontation.
But I am glad to say that more recently the modern Conservative Party has, often with some hesitation, followed the advice of R. A. Butler 30 years ago by leaning against what he then called,
"an excess of bureacracy … and towards individual enterprise and personal liberty".
If that was true 30 years ago, the need to lean is all the greater at the present time.
I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on what I regard as a bold and liberalising measure which deserves support from all who wish to check—if possible, even to reverse—the progressive decline of the once great bus industry. Despite the touches of complacency from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, it must be admitted that the prospects for the bus industry are not very good. We have heard that from carrying approaching half of the rapidly growing passenger traffic in 1953, buses and coaches have now come to account for less than a dwindling 10 per cent. That decline has not been checked over the past decade despite a morass of subsidies rising from under £100 million to around £1,000 million. The nationalised and municipal buses now look to taxpayers and ratepayers for more than a quarter of their total income on average, and in some cases for a half or more; and yet still their fares to the customer have risen much faster than average prices. As we have heard, profitable routes have been recklessly destroyed by overcharging in the supposed interests of cross-subsidisation to keep empty buses on vanishing routes.
The paradox familiar to all economists is that open-ended subsidies to a monopoly are less likely to reduce prices than to inflate costs above their competitive level. The widely differing efficiency among existing operators confirms the finding of the Commons Select Committee that revenue subsidies are more likely to be frittered away by inefficiency or to be captured by employees than to keep fares down so as to maintain the volume of business.
It seems to me that restriction on entry was perhaps a plausible strategy for a new industry poised on the brink of an historic expansion in the earlier days, when the aim was also partly to protect the railways and the old municipal trams. But, faced with an increasing challenge from private motoring, bus services needed to be flexible, adaptive and innovatory—in short, to be revitalised by competition. Instead we have the bleak verdict of one whom I regard as being among our leading economic specialists on this matter, Dr. John Hibbs, who is Director of Transport Studies at Birmingham Polytechnic. At a conference as recently as last week he said:
"The 1930 system has been responsible for the decline in the bus industry since 1960. It has encouraged mergers and permitted giantism. It has inhibited innovation. It has encouraged standard

1165
charging and thereby given rise to regressive transfer payments. It is responsible for the failure of the industry' to develop a sophisticated understanding of costs".
The opening of long-distance coach operations to new entrants in 1980 has shown how even the threat of competition compelled previously entrenched monopolists to reduce costs and fares dramatically, as well as to improve services. Now the mere shadow of this Bill is already awakening the National Bus Company and, as we have heard, others in Exeter and elsewhere, to seek more urgently ways of better serving their customers.
On my assessment, the Bill is welcome for ending restrictions on the entry of new bus services. It is welcome for ending the evil of deficit financing and putting subsidised routes out to open tender. It is welcome for strengthening the only necessary regulation—that is, of safety—by stipulating and enforcing standards which, it must be said, have not always been maintained in recent years even by the nationalised and other public sector operators. The Bill is welcome not least for preparing to sell off in smaller units those monolithic public undertakings which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham must understand are ideally suited to small scale private enterprise and even employee cooperatives on the model of the National Freight Consortium.
I would say in conclusion that the predictions of disaster that we shall hear from the Labour Benches as the debate proceeds can hardly be taken seriously when we recall their blindly doctrinaire opposition to the liberalisation of coaches back in 1980. Among the phantoms then conjured up by the Front Bench spokesman, Mr. Albert Booth, and by others, were the following prize quotations which I have taken from Hansard for 27th November 1979: "a cowboys' charter", "a licence to the moonlighter express", "fly-by-night operators", "back to the jungle", "unbridled and cut throat competition", "anarchy in its crudest form", "irreparable damage", "higher fares", and "a recipe for disaster". One MP sponsored by the TGWU decided to earn his fee by excelling himself with the following prediction:
"In five years' time nothing will remain of the existing public transport systems".
That was six years ago, since when the 1980 Bill has proved a conspicuous success. When I hear the same speeches against the present Bill it suggests to me that the Government are on the right lines.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I hope he will forgive me, but I thought this was primarily a revising Chamber and a Chamber for debate, and yet he is suggesting that perhaps his fellow Cross-Benchers and noble Lords on the Benches alongside me should not participate in the debate on the next stage of the Bill because it would be a waste of time. Can he please put me right?
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I can only say that I have no ambition to try to silence the noble Countess, and I look forward to her contributions later.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, some noble Lords will know that I am an old bus hack, and this Transport Bill is almost as controversial as the one on which I made my maiden speech 17 years ago. It was on the same day of the week and the same date in 1968. I must say that I am very pleased that it is my noble friend Lord Belstead who is leading on this Bill. He had just then been promoted to the Front Bench in opposition, assisting my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, whose wisdom we shall enjoy later this afternoon. Furthermore, on that occasion we listened to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for 50 minutes. I must say that I was in more agreement with him today than I was then. Lastly, I gather that the noble Lord. Lord Carmichael, was working on that Bill for the Government of the day in another place. On 11th June in the year 2002 I shall hope to be joining all those noble Lords again.
Following those remarks, I join all other noble Lords who have spoken with conviction about the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Zouche. It is difficult to find another word to describe the speech. It was delivered with great confidence and clarity and one looks forward to hearing him again.
I shall not fall into the trap of criticising what other people have said so far this afternoon, or even commenting on it. I am very tempted to deal with the speech of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil in the way he has dealt with other people's speeches. However, as I have said, I shall continue with my own speech and try to talk about this Bill.
A noble Lord: Help yourself.
Lord Teviot: Indeed, I shall, but not at this time; there are 29 speakers.
Lastly in these opening remarks I declare an interest in that from time to time I accept a fee and expenses as a consultant in this field.
Your Lordships may recall that I introduced a debate here last October on the Buses White Paper. In fact it was the one and only occasion when it was considered in either House of Parliament. My views have not changed since then. In fact, my warning about the Hereford trial area has been proved to be accurate, with the virtual collapse of competition in the city. Just one competitive service remains—and that under the watchful eye of the traffic commissioners, who have clearly issued their final warnings to the operator.
I do not wish to cross swords with my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. David Mitchell, but it is problems with the quality of operation which have for all but one good operator defeated the competition in Hereford. My honourable friend suggested in another place (at col. 892 of the Official Report) that it was predatory pricing which was the problem. That just is not true. From my own researches I know that it was the corner-cutting operators who started a price war and Midland Red (West) did no more than match their fares. Only in one instance were they lower than their competitor; in a number of other cases their fares remained higher.

1167
This fact can be verified by reference to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory report on trial areas (Laboratory Report 1131, Appendix 5).
I was interested to read comments on this point by a very good private operator, Mr King, of Tillingbourne Bus Company, in the magazine Buses, for June 1985. Questioned on fair competition by NBC operators, he said:
"The incoming operator has no right to expect that the incumbent will not take reasonable commercial steps to protect his business".
The outcome in Hereford was to be foreseen and it is a clear indication of what can be expected under deregulation. The same picture emerged, as I explained, when express coaching was deregulated in 1980; a free market does not help the underdog.
First and foremost I would remind your Lordships that I am not opposed to the introduction of greater competition in the bus industry—a major object of this Bill and foreshadowed in the White Paper. However, I am concerned that the package of proposed legislation will leave many people without bus services on which they depend. Both the National Bus Company and the Scottish Bus Group have already given clear warning that the Bill will lead to 30 per cent. of the bus services they provide being discontinued. Some of these will not disappear entirely, but there will be a major loss of service to the public, as in the Norfolk trial area. Let us not deceive ourselves with false optimism.
As I explained last October, there will not be sufficient money available to local authorities to secure necessary services and competition on tendered routes. That will lead to waste of the limited resources that are available. This is something on which bus users, local authorities, and bus operators are all agreed. One must take note of such a powerful and united voice.
Here I must criticise the Government for the way they tend to disregard the real fears expressed by the professionals in this industry, which has served our country so well for so long. Yet, as I say, it is not only the operators and trade unions who have expressed concern, but also local authorities and many consumer groups. In some quarters the criticism may be exaggerated but, by and large, it is fair because there are so many unknowns associated with this legislation. I can report the critics' feelings at first hand because I have visited quite a few of them up and down the country, some, I am pleased to say, with my noble friend Lord De La Warr, in the last few months. I should not like to think that the Government are being cavalier in their approach to this matter.
I must now turn to some of the specific clauses of the Bill which give me cause for concern. My greatest concern is that change should come about smoothly and that competition on the roads should be fair. With so much change coming all at once, this will not be easy. However, I believe, my Lords, that the position would be improved if, following the initial registration of commercial services and those contracted under the tendering system, for a period of, say, two years, further registrations could be refused if they were seen to be against the public interest. This stabilising period would form a bridge to the total freedom envisaged in the Bill. It would not be against the spirit of the Bill,
1168
but rather would be intended to make it more successful. I shall hope to see amendments to cover this transition.
Next I am concerned about the control over semi-commercial mini-buses. My concern is heightened by recent tragic events in the football world and steps to be taken to tighten up on public transport to football matches. The fact is that as in recent years coach operators have found ways of keeping drunks and hooligans off their vehicles, these undesirable elements have resorted increasingly to the use of mini-buses, including self-drive-hire mini-buses, to travel to away matches. That is a loophole we now have an opportunity to block. For this and a variety of other reasons I believe that we should make further provision for the necessary and proper control of such passenger vehicles.
So, too, should we ensure that professional bus and coach operators maintain high standards. Experience in Hereford sadly underlines this point. Therefore, I hope to see strengthening of the provisions relating to financial standing in considering applications for PSV operators' licences. Lack of proper finance leads operators to cut corners, to skimp on maintenance and to chance their arm with speculative services. Relaxation of service licensing, as Ministers have recognised, demands improved quality control. Finance can be at the root of this.
It is a matter of deep concern that some people of my own political persuasion see, or, rather, overemphasise the potential of, this Bill as a way to create new jobs in small businesses, with people using their redundancy payments to buy old buses and to set up in business running local bus services, filling the gaps left by the withdrawal of the professional operators. This is not realistic. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, mentioned that one could set up such a business for £30,000 or £40,000 but, in fact, I think one would probably do it for £3,000 or £4,000. It is nearer that figure than his. Even if they have enough money and a suitable vehicle, operators must also have a certificate of professional competence. This certificate is acquired only after study and is a requirement of our own and European law. Maybe some will be able to enter the industry in this way, but let us not talk of improved quality control for PSV operators unless it is sincere. Replacing professionalism with mere enthusiasm is not an answer.
Apart from a number of technical amendments which will improve the Bill, my remaining concern is in respect of time scale. I do not believe the Government or their advisers have begun to recognise the immensity of the task that they have set for completion by 30th September next year. Most people will say, "If we are to have change, let's make a start; there's no point in hanging about". That is very true, but let us face the reality of the situation. Unless change comes in logical sequence, there will be unnecessary problems. There will be unfair competition, whatever the Bill says. There will be waste of public money. Worst of all, there will be even greater loss of bus services for the public. When your Lordships meet in Committee serious consideration must be given to this problem of timing.
One regrets the need to place so much emphasis on the danger spots in this Bill, though they have to be

1169
examined. So let me conclude by welcoming the underlying intentions of the Bill and only stress that here, in your Lordships' House, it is our role to take what is good and try to improve it in a friendly, yet frank, manner. A few months ago I heard my right honourable friend the Secretary of State say:
"We will try and fashion a better Bill even than the one that was read a second time".
He was, of course, referring to the other place. But, my Lords, let us do just that, please.
5.50 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I shall try not to confuse your Lordships with statistics. When we debated the Government White Paper on Buses on 26th October last year, of the eight noble Lords who spoke, there was only one, I believe, who spoke in favour of the White Paper. That was the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, who was speaking for the first time from the Government Front Bench. Am I wrong?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I also spoke in favour of it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I was merely mentioning that the noble Lord. Lord Brabazon of Tara, was speaking for the first time from the Government Front Bench. Since that time, eight months ago, opposition to the Bill has grown. This is principally because when it was debated in another place the guillotine was used with the result that many important amendments were never reached. I hope that when we discuss the Bil in Committee noble Lords opposite will not accuse those who are against the Bill of saying that we are going against the spirit of it, because the Bill was not fully discussed in another place.
Those noble Lords who have a particular interest in transport matters, such as my noble friend Lord Tordoff and myself, have received countless pleas from many people all over the country asking us to put down amendments. It is true to say, I believe, that almost every sector of the road passenger transport industry has been against the Bill. One such plea that I received was from the Association of District Councils, which represents 333 district councils. The chairman of the association's transport committee wrote:
"While agreeing completely with the objects of providing better and more cost-effective bus services for the benefit of the travelling public, our practical experience convinces us that the proposed measures will fail entirely to achieve this and, in the long term, will have quite the opposite effect".
What a damning indictment from an organisation that is dominated by Conservative district councils!
Why such a damning indictment? Well, my Lords, I have to quote again from the same letter. It states:
"The weaknesses of the Bill stem from the fact that its basis was founded on theory with no input from those with practical experience of bus operations".
It must be remembered that this practical experience stretches back for some hundred years. It seems to me that this indictment, really, is accusing the Government of indulging in nothing more than high Tory political dogma which, to my way of thinking, is to privatise everything regardless, in exactly the same way that the loony Left says, "Nationalise everything
1170
regardless", whether it be banks or people's private houses.
The main thrust of the Bill is deregulation, competitive tendering, and free, unrestricted competition, allowing market forces to take control. What are these market forces? They are simply the introduction of unfettered, uncontrolled, inexpert, inexperienced operators with only one aim—profit seeking and profit-making, with little or no thought being given to the needs of the travelling public. Oh, sure, there will be some benefits. There will be more services in inner cities and fares will probably come down—but only for a time. Even here the chances are that these services will be operated only during those hours and on those days when there is sufficient business to assure the operator of enough passengers with which to make a profit. Outside these hours there will probably be nothing.
What of the buses themselves? Why should operators water down their profits by buying expensive new buses? Why should they spend unnecessary money on servicing? Why should they provide a service for the old, the infirm, the disabled and schoolchildren if to do so would cost money? Market forces rarely have a social conscience. I hasten to add that I am not against profit. I do not consider "profit" a dirty word. Far from it. But there are some services where profits should not and must not be the prime, not to say, the overriding consideration.
Would we wish to see in this country the introduction of the United States' style of medical care where being hospitalised can, and sometimes does, bankrupt all but the very rich? I agree with most people, I believe, in saying that we would be happier if our National Health Service cost less and was less wasteful. But would anyone, including this Government, want to see the National Health Service making money out of the sick? I do not believe so. Yet, my Lords, unless we radically change this Bill, certain people will be making money at the expense of the travelling public, condemning countless thousands, tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands, of people to living in communities without ant public transport.
Even in towns and cities the public will be poorly served. There will be no research, no co-operation between different modes of travel, probably no liaison between the police and highway authorities, no co-operation across district and county boundaries and no possibility of an integrated transport system. There would be nothing, except probably chaos. This chaos will extend—the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, mentioned this—to the accrued pension rights of the employees of bus undertakings. I understand that these are not legally protected up to the time of privatisation. I would be grateful if the Minister, in his reply, could deal with this question.
In case noble Lords think that I have been exaggerating my picture of doom, I would add this. A few months ago, I was in Manchester, where I chaired a seminar laid on by the Bus and Coach Council. We were addressed by technical experts, men who have been in transport all their lives. They showed us several maps. One contained criss-crossing lines showing all the existing bus services. When this overlay was removed another map showed the

1171
probable bus services in future. All that was shown were bus services in the inner cities and their environs and practically no other services whatever. A terrifying reduction in services is bound to occur because of the abolition of cross-subsidy. If operators cannot make a lot of money on popular routes and without competition, they cannot afford to operate uneconomic ones. That is market forces at work in reality.
I should like to ask the Minister a few more questions. Is there any truth in the claim that moves are afoot to license private hire in London? A noble Lord has mentioned this. I gathered from what he said that he thought this was not so. But the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association is afraid that this will be done as, indeed has already happened outside London. Those noble Lords who have seen the television film "The Knowledge" will know that it takes two or three years to train a taxi driver. It is very expensive. If licensed hire cars are allowed in London, there is a very great danger that taxi drivers will leave the taxi-driving business. They will get away from the stringent controls of the hackney carriage laws and move from the supervision of the Public Carriage Office under the Commissioner of Police into the free market economy of private hire. Everyone will lose, because we undoubtedly have the finest and most knowledgeable taxi drivers of any major city in the world.
Secondly, we have heard already about Hereford and Worcester. A report from the local members of the Association of District Councils states that off the main routes, services to villages are virtually nonexistent, as are pre-8 a.m. and post-7 p.m. weekday services. In the city of Hereford itself, private competition has diminished, leaving a state of near-monopoly. Those are not my words; they are the words of the local people. I shall be very happy to hear that that is not so, because when we were discussing the White Paper a great deal was said about Hereford and how successful Hereford had been. At that time we were saying that we believed that, however rosy things were at the beginning, they would become worse and worse.
Finally, I am sure that everyone will be familiar with the famous words of Robert Louis Stevenson:
"To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive".
I have always thought that that was a load of poppycock. My daughter is a student midwife in Derby and she came home last weekend. She travels by coach. When she sits in the coach she is hopeful that she will arrive. It is not much consolation if she does not arrive—in fact, it is the exact opposite.
Unless the Bill is amended hundreds of thousands of our countrymen who do not have personal transport and who live in rural areas will be saying:
"To wait for a bus hopefully is a better thing than for one to arrive",
and that also is poppycock. Therefore, I hope that when we come to discuss the Bill we shall make the necessary amendments.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I listened with interest and attention to the noble Earl and I sympathise with his anxieties. However, I think that he
1172
is unnecessarily gloomy—to use his own word—in the picture that he paints. I am so happy to see the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, back in his place because he was referred to by my noble friend Lord Teviot in connection with the spectacular part (although only a brief one) which he played in the Transport Act 1968. My noble friend Lord Teviot reminded us that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, introduced the Second Reading of that Bill with a major speech of some length. My noble friend said that the noble Lord spoke for some 50 minutes—
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I suspect that I did better today!
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Lord did extremely well today and made a very interesting speech. I may not agree with it all, but I recognise his authority. The noble Lord charged the Government with pursuing with this Bill a high risk policy. I ask the noble Lord to cast his mind back to 1967 when that Bill was introduced, because that Bill also followed a high risk policy. As the noble Lord will remember, the policy behind that Bill was to introduce a system of comprehensive planning and control for every aspect of transport. Mercifully, with time, it has all disappeared and the sooner it went the better. Indeed, I think that the noble Lord rather agrees with me on that point.
However, maybe we do not have the Bill entirely right and if that is so then no doubt in Committee we shall be able to improve it. It certainly gives me great pleasure today to support my noble friends Lord Belstead and Lord Brabazon. Indeed, today I have a supporting role, which is the reverse of the situation in 1967 when I was leading for our side in that majestic piece of legislation which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
The Bill makes a fundamental change from the tightly-controlled licensing system to a free market. However, I well remember some 30 years ago when I was in the Ministry of Transport that we were operating the 1930 licensing system which had been introduced, as the noble Lord rightly said, originally to protect the railways. It was subsequently maintained and developed in order to protect the weak services by virtue of the strong, and so the system of cross-subsidisation gradually grew up.
I must say that 30 years ago I had no doubt whatever that this was a thoroughly sound system. Although we often had complaints that a private operator would like to start but was unable to do so, on balance I felt sure that the system was serving the interests of the community. However, in those far off days both private and public undertakings were profitable. Indeed, in the 1950s the situation was beginning to change with the advent of the universal motor car. The fact is that, as the White Paper tells us—and I refer to table 17 because it makes the point that I want to make, although it has been made before—in 1972 the total of grants and subsidies for buses was £7 1 million. In other words, a great deal of unprofitable operation was already increasing. By 1982 the subsidies and grants had risen to £897 million and last year they were in excess of £1,000 million. In my opinion that is the major justification for the change.

1173
I do not believe that any Government could preside over that situation with that enormous sum rising every year accompanied, as it is (as the White Paper tells us), by a sharp decline in the passenger kilometres travelled by bus and coach from 42 per cent. in 1953 to only 8 per cent. in 1983, bearing in mind also the continuing growth of private car ownership. It has created a situation where we have not only those factors to bear in mind, but also fare increases, to which reference has already been made. Stage coach fares, despite the huge subsidies, have increased by some 30 per cent. above the rate of inflation in the last 10 years. In my view that is the reason the Government must act.
It is evident to me that the long-suffering British taxpayer, to whom my noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross referred, is getting very bad value for money and that the 50-year-old system of regulation and control no longer serves the public good. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, conceded that change was needed, but lie was not prepared to say more than that he would like a pragmatic approach. Pragmatism can cover almost everything, and just what that would mean in practice is not easy to see. I shall deal with the point in a little more detail before I finish my speech.
The benefit for which the Bill is striving is the benefit of a free market, and there really is a benefit there despite what any noble Lords may say. The difficulty is to try to find a halfway measure in the way that, for instance, the Select Committee in the other place tried. Indeed, that committee made several shots at it, but in my opinion each one of them would so restrict the working of the free market that we would, to a large extent, lose the benefits that can come from it.
I turn to what the picture will be in the future. I think that no one can doubt that there will be plenty of private operators in the urban areas operating at lower fares. I should think that the private bus traveller would get a jolly good deal for his money. However, when we come to the rural and the semi-rural areas the problems begin. The question is whether or not the cost of subsidy in the tendering process in which the local authorities engage will be so heavy that it exceeds the cost of the present subsidy; in other words, whether the burden of the loss of the cross-subsidy will be so severe.
I should like to make a few remarks about the question of the cross-subsidy. I believe that there is substantial scope for increased efficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, did not discuss the passages in the White Paper on the scope for increased efficiency, but the scope is undoubtedly there.
I have referred to 30 years ago when private operation and public operation were at a profit and the cross-subsidy came out of the revenues of the operating companies. But as that has disappered and the total operation of buses has gradually shrunk and become less viable, the business has shrunk, profits have gone, and subsidy has been needed.
We all know from many experiences that with the establishment of a system of deficit financing invevitably commercial incentive is lost. It does not matter how hard the managers try, the spur to enterprise and innovation is not only weakened but in most cases it actually goes. I again speak to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, because he speaks with such
1174
authority, and he spoke with some favour of the operation of the National Bus Company. All the figures show that the National Bus Company operates a great deal better then the PTEs and the municipals, but even so, according to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory study which the White Paper gives, it costs some 30 per cent. above the average of private operators' costs.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? First he talked about a billion pounds in terms of subsidy. I think he will accept that at least half of that arises from concessionary fares, which I think is not a subsidy to an operator but a subsidy to the general community. That is one factor.
The noble Lord then went on to speak about efficiency. Today efficiency is being achieved. Within what was my own group comparing 1978 and 1984 we now operate 93 per cent. of the road mileage service with 78 per cent. of the staff and 68 per cent. of the vehicles. That is a considerable improvement in efficiency.
The noble Lord was saying that the NBC had done well and that the others had not done as well. The regime under which they have operated has been different. We have a financial target and they have not. This is what I meant earlier: if you prune, as opposed to tearing up the roots, what has been achieved in the NBC field could be achieved elsewhere.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for assisting me. I do not disagree with his analysis of the total cost to public expenditure. A large part of it of course is subsidy to the disabled But the figure I quoted is the total given in the White Paper. Even if we are speaking of only £500 million a year, that to me is a great deal of money. The Government have a duty to try to reduce it and make sure that the taxpayer and ratepayer get good value for money. This is the main point that I am concerned with.
Again I am quoting from the White Paper, which has not been refuted, that the Transport and Road Research Laboratory study indicates that the private sector was operating at a 30 per cent. lower cost than the National Bus Company. It indicates that when a man is operating buses, or anything else, to get his living out of it he will be more enterprising, keener, and more economical in his operations than one who is not.
Again I quote from the White Paper that in their observation the main points of wastage observed were the less efficient use of platform staff and vehicles and the general lack of innovation in bus services—although I concede some of these to the noble Lord. There is a good deal of scope there when there are many small operators going into action. I speak now particularly of rural services where there will be many small operators—and I live in a rural area myself—who will come in with smaller vehicles and flexible operation. They will operate a good deal more cheaply than anything we have seen to date. They will give good service, and in many cases they will give a service where we do not get one now. There is certainly not very much of a service in my village.
We shall see this picture develop satisfactorily in the towns. Outside the towns, in the rural areas, nobody

1175
can tell for sure just how much it will cost in terms of subsidy to get the rural services that the local councils will want. I believe that we shall find a great deal better picture than has been predicted. We have all been receiving a massive volume of canvassing, and piles of pamphlets have poured through my letter box from all the existing operators and interests.
After all, this is human nature. It happened to us all in the Local Government Bill as well. People do not like change. I do not like it very much myself. I understand that. But that does not mean that in the Government's thought there is not a sound concept. There will be a benefit to the whole community if there is a free market here, and the private operators are allowed to go in and make a living out of it by offering services that they are able to, and directing the subsidy of public funds specifically to the point where there would not be a service otherwise. To my mind that makes good sense.
As I look around I believe that not just for the groceries that the right reverend Prelate brought in, but in the whole range of services by which we live, private enterprise in a free market produces very good results. There is scope for it here. I support my noble friend. I wish him well with what is going to be an arduous Committee stage. He will certainly have my support in it.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, many years ago I was a candidate in the notable constituency in the far north of Great Britain, Caithness and Sutherland. On my first visit to Wick and Thurso I took the train from Inverness, and I was surprised to find that there were two parallel lines. When I met my friends in Caithness I asked why it was that on this remote railway there should be two railway lines. They told me, "This is from the old 'cowboy' days". These were the days before railway nationalisation when there were competing private railway companies. The trains used to run at the same time. They used to race each other to the stations, and there were often fights between the drivers and the guards. This was in the ancient days.
I was reminded of that experience when I read the Government's own Transport and Road Research Laboratory report on the experiment—to which the noble Lord who introduced this Bill paid such tribute—in Hereford. The Government's own report on this experiment found that competing operators ran buses at the same time and raced each other along routes to get the most passengers. This is Lord Nugent's free market; a free market in services; in services which are essentially public services.
There have been a lot of statistics and technical terms this afternoon; but like the right reverend Prelate I want to talk simply about people. I was brought up in a remote rural area in Yorkshire. I live in another remote rural area in Lincolnshire, and I am in the process of moving to another remote rural area in Derbyshire.
I spent a lot of time in the right reverend Prelate's own area of Durham, in Northumberland, and in Scotland. I have no doubt that my experiences with the people of rural areas are duplicated in other areas that I have only visited, but visited quite extensively, in
1176
North Wales, and indeed in Brecon, on which we shall soon be fixing our attention; in Wiltshire, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall. I am sure that noble Lords all round the House will have had similar experiences.
I am concerned about the people that I know. I am concerned about the mothers of two or three children who want to go shopping. They do not have cars. If there is a car in the family, the husband takes it to work. It is the only way to travel. How do they go shopping? How do they go to the dentist? How do they take the children to the dentist? How do they go to the doctor or visit friends, who may be in hospital? There is no way for at least half the rural population to do that.
Figures have been given this afternoon that 40 per cent. of the population do not have cars and that most of that percentage is in the rural areas. But those who have cars are one-car families and for the rest of the family there is isolation.
Let me give another personal anecdote. Some years ago my mother, who was then over 80 years old, lived in a beautiful North Yorkshire seaside village called Robin Hood's Bay. I remember the Beeching cuts which removed the beautiful scenic railway that ran from Middlesbrough through Whitby to Scarborough and through Robin Hood's Bay on the way. I remember, when that railway was to be cut off, going to see Barbara Castle and asking her to look into this especially. The population of that very wide area, which encompassed not just Robin Hood's Bay but the whole of the rural area across the moors to Pickering and all the villages around, were told, "We are going to put on a bus service". They did; the following winter there was a heavy snow storm and the buses could not run. Anyone who has been up the road from Whitby to Robin Hood's Bay and Scarborough will know why they could not run. There was no possibility of buses running, and so the population was isolated.
Eventually my mother suffered the worst consequences of that restricted mobility that comes with absence of transport, the fear of isolation, and she had to move into a town where people were on hand to help her in need. That is only one instance of the thousands and thousands of cases of people whose lives are deprived by the absence of that mobility which is necessary just to preserve the ordinary decencies which we all expect and take for granted.
Like other noble Lords, I have been lobbied and sent documents. It is the responsibility of Members of this House who have particular local connections to represent those connections in the best way we can and so I shall make two references to representations which have been made to me to support what I have been saying about the deprivation of people. The first is not from a county council, but from the Community Health Council for South Lincolnshire. I take just two extracts. The health council writes to me saying that:
"as a whole their chief concern was for people who already face considerable difficulty in attending GP surgeries, clinics and hospitals for in- and out-patient treatment".
The letter goes on to meet what will undoubtedly be put forward by the Government as their defence against the risk, which has been seen on all sides in this House during this Second Reading debate, of a

1177
reduction in the uneconomic but socially necessary rural area bus services by stating:
"The promised national subsidy of £20 million reducing over four years offers nothing more than a stay of execution for rural services, especially when it is considered that for the coming financial year 1985–86 Lincolnshire County Council anticipates providing in excess of £½ million towards maintaining existing routes and services".
There seems to be little doubt in the minds of those who have this responsibility that this Bill will reduce still further the already inadequate rural bus services of the country.
My second quotation comes from a document which has been sent to me from Nottinghamshire County Council, the City of Nottingham, Derbyshire County Council, Derby City Transport and Chesterfield Borough Council, all of which have united in writing:
"In rural areas which are particularly vulnerable, the Government will be providing an initial grant of £20 million, reducing by £5 million a year, to ease the transition. This sum represents only about one-seventh of existing bus subsidies outside the metropolitan areas and will be paid from Whitehall, not by the local authorities who are best placed to assess local needs".
I suggest that in country areas, in the shire counties right across rural Britain there is considerable concern and fear about the consequences of this Bill.
I conclude by quoting the summing up which the same group of councils sent to me in the same document:
"we regard the Government's present plans as ill-conceived and potentially disastrous.
"Most local authorities, bus operators and consumer organisations believe that the Transport Bill's proposals are defective or totally unworkable. Like the Select Committee, we believe 'that the Bill will require considerable amendment if it is to prove acceptable'."
I suggest that that is a judgment which will have been heard by and possibly will have been reached by noble Lords from rural areas on all sides of this House. I believe that this House represents in particular the rural areas. There is a wider representation of the rural areas in this House than in the other place. I believe that it is our responsibility to represent the interests of the people who live in those rural areas and it may be that this House is the last protective bastion for rural Britain.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, almost for the first time in this House it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, as in the earlier part of his speech he took us around the countryside, mostly to places which I have visited. I was entirely with him and I loved every minute of the journey he described to us. I did not quite like the end, but that will become clear as I proceed with my speech.
The noble Lord remarked that a train service had been removed from a small part of North Yorkshire and replaced by a bus at, I suspect, just about the same time as I was living in the Meon Valley where we had the same kind of experience. It perhaps temporarily arrested the decline of the bus services, having had our train taken away, we were given an extra bus.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Zouche of Haryngworth. I put this on the record as I see that he is not in his place. I thought that his speech was absolutely first-class as other noble Lords have said,
1178
and I hope that we shall hear that type of speech again. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend the Minister who introduced the debate. He did so with great clarity and reasonable firmness. I look forward to his tackling the opposition when we reach Committee stage, alongside my noble friend who is to wind up. I might also say to my noble friend and indeed to one or two of the speakers at the end of the list that I hope that they will forgive me if, because of a long-standing engagement, I may not be able to stay for as long as I would wish.
It seems to me that there is some agreement—it could not be contradicted—that the bus industry has been in decline, certainly for the last 30 years. In that time it has dropped from 40 per cent. of journeys by bus to 8 per cent. I think there is also argeement that this must be arrested, especially in the interests of the old, the disabled, the poor and the young. On the other hand, although there has not been objection to each and every part of the Bill, it seems that the main opposition is to deregulation. The clearest opposition to that was put by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, with his great knowledge, and, to my surprise, also by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who spoke from the Liberal Benches.
I was surprised at the negative attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, because I have always thought that on the whole the Liberals were keen on free enterprise. But perhaps they have changed their tune now that they are lined up with the SDP. It was sad to hear a Liberal speaker clearly not liking free enterprise. It was of course understandable that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, should not do so; but then he would not be expected to do so.
The point therefore is whether deregulation is a bad thing. We have had all sorts of assessments that deregulation is hound to have adverse effects, especially for the very people for whom we require the improvements to which I was referring earlier. But these assessments have been made by people nearly all of whom know only how to work with regulated bus services. They have no knowledge of the situation which obtained 50 years ago and before. Why is it that they are so implacably certain that deregulation will not be a success? When I talk about those people I mean not only the operators but the local authority officials as well, all of whom only know about regulated bus services.
Regulation protects the providers of services. However, we know from all sorts of other enterprises and services that protection encourages inefficiencies of all sorts. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford spelt out very clearly some of those inefficiencies. Of course the providers who are protected are fearful of change that removes their protection. But what about the users? So far the providers have frightened the present users of bus services and seem to me to have frightened several of your Lordships with their gloomy forecasts. Without knowing any better, therefore, several of those so frightened have gone along with the objections to deregulation because they take it for granted that things will get worse; but that is difficult to see.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, was telling us, and quite rightly, about the deprivation there was for people in the rural districts if they do not have an

1179
adequate bus service. In my part of the country the bus services are now so inadequate that they cannot get any worse. We are all told by the "frighteners" that they may be removed in the winter. I suspect that somebody will come along and provide them to meet the need. The fact is that this 8 per cent. of journeys by bus is as low as you can go.
My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford talked about the appalling increase in the subsidy, which is getting out of hand. I would say that the appalling imposition is that of regulation which prevents the flexibility which would allow the needs to be met by the services that are required. What about the potential new users? They do not seem to have been consulted. The figures one reads seem to refer mostly to the answers to questions put to the present users, they having been told to expect the worst. But new users may come along, because there will be freedom to tender for those services, many of which are currently not available. This competition will be a spur to efficiency and will provide an opportunity to meet the needs of both the current users and those users who would use the buses if the services were satisfactory. Real experience has shown that this opportunity is not present in the regulated system.
I hope very much therefore that when we come to the Committee and later stages of the Bill we shall take great care not to read too much into the gloomy forecasts which have been made by people who do not know how to exist without regulations.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am about to finish. The noble Lord can speak when I sit down. As my noble friend the Minister said in introducing the Bill, the customer can now have better and more services and better value for money with more operators providing greater transport variety at competitive prices. That is the aim of the Bill. I do not see any reason whatsoever why it should not achieve that aim. I trust therefore that we shall not "muck it about" at Committee stage and spoil it. I hope your Lordships will take that view right through all stages of the Bill.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he referred to my assumption that there was going to be a cut in rural bus services, and argued that there could not be a cut in total numbers below the present 8 per cent. I would be with him if I thought that this Bill, or any other measure, will improve the facilities of public transport in the rural areas. What I cannot see—and perhaps he can explain it—is how, with services which we know are uneconomic, which have only been sustained even on their present inadequate level by cross-subsidisation, we can attract small operators to run them and keep them going. Is it going to be for social or ideological reasons? It is not going to be for profit.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, we could go on with very long speeches, but there are a lot of people to speak. In my part of the world we have large double-decker buses on rural routes. In the winter time and in all the months except for half of June, July and August
1180
and a bit of September, they are not necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said to me in the past that these buses are necessary because one has to have the big buses for the town use and it is more economical in the big company to have the same sort of bus because there is a lot of advantage that way.
It seems to me perfectly reasonable that if—and I hope that it does not happen—the major operator removes the line altogether, there will be people who will come up with smaller buses which they will run more economically because they will have much less overheads. They will be able to provide the service in lieu and provide more of a service. One of the problems is that the moment the buses do not run at convenient times a lot of people make other arrangements not to use them. If it were possible for a local man who knew the district to run more buses, he would get more traffic and he could follow his market. I am quite certain that there is a very reasonable chance of that working. In fact, my Lords, I am seriously tempted to go to the Isle of Wight and do this; but then, of course, I should have to abandon the pleasure of addressing your Lordships from time to time, and that would be a great hardship.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to me. I am sure that he would agree that in the case of the Isle of Wight you have double-deckers in order to carry the peak service during the summer months. If you have small vehicles and no large vehicles, you will not be able to carry the number of passengers in the Isle of Wight during the summer period. Therefore, balancing one period of the year with another a decision has to be taken as to what is the right vehicle. It has nothing to do with size; it is a question of the number of passengers to be carried.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, if your Lordships will allow me—this will be the last intervention—the answer is that because it is one operator in virtually a monopoly position, he has to look at it from that point of view. But if there were several operators, some of them would provide small buses for the winter, others would provide extra small buses for some of the summer, and you would not only have to have big buses because you had to deal with the summer traffic.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, what happens to the large vehicles when they are not in use?
6.42 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I hope that we do not find ourselves going simply from the Isle of Wight to East Sussex. I should like to say first to my noble friend the Minister that I support the main thrust of the Bill. I have a few matters to deal with which I hope may improve the Bill, and a few reservations. I am by no means as gloomy about the situation as was the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. I feel that we must build on the Hereford experiment and others, keep the best, deal with the bad; and that that is what the Bill in the main is doing. I must confess to a hankering for what is known as on-the-road competition where possible as being the best way to test the market properly and to improve the quality of service offered. I believe that it does that.

1181
I should like to welcome the relaxation of rules for taxis and mini-buses, which I believe will be of great help in rural areas, although certainly that will not solve everything. I myself will be anxious to resist any attempts to make the operation of mini-buses more difficult because they are so vital to our villages. I may say that I put down my name to speak because I am primarily interested in rural transport. We must remember that these services that we are talking about are essential services and that there is no room for mistakes. The matter is politically highly sensitive by comparison with long-distance routes, and we must keep that very well in mind.
I think that the subject of buses is one upon which one must think very much from the particular to the general and not vice versa, and I believe that theory can be dangerous. Hence you will find that I shall have a tendency to refer to our county council's experience in East Sussex. I know that it is only one county and that there are others with different problems but I think that it is illustrative. Their officials' views and mine largely coincide and so do the current views of the Association of County Councils.
Regarding the Bill, there are really three matters that I have to raise. I raise the first two very briefly because I think they can be dealt with in Committee. One is about registration and the need for counties to know quickly what is happening about the changes in services, and the other is about traffic regulation, where, again, counties feel that they are very much on the spot. 'What is more controversial is the third item, which is the desire for a reserve power to be held by someone—and I shall say no more about it than that—a power to protect subsidised routes from competition where public money will be wasted or the service lost. I will return to that.
Perhaps I may now say a few words about what has gone on in my own county, where the cross-subsidy element is probably average for a shire county and where the county council transport department has been more active than most. It established the East Sussex Co-ordinated Rural Transport Scheme (known as ESCORT for short). I could tell your Lordships a great deal about that in around 20 minutes, but I shall refrain from doing that. It has been an important movement.
The first effort after the 1980 Act was to have a look at the situation in Brighton. I may say (and I should have said this before) that these activities prove the point that there tends to be more scope for economies in the urban areas than in the rural ones. In Brighton, the transport co-ordinators went transport broking in a big way and on the inter-suburban routes, the subsidised ones, they studied and co-ordinated the demand from the public, the education service (a very big spender) the health service and the social services. In our part of the world there is a high percentage of elderly people.
They replanned those routes and put them out to tender. The result was a subsidy reduced from £750,000 to a quarter of a million, a saving of 66⅔ per cent., and usage increased by 17 per cent., demonstrating the popularity of the new routes. They further reported no worries about competition upsetting the finances of these subsidised services and no worries about loss of cross-subsidy.
1182
The rural position was definitely harder going. The subsidy was £1 million a year. The ESCORT scheme, co-ordination and tendering and the use of some experimental vehicles (bearing in mind the elderly and disabled) got off to a sticky start Here I should like to say how glad I was to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Zouche of Haryngworth, who mentioned the disabled, and to congratulate him upon his speech.
As I have said, the ESCORT scheme got off to a sticky start financially but the county council now appear confident that when it is fully in place it will save getting on for a quarter of a million pounds. It is so far showing increased passenger use, and several more villages are being served. Tendering tear this service has not "seen off" the National Bus Company subsidiary. They have lost one route and they nearly lost another, but they kept the rest. From this, I conclude that the possible actual operating economies may prove to be quite small. There may be organisational planning of route economies and increased traffic, but they are going to be more important. Our county council is not worried about the loss of external cross-subsidy from the few main routes which pay. What they are worried about is time-of-day competition on parts of the subsidised ESCORT routes affecting the degree of on-route or internal cross-subsidy inherent in the routes themselves. They estimate that this could cost the whole ESCORT saving that is, getting on for a quarter of a million pounds. That is enough money to damage and reduce rural services very considerably. That is my concern.
The Minister, I think, will suggest that the county council is in difficulty because it is subsidising too much of the routes. I think he takes the view that private enterprise should first establish where it can reach, and that subsidy should then apply only after that divide. I hope he appreciates that the exact position of this divide will never be stable for long. It will also vary even according to the time of day.
From that comes the dilemma that county councils are in over these services: whether their subsidised service should carry over the divide into the private enterprise area to a reasonably popular destination, or whether the service should be less convenient and the passengers be dropped off to await another bus, possibly at a rather inconvenient spot—in this connection, I think rather particularly about our elderly, and I do not like the position. Either way, I think it is likely to cost just about the same in subsidy, whichever of these two courses is pursued. It is for this reason that the Association of County Councils wants some fallback regulatory machinery selectively to protect subsidised services where the shoe pinches, and I support that.
It is right to point out that in the Hereford scheme the county council retained this power and, I believe, used it. In the Bill as drafted it would not be available from anywhere. An amendment about this, possibly too wide an amendment, which was moved in another place and was rejected, was very unkindly nicknamed "Trojan Bus". I very much hope that in this House we may have another more careful and kinder look at it.
I have an important comment from the Association

1183
of County Councils about the withdrawal of cross-subsidy which I feel I should quote. I have made a slight précis of it.
"In the metropolitan counties with 40 per cent. of the population but 80 per cent. of bus subsidy spending, withdrawal of cross-subsidy and improved efficiency from competition may well produce substantial savings. But in non-metropolitan areas, the arithmetic does not work out. Spending only 20 per cent. of national subsidy for 60 per cent. of the population, the shire counties have kept a much tighter rein. Hence cross-subsidy has been far more important (in maintainng unprofitable services). Internal cross-subsidy, i.e., subsidy within an individual route rather than between different routes, in the shire counties is very difficult to estimate but appears well in excess of the £96 million they spent on revenue support. The Government appear not to have denied this."
There is then appended a list of 20 counties affected.
To me, this says, "Proceed with caution". I believe Herefordshire was less affected by cross-subsidy than many other counties. I think we must recognise that, beyond the divide, co-ordination or, if the word may be forgiven—it does not ring very favourably in some people's ears—rationalisation has to be the order of the day. The interface between the two systems requires reserve powers of some sort, or we risk wasting public money and/or losing services.
6.55 p.m.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, the intent of this Bill is set out extremely succinctly in the last two lines of the introduction to the White Paper, on page 3. It says:
"Legislation will make major changes to arrangements for the bus industry so that it is set free to give better service to the passenger at less cost to the ratepayer and the taxpayer".
I think one could say that that is very well summed up indeed. It is absolutely clear, and it is an unequivocal undertaking by the Government. As a statement of intent I think we could all agree that it is admirable, if it can happen. Because of that I feel we should be looking at this legislation not so much in the way that we normally look at legislation, but in the way that, as businessmen, we would look at a business plan that had been put up by some large company, or even some large industry, where there was deemed to be, as there is here, a need for total restructuring. Alas, the financial forecasts that are normally associated with a business plan are not available. It may be that the Government have done them, but if they have, I think they would have produced them, and so I assume that they have not been done.
I should like to say at this point that I am critical of the Government for coming up with such a radical set of suggestions without giving us the benefit of their figuring on the result. So our job is made more difficult. It is quite simply to assess whether this plan will work in commercial terms.
This business plan rests on two related measures, but though they are related, they are in fact quite separate. The first one is deregulation in order to encourage "on the road" competition. Deregulation is what everybody seems to have been discussing this afternoon. Perhaps they have not paid enough attention to the second leg—the related leg but the second leg—upon which this plan rests, which is the removal of external subsidy from existing undertakings. These two taken together will have two effects. First, they will force—the Government will welcome it—existing networks to abandon their non-
1184
paying services, which are now supported in some cases by internal or cross-subsidy and in some cases by external or Government or rate subsidy. What will follow from that is that the authorities—that is, the shire counties or the joint boards, whichever it may be—will be required to use the external subsidy that they receive to procure the running of these abandoned services by putting them out to tender.
I think we ought perhaps to have a look at the nature of these services which are likely to be abandoned by the networks and will thereafter be looking for different parents. They are not only the rural services, and perhaps there has been a tendency to concentrate over much on that. There will be semi-urban services. There will be the end bit of many routes. There will be early morning services and evening services. There will be weekend services, and particularly Sunday services.
Perhaps what is more important is that even some of the peak morning and evening services will go. I know that one big undertaking has already planned to remove a number of its peak services, such as special factory services where the factory is not on the main route, and even special school services. The reason for this is that the easiest way for a bus undertaking to save money is to have fewer buses and therefore fewer staff. So these routes that are to be abandoned cover a very wide spectrum, and many undertakings are already on record as saying that they will cut up to 30 per cent. of their mileage—a very formidable mileage, indeed.
The key question that we have to ask is this: will the local authorities have the money, or be able to find the money, to pay the tenderers for the services that they, the local authorities, require on behalf of their citizens? Cross-subsidy will have disappeared. This is something which, as has been said before, is largely a factor in the National Bus Company and is normally regarded as being worth about twice the external subsidy. As a result they will have only the external subsidy from the Government or from the ratepayers to use. It is no part of this Bill, but it is a fact that the Government have already announced their intention, to take effect this year, of cutting what is still called the revenue support grant by a figure which, I think, amounts to some 15 per cent.
So we have this situation to face—that there will be many routes of great social importance that will be able to operate only if the local authority has sufficient funds to offer to those who tender for them. This is where the whole danger rests. Deregulation will come into this, because it will make the job of the tenderer much harder, as he will not know whether he is likely to put in a tender and then have some other entrepreneur come in so as to send his figures awry.
The White Paper claims that there are a number of counter-factors here. First, it is claimed that there are potential savings of up to 30 per cent. and therefore, presumably, that those chaps could tender that much cheaper. I wonder how many people really believe this. I wonder how many people in industry have ever come across a business that has 30 per cent. of fat on it. Certainly, in looking at this industry the Monopolies and Mergers Commission did not accept that contention. I think it is widely accepted that probably 10 per cent. is the highest figure to which it would be safe to go.

1185
We are also told that competition will provide more services where they are wanted, but let us remember that we are talking about these non-viable routes. Where do your Lordships think the entrepreneurs, who are coming in to compete, are going? Are they going to the little route from Plumstead Episcopi to Hogglestock, or are they going to Barchester which these days is surrounded by rich electronic factories? Are they not going to ply for hire there, and what good will that do to the routes that have been abandoned by the networks? The Government have talked about a rural fund. It has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. As I understand it, it has been calculated to be of the order of 5p per bus mile and reducing, which is peanuts.
So I find that the conclusions to which the White Paper has come, which make the Government believe that deregulation, useful as it may be, will help the services that will be in danger, are totally false and I believe that this view is shared by 100 per cent. of those who are in the industry. Certainly, it is shared by the many busmen to whom I have had the honour of talking in the last few months.
So I have come, I am afraid, to a melancholy conclusion. I conclude that in vain are we going to carve up this industry? I conclude that in vain will the great sense of public service that motivates the existing networks be lost? Paternalistic, somebody has called it, in what I thought was a mildly derogatory way, but it is a loss that I regret very much indeed.
I finish by reminding your Lordships that many services will be at risk and that uncertainty will be with us not for months but for years to come. We may be able to put this Bill to rights, to some extent, in succeeding stages. I myself doubt it, because it is fundamentally so wrong in its concept. However, the attempt will no doubt be made. But on the assumption that it stays more or less as it is, I can only advise the Government that they should find some way of backing off altogether from the Bill, and I warn them that if they do not, they will come to rue the day that they presented it to Parliament.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, we have listened to a powerful exposition from my noble friend Lord De La Warr, not for the first time in this debate, of what might be called the producers' view of transport services; the view of those who are professionally or governmentally engaged, or who have been engaged, in providing these services. One must assume that for such people—and it would be true in any other industry—there is an inbuilt preference for the way in which things have been done so far.
I venture to address your Lordships' House from the opposite point of view. I am not, and never have been, engaged in the transport industry. I am the kind of person who has been referred to in the course of this debate, when noble Lords have said that this debate is about people. I am an old-age pensioner, not the owner of a car; and in case there are any generous noble Lords, I would not know how to drive one if I were given one. I am dependent on public transport now and have been all my working life and I have seen it wholly from the point of view of a consumer. From
1186
this point of view, when I look at the figures—no one has questioned the figures, with the falling off of our bus services over recent years; no one has questioned the fact that they have become more expensive than would be allowed by the rate of inflation—I then have to ask, "Would a Bill along these lines possibly produce a remedy, or must we assume that we should continue with the present system and find some reason for believing that the decline would somehow come to an end?"
It seems to me that if we are to answer this question we have to take a rather different look at what is the nature of the problem. It has after all been pointed out by many noble Lords that a very large proportion of the population of this country is in my position—they either do not own cars or they have no access to cars. There therefore must be a great potential for a public transport service if these people are to have access to work, to shopping, to amusements and to each other. We have to ask, "Why is it that we are unable without increasing the vast expense to confer the blessing of mobility?"
It is argued—it was argued by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and it appears in the report of the Select Committee in another place—that you can put this down to the rise in car ownership. I would say that we must look at what I can only call from the general national point of view the abuse of car ownership. It is absurd. What would our arrangements for transport look like to someone coming from another planet? I stand at a bus stop on Monday mornings waiting for the bus to take me to the railway station in order that I may join your Lordships in our deliberations. There passes along by me car after car, usually with a single occupant going into the middle of the town, cluttering up the streets with parking from quite a range away from the station, or taking people not to the station but to work. It is the most inefficient system which can ever have been devised for taking people from one place to another, whether one takes it in terms of the environment or in terms of the cost of energy.
I agree with the people who talk about coordination. One ought not to distinguish unnecessarily between buses, coaches, railways, underground railways, rapid transit systems and public transport. Therefore, it seems to me that the essentials of a policy for public transport ought to be to find ways in which people can be attracted to use public transport and leave their cars at home except for those things for which a car presents advantages which no system of public transport can—such as taking the family and its luggage away for holidays.
The merits of this Bill seem to me to lie precisely where the noble Earl, Lord De La Wan, sees its demerits. It is going to blow up the present system; it is going to start people looking for new ways of providing service because they will have an incentive; it is going to make people challenge whether the double decker bus with its capacity is the proper instrument to serve an ill-frequented route; it is going to try to persuade people to experiment. I find this talk about Marie Antoinette and taxis very peculiar; there are a number of developing countries with low incomes where the shared six-seater or eight-seater motor car is normally the only form of public transport available.

1187
There is therefore the opportunity for experiment. No doubt some experiments will fail. Some operators will fail. It is important—and the Bill seems to provide for this—that these experiments should not be made at the expense of safety. No doubt there will still be a point where the necessity of social provision will be such that Government or local authorities will say, "This service is important and must be paid for", though there is no reason to believe that it can be on the scale which would justify a private entrepreneur. All these things will come about, and at the end of it we will get I hope a different system.
I therefore find it very difficult to understand why the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, thinks that the Government should have done more sums. When you are undertaking a revolution in a method of transport or in a system of transport, I do not see that you could possibly forecast to a degree that would make forecasting worth while the exactitude of what would happen. Imagine somebody saying to George Stephenson, "Suppose we replace the stage coaches with your railway engines. Can you give me the rate of return on investment in railway stock in the 1850s?" That is the kind of question which is being asked; and for a change of this magnitude that question cannot and ought not to be answered.
Similarly, I regret both the Government's reliance on the Hereford and Worcester and Exeter experiments and the attempt to say that the shortcomings which these have thrown up prove that no change is possible or desirable. It is not the kind of thing that can be demonstrated in a particular place because no two places are of the same kind. I take as an example the present system. I have lived in two cities very unlike each other. One of them provides under the present system a rather good bus service though, from looking at empty buses at parts of the day, it is a somewhat extravagant one. The second has gone to the other extreme and over the 50 years that I have known it the bus services have been so far as I can remember in constant decline and are poor. So even under the present system there is a great deal of inequality.
No doubt we could improve this Bill. There is no Bill which your Lordships do not believe they could improve. I have a feeling that if the Ten Commandments had come before your Lordships' House they would have looked very different by Report stage. That having been said, I think that the Bill gives the opportunity for a new start. Though risks are there, and the Government must be vigilant to see that those who pay for the risks are not the poorest in the community, I still think that the Bill is worth supporting and I hope that in the end we will enact it and give a new start to the system of transport. If we do it again—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that Britain is in many respect in the forefront still in public transport—we shall have made a great contribution to the civilised world.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I, too, am a bus user and so the noble Lord has no special privilege that I do not have. But I can drive, and I drive a car, though if one lives in a city, it is often better and
1188
easier to use the bus service, because of the lack of parking spaces. And if one can park, one has to pay extravagantly for the facilities of the car park, which is privately owned more often than not.
I could imagine the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, standing in the rain waiting for his bus, with all the cars going past each carrying just one person. There is no need to have just one person in each car. The noble Lord's Government introduced car sharing under a previous Transport Bill, whereby owners of private cars could take passengers and charge them. So there is no need for cars to be travelling along almost empty in that way. It proves that the car sharing scheme which the Government thought was going to be very popular just does not work, as the noble Lord has seen with his own eyes.
We have heard about the experiments in Hereford, but its bus services are totally different in nature from the bus services operating in the metropolitan counties. There can be little similarity between the needs of the travelling public in a market town and those in large urban areas such as Liverpool, Manchester or Birmingham.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has just left the Chamber because I want to describe an area which has recognised that the world has moved on. I shall use as my example the West Midlands, and I shall give some figures regarding bus usage there. I have heard it said today—I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton—that there are no buses at all in some areas. I do not know why that it so, but those who come from rural areas must know. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when he speaks, will tell the House why there are no buses in the ADC and the county council areas.
In 1983–84, which is the last year for which complete figures are available for the West Midlands, 503 million passengers were carried. The transport executive operated over 8,600 bus miles per member of staff and carried 56,900 passengers per member of staff. I remind the House and the Minister that in 1982–83 the West Midlands traffic executive and the PTA were subject to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The commission spent a great deal of time examining the West Midlands transport executive and its workings. Afterwards the PTE was congratulated by the commission on its working relationship with the private operators in its area, pointing out that in the West Midlands the joint system worked very well indeed. We have to accept the commission's findings.
Stability has been maintained, as was wished for by the Secretary of State. Since 1982–83 passenger figures have increased by 16 million in the West Midlands. Given the high unemployment in the West Midlands—up to 18 per cent. of the population—for passenger figures to have increased in that way is an achievement which should be recognised.
The authorities in the metropolitan counties and the executives have a duty at present,
"to secure and promote the provision of a properly integrated and efficient system of public transport to meet the needs of the area".
This Bill specifically seeks to abolish that duty. That is being done in the hope that the amount of public money spent on the bus industry will be reduced, as

1189
borne out by the Government public expenditure plans for 1985–86 to 1987–88.
Many noble Lords and the Minister himself quoted subsidy amounts. Perhaps the Minister would care to tell us the corresponding total subsidy paid through tax allowances for company cars. I have received information—and I stand to be corrected—which suggests that the amount of money given through tax allowances for company cars is roughly equivalent to the total amount given to public transport. Only a few months ago there might have been a change in company car tax allowances, but for some reason or another the Government decided that it would not be a very popular course to follow.
We talk about respecting the time scale. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, when he spoke about the limit on the amount of time that will elapse before all these radical changes come into operation. We also have to remember that all the Government's proposals are being made at the same time as they are pushing through their legislation to abolish the metropolitan counties. The metropolitan counties are currently the public transport authorities. Next year their powers will be passed to a transport joint board. All this is taking place when the people with knowledge of this area, through the passenger transport authorities and executives, are experiencing a change of some significance with the abolition of the metropolitan counties.
I am particularly concerned about the loss of integration between bus and train services. This integration has been achieved with a great deal of success in all the metropolitan areas. I was very privileged to visit Tyne and Wear with my noble friend Lord Underhill, who we are all sorry has not been able to join us in this debate. Much money has been spent also on providing car parking spaces adjoining railway stations in all the metropolitan county areas. In the West Midlands 2,600 spaces have been provided at 29 railway stations, so that one can park and ride. This obviously means that there is less traffic congestion in the inner cities.
There is no doubt that the measures taken in the metropolitan areas to revitalise their rail networks have been a success. They have kept down increases in traffic congestion in crowded city centres and have reduced pressures on parking, thus making life much easier for the inhabitants of those large conurbations and for those who have to travel within them.
I remind your Lordships that only two or three weeks ago there was a Question in this House concerning the situation which is arising in London due to the number of coaches coming into the capital. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, gave an explanation. But if this Bill is passed in its present form, what is happening in London will obviously happen in all the large cities.
There will now be a two-pronged attack on the local rail links. Any suitably qualified bus operator will be able to run a service directly competing with the railway. Cuts in public expenditure could well leave the passenger transport joint boards without enough money to pay for the local rail services because loss of revenue to competing bus services would increase their net cost.
If bus competition is significant then more than the current £65 million spent on Section 20 grants will be
1190
required, or services will have to be reduced. There is also the need to take into consideration the vast investments which have been made in the past 10 to 15 years in electrification, new rolling stock, new stations, road-rail interchanges, and car parks in the metropolitan county areas. The Bill ignores all this and could produce a situation where much of the investment is wasted or underused.
Loss of integration could well mean the loss of joint bus-rail ticketing in the form of the travelcard. These low-cost tickets, used by 42 per cent. of bus travellers and 45 per cent. of passengers in the West Midlands, not only improve the situation for the passengers involved in a bus-train or bus-bus change but result in quicker boarding times at bus stops, which helps car users. If the bus moves on much faster, obviously cars will get along faster. Perhaps I may say again in praise of the West Midlands—and I am not a paid PR for the West Midlands; I just live in the area and I am proud to do so—that it was also the first major operator to switch entirely to one-man operation buses.
I come now to a point on which I am very keen—concessionary fares. Although it is true that the Bill allows for concessionary fares, including children for the first time, the Government's public expenditure plans show a reduction in provision from £245 million in 1984–85 to £197 million in 1985–86 and subsequent years. That is a quite dramatic decrease. If we are to consider concessionary fares, I feel sure it is going to be a matter of mathematics: what the new passenger transport boards, which will be taking over after the authorities have gone, will spend their smaller amount of money on. Therefore in my view it is imperative that there should be a guarantee in the Bill to protect concessionary fares for the elderly. At present there are over 400,000 senior citizens who have lifetime passes issued by the West Midlands transport executive, giving free travel on buses and local trains. As my noble friend Lord Hatch said, any curtailment of the bus validity or any changing of the scheme would have considerable adverse effects on the mobility of old people.
I have concentrated on two aspects of the Bill but, as other noble Lords have said, there are other problems. I shall not go into them. They include children travelling to school, housewives doing their shopping, special services for the disabled, and special buses laid on to go to hospitals. All in all, the Bill will disrupt the lives of the millions of people who rely on buses and trains to get them out and about.
In conclusion, I feel that it is important for the Government to recognise that they have in the Bill a direct contradiction. For London they have set up London Regional Transport. They give LRT and British Rail the following objectives: a better match between demand for services and their supply: better interchanges between rail, bus and Underground; and better coordinated services, routes, and timetables.
All I want to say is that those are the objectives that, over the past 10 years, the passenger transport executives have been operating in the metropolitan areas. Those objectives are now laid down for London but the Government are proposing the abandonment of most of those achievements in the provincial conurbations. What a direct contradiction that is. What the Government are doing for London they are

1191
saying is no-go for Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It is yet another example of how the Government are trying to make this a two-nation country.
7.37 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, as an elderly disabled person I was delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Zouche, had to say and I am looking forward to being able to get on the buses again in the future.
I support the need for a change in legislation for transport. However, I dislike to be told that one is tied to a manifesto following a general election. The general election was two years ago, and in my opinion it is unfortunate that although conditions have changed one is considered to be a traitor to one's party if one decides not to vote on certain occasions. I suggest that we do not tie ourselves to manifestos. We believe in what they say but should not use it as a threat to people if they do not entirely agree.
The reason I mentioned that is because there have been many changes since the last local government elections and their polices may not always agree with the Government's policies. We shall find out when the new councils are formed and their chairmen are elected. Already, in the Devon area, some quite different opinions have been expressed on many points since the councils have changed.
Many local councils welcome the benefits that this Bill will bring but are also aware of the disadvantages if competition is not within a controlled framework. I hope that will be found in the Bill. For example, if the city of Plymouth wishes to maintain the present fares and service levels the cost of replacing the subsidy from the rate fund is likely to be £750,000; that is, to provide services at unprofitable times and concessions such as children's fares. There is of course one major difficulty with the royal dockyard. This has people going in at various times. When they leave the buses are full, but at certain times the buses run comparatively empty. If the city of Plymouth wishes to maintain present fares and service levels the cost of a cross-subsidy from the rate fund is likely to be £750,000 per annum—more than twice the level of the rate subsidy. However, the effect is magnified by grant penalties causing a 22 per cent. addition to the rate demands. So the city will be in some difficulty in settling its affairs in the future.
Although there is much political opposition to the Bill the ADC, which represents 333 district councils, is Conservative-dominated and thus no political motives or bias can be attributed to its views, which reflect only its anxiety over the interests of the travelling public. The enemy of commercial bus operation is institutionalised cross-subsidy. Those who have followed the public pronouncements of the NBC over the past few years will know that it has been saying this for some time. However, the arithmetic of cross-subsidy has become so daunting that any proposal to remove it other than gradually and, I think, thoughtfully will be fraught with danger for those who rely on bus services.
The noble Baroness opposite mentioned car sharing. That is not very easy in rural areas. Regrettably one is now rather frightened of picking up people—which I
1192
once used to do quite a lot—because of the unfortunate happenings that have taken place in cars in such areas.
When the services are registered we shall probably find that the established operators will be prepared to run substantially fewer services than they now run and will concentrate on their viable core. There may be considerable problems for those passengers who rely, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, on buses on unprofitable routes and who travel at less popular times of the day.
The importance which the Government attach to the safety of passengers and other road users is strongly endorsed by the operators. However, in the interests of both safety and fair competition there should be a single high standard applied, regardless of ownership or size. I wonder whether adequate resources, at considerable additional cost, will be made available to that end.
The question of fair competition is a broader issue and one which applies not only to small operators competing with larger ones, or established operators competing with newcomers, but also between types of operator—independent, National Bus Company, local authority and passenger transport executive.
The Government intention is that on the day of deregulation operators of all provenances shall be in a position to compete fairly one with the other, but the legislation as presently drafted gives considerable cause for concern. I believe that no operator should have a head start over any other when deregulation occurs, and it is important that the changes should be coordinated to come into force at the same time so that no one transport provider starts with a financial or legal advantage over another.
The Bill deals with the privatisation of the National Bus Company. I understand that the employees do not take exception to the proposal, but they are concerned, as has been mentioned by one or two noble Lords already, as to the position of their accrued pension rights and with the rights of deferred and existing pensioners. The privatisation proposals may disadvantage both classes of employee.
The NBC does not take issue with the aims of the Bill. But these are major changes and care must be taken in implementation in order to avoid serious reductions in services.
As it is so late, I am not expecting an answer from my noble friend tonight, but perhaps he will write to me about any points that he considers worth dealing with.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, it seems to me to emerge from this debate that the less one has to do with buses, the easier it is to support the Government! But, alas, I am president of the Association of District Councils—Tory-controlled—which, as my noble friend Lady Vickers says, has 333 members spread across England and Wales, and 48 of them operate bus services—a total fleet of some 4,000, as compared with the fleet of 5,000 in Greater London, 6,000 in the PTEs and 14,000 in the NBC. Small as we are compared with those. I think that we represent the citizens of town and country, users and operators, and

1193
I like to think that we are an association well able to represent the views of all those affected by the fortunes of this declining sector of our economy and the Government's consideration upon it.
Certainly something needs to be done to manage that decline better. Her Majesty's Government are right to attend to it. Their pledge in 1983 was very sensible. It was to the effect that they would further relax bus licensing. My noble friend Lady Vickers need not worry about having to stand pat on manifestos. That is that the Whips have been instructing us to do on the Local Government Bill. Now we can all relax and forget about the 1983 manifesto pledge that we should further relax bus licensing. We are not going to do that at all. This Bill now says quite categorically in the explanatory memorandum that the Government will abolish road service licensing altogether. That is quite a different thing.
I must say that it is difficult to find many people among those really involved in the industry who share the brimming confidence of our Secretary of State in his radical approach and his high risk policy; and I share a number of the misgivings that have been expressed. They start from three points. First of all, I do not believe that this legislation has been sufficiently thoroughly prepared. I shall just give the House an indication of how it feels to us in the ADC. Early in 1984, with the election manifesto ringing in our ears that the Government would further relax bus licensing (which was very welcome), the chairman of our transport committee detected the Secretary of State at lunches and dinners that he was attending making remarks very different from those which we had been expecting, and we asked for a meeting with him so that we could discuss what was going on. That was arranged on 25th April. The views of the association were sought following the meeting. That was very welcome. There was no mention of a White Paper at that stage and no mention of a deadline.
Our members were canvassed. Their views were forwarded on 22nd June, and the reply then was, "Oh, too late for that. The White Paper is at the printers", and it was published on 13th July. That is the way in which friends and colleagues were consulted. If my noble friend on the Front Bench can tell us that anyone else was treated better, I shall be glad to hear of it. But that is how it struck us, and that is how it was.
We then came to the question of whether these theories have been properly tested. I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Beloff that we are in the same situation as they were when Stephenson invented the steam engine. We are dealing with a form of transport which is already with us, and we are trying to manage, or possibly halt, its decline.
I have spoken of consultation. The trials, I think, are even flimsier. We have already heard about the one in Hereford and I do not want to go into the merits or demerits of it, but whether it was good or bad, conclusive or ambivalent, it can have no possible application to the great cities, which is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made; and it is in the great cities where great things are expected of this legislation and where great changes are certainly needed.
My noble friend Lord De La Warr also mentioned consultations, trials and studies. Then we come to
1194
cross-subsidy, which is the key factor in the present system and which is said to be wasteful. Where are the studies to substantiate that? It is an absolutely critical point, and perhaps when my noble friend comes to wind up he will tell us where those studies are. My noble friend who opened the debate said nothing about them.
Certainly it is true that in Plymouth, which is one of my very best authorities—I shall tell your Lordships the criteria by which I judge that in a moment—the increase on the rate burden if cross-subsidy is phased out, as it will be, would be something of the order of 22 per cent., and that is very high. Cross-subsidies certainly have a very useful part to play, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, from his experience in the NBC told the House.
One of the more immediate reasons for the need for this legislation which I think we can all agree about is the way in which the call on external subsidies of various kinds has escalated. The White Paper at Chapter 1 makes much of that. The grants and subsidies have risen, as more than one noble Lord has said, to quite unacceptable levels—around £500 million. Table 19 in the White Paper makes it quite clear—and this was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, glossed over—that four-fifths of that unacceptable figure occurs in the PTEs. It is concentrated there.
The powers available to the Secretary of State to deal with excessive expenditure and overrunning of expenditure in the PTEs has been available to him ever since the 1983 Act was put on the statute book. Nevertheless, it was originally left to the borough of Bromley to deal with the excesses of the GLC. Thereafter the Secretary of State took power to himself. But he has not used it. Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench can tell me and tell us why he has not and why he still does not use these powers. Why can he not rely, for the purposes of dealing with this overrun, on rate capping the new metropolitan joint transport authorities when the new local Government Bill is in force? It is cities like Sheffield which call for 68 per cent. of their operating costs to be borne by external subsidy and grant that are causing the trouble. Why clobber everybody else, large and small, profligate or thrifty, in the same way and all at once?
It is claimed, and a number of noble Lords made the point, that all municipal bus undertakings are inefficient, and that they cannot be efficient unless they are spurred on by competition; that somehow they cannot survive without large grants. Well, the Commons Select Committee dealt with that point. It showed that, despite the profligacy of cities like Sheffield, on average United Kingdom bus operators rely more upon their fares, as to 75 per cent., than any other country in Western Europe. West Germany pays for only 63 per cent. of its bus operating costs from fares, France 43 per cent. and Italy 18 per cent. Thus our operators are among the most fare-reliant, or self-reliant in Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said.
There is a still more detailed analysis from Jane's Urban Transport, 1985. There is analysis city by city of how bus undertakings are financed. This produces an interesting EC league table, starting with those

1195
which rely least on subsidy and fares. Top of the list comes Plymouth with 95 per cent. of its company's operating costs met from fares, then Cardiff, Leicester, Southampton and Bristol. Up in that group, there is only one other EC city and that is Munich. We are way ahead of all the rest of the whole of the European Community.
Therefore is it any wonder that this association is really very cross at its members, all of whom are in the top half of this league and half of them Tory controlled, being lumped together for treatment with cities like Sheffield which are among the most profligate cities in Europe in the use of other people's money? It is not necessary, in order to deal with those excesses, to impose this legislation upon the rest of us.
Finally, I want to ask the House, and particularly my noble friends on this side, to consider two possible repercussions. Can the Tory party really be said to have so many electoral assets in local government as to be able to afford this high risk policy? The Association of Metropolitan Authorities is already socialist. Abolishing the metropolitan counties will not make it any less so. Nothing short of introducing some accountability into local government finance will ever put that right. The Association of County Councils now has only 11 out of 47 authorities left in Tory control. My own association is still Tory controlled, 200 out of 333, in town and country, large and small.
We are now one year off the next set of district council elections and two years off the second set of district council elections and a general election. Is it really sensible to alienate so many of our supporters in local government with legislation of this kind at this stage?
Finally, I should like to turn to another set of repercussions in the bus industry. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, gave details—and so did the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—but he did not produce the full results of what happened when coaches were deregulated in 1980. That was entirely beneficial to the National Bus Council. The reason it was so beneficial was that it was able to pinch business off British Rail and did so to the benefit of its own operations and its users. However, in the process of that deregulation, the import penetration from abroad of foreign makers of buses was increased from 21 per cent. to 40 per cent. Can we really call that a success from the point of view of British industry?
This legislation has so far cast some unfortunate shadows ahead of it. The uncertainty that it has introduced to the whole of the bus industry—I am talking chiefly of the manufacturing industry—has reduced new registrations this year to a third of what they were in 1980. It does not require much imagination to realise what that is doing to unemployment and what it will do to unemployment in the bus manufacturing industry. Yet there has been much talk from both sides of the House, but notably from my noble friends, about all the new buses and mini-buses that are now going to come in to pick up new business. Therefore, I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench if he will give us the details of these new orders for new mini-buses, which I am assured the prospects of the legislation will produce. It will be
1196
particularly interesting to hear the way in which these new orders are spread between the British, Japanese and German industries.
This is an industry in decline. That is the melancholy fact which we cannot escape. It is a decline that we have to manage and that we have to manage better. Its problems certainly need to be addressed, but with very much greater care and discrimination than is shown in this legislation. The remedies need to be worked out with much greater care, applied pragmatically and timed judiciously. It is amendments to achieve this that are the ones which we must go for in Committee.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it was interesting that at the beginning of this debate there was what to me seemed a very encouraging acceptance from both the Front Benches opposite that something has to be done to arrest the decline in bus travel. There seemed to be acceptance of what my noble friend Lord Brabazon said: that the potential market for the bus industry might be much larger than at present, that the potential ability of the industry to transport many more people is greater than we imagine. The right reverend Prelate indicated that in some way the radical approach of the Bill to this intractable problem is evil. I was going to answer that but it was very much better answered than I could answer it by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. Therefore I shall not do so.
Others during the debate have based the argument on the premise that all is in a sense well, as if the present rural bus services were in fact reasonably good and that they were capable, within the present system, of improvement. They talked as if people in cities are in fact getting a fair deal at the moment, as if keen people who would like to help can enter the market if they want to. However, most speakers have accepted that the truth is very different; that rising subsidies and declining services simply cannot go on; that rural services are in continous decline.
I do not think a Back-Bench Peer from Scotland has spoken so far. It is interesting that in Scotland we have over the period of eight years had a reduction in the number of journeys made by passengers on stage carriage journeys, from 891 million to 694 million. Thus there were 197 million less journeys made, and that in a country where, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, we have a very high proportion of people who do not possess a car—and in some parts of the country that figure is as high as 75 per cent.
My noble friend Lord Sandford defined what was going on as the management of decline. I think he said we have to manage this effectively and, if possible, stop it. I think that if I had been speaking in your Lordships' House five years ago, I would have been saying many of the things that my noble friend was saying. My noble friend was speaking for large numbers of people who are involved. They have put enormous energy, ingenuity and expertise into making the best of a very difficult job in managing buses. It is very easy for them to fall into the trap of explaining difficulties. It is necessary, all the time, to explain difficulties to one's constitutents. They find it hard to accept that it is possible to do anything but manage decline.

1197
It is very difficult to face radical change which means totally different ways of working and a totally different role. All the local authority associations—not only the Association of District Councils—are saying this. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is saying it. So is the Association of County Councils. The bus operators are saying it. We have heard my noble friend Lord De La Warr express their view. Many of those to whom the right reverend Prelate has, I am sure, been talking—trade union officials, officials in local government and many others involved in trying to find a way through this problem—are saying these things.
I am reminded, at this moment, of what happened when the youth training scheme was originally floated as an idea. That proposal, too, was in a sense taking a lead in Europe. That, too, was a very radical, totally new idea. It was very shocking to people who were accustomed to the old declining system of apprenticeship and who felt that their task was to prop it up. Then, councillors, officials and employers were all saying the same sort of things that people have been saying in this debate. Yet now people are seeing that with adequate safeguards and as public understanding accustoms itself to the new ideas, that particular idea can work and will be very important.
Likewise, this is a proposal for radical change, even more radical change, I would suggest, with essential safeguards. It may, and I am pretty sure does need refinement. I would, however, ask noble Lords to stand back from their own experience in local government, from the views that are expressed to them so fervently and with the utmost sincerity by people very much used to the present system and resigned to its problems. I ask your Lordships to look from the point of view of bus travellers in the least privileged places like Tyne and Wear, like Dundee, near where I live, and like Strathclyde. I ask you to take the point made by my noble friend Lord Brabazon that there is perhaps a great deal more that we could do than we are doing at the moment. Is there, in fact, so much wrong with the Government's proposals?
There has been a lot of talk about cross-subsidy. That is one aspect on which I should like to say a word. I would ask your Lordships, "Is hidden cross-subsidy arranged by a local authority a good thing?" The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that he thought that it was not, and that it should be transparent. I agree with him. Is it a good thing that those living in the least well-off areas who, because they are not car owners, travel mostly by bus and so ride on profitable routes, should be paying for buses to run to better-off areas in order that those people, not necessarily well off but who do not own cars and who need the buses in better-off areas, should have those buses? Is it a good thing that the frequency of services and fares should be fixed in relation to that hidden cross-subsidy within local government councils? Is that not mixing the political and the commercial too much? Is it not better that subsidy of rural routes should be open for all to see, and done for social reasons, as the Bill suggests? Is it not better that hidden cross-subsidy should be limited to commercial cross-subsidy, that which the companies do because they are prepared to make the ends of routes more profitable, because the middle is profitable and because they want to attract new
1198
customers who live on the ends and who will ride across the middle of routes? Is it not better that the hidden cross-subsidy should be confined to them?
It is interesting that while the Bill is moving towards "small is beautiful" and away from people's fate on buses being decided by politicians and the big companies netotiating together, the Friends of the Earth condemn it on 10 counts, pretty well wholesale. On the other hand, Rural Voice, which represents nine genuine rural organisations with three-quarters of a million members among people who live in the country, many of them depending on buses, welcomes the Bill on the whole and makes only some constructive suggestions.
I should like the Government to think about four matters. Doubtless, these will arise in the Committee stage but it is important at this point for the Government to pay attention to them. First, is the commissioner, if he is to be the registration authority as the Bill proposes, going to be able to respond quickly enough should a bus operator suddenly cease the service for some reason? Will he be able to supply information, fully and speedily, that local authorities need? This is a question that Scottish local authorities—all the regions, I think, and they are the only ones involved—are anxious about. It is something that requires attention.
Secondly, how, in the Scottish regions, will the coordination of school transport and other transport be achieved in practice? In my own region of Tayside, the public and school children use the same buses, some chartered and some not. This works very well. It is important that this advantage should not be lost. Thirdly, is the provision in the Bill sufficiently adequate to promote integration of rail, airport, harbour and bus that, again, in Strathclyde and in Tayside, is excellently done? Fourthly, when the Secretary of State is making regulations to do with registration, will he consult the local authority associations, and notably in this case the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities?
Finally, may I quote from an article in The Times of 1st February this year which said among other things:
"the Bill is opposed not only by those who doubt the capacity of the market to respond to real needs, but also by vested interests which fear the loss of administrative empires".
I would express it as "vested enthusiasm" and not "vested interests". It continues:
"There will be a pressure to water down the provisions that seek to ensure that real competition can occur, especially in metropolitan areas. These pressures must be resisted, if effective monopolies are not to reappear, perhaps no more efficient than their predecessors and less socially aware".
I believe that the aspirations of many noble Lords expressed in this debate will in fact be better met by this Bill than by continuing what my noble friend called the "management of decline".
8.10 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, at the outset I should like to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the ends which the Government seek to achieve by means of the Bill before us tonight. Usage, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, demonstrated, has declined, while costs, fares and subsidies have increased alarmingly in the bus industry. It is only right that the Government

1199
should take steps to try to bring supply more into line with demand and to ensure that service is provided at a cost which is acceptable to farepayer, to ratepayer and to taxpayer alike.
That said, I wish that I could agree as strongly with the means which the Government propose to use to achieve these laudable ends. However, I cannot accept the validity of the argument that the success of the 1980 Act deregulation shows that competition is the road to follow in local transport, nor that results in the three trial areas support the merits of the competitive case.
In terms of the 1980 Act consumers had a multiple choice between British Rail, National Express and private enterprise. However, on the local services it seems to me that the trial area experience indicates that the choice, if it exists at all, may blossom briefly but may then well disappear. National subsidiaries are already planning which routes to shed and in some cases—such as United and Northern—they are trimming their costs by shedding management staff. Any future manager of a National subsidiary would, I feel, be in dereliction of his duty if he did not concentrate on profitable routes to the exclusion of unviable ones which might well subsequently disappear for want of cross-subsidy.
Parenthetically I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister what is so wrong with cross-subsidy. Is it not part of the way of life of the Post Office, and is it not enshrined in the Telecommunications Act? Public transport is about integration. We rely—those of us who are non-motorists—upon the availability of a number of facilities as, for example, I do when I use a bus to get to Waterloo, a train to get to Hampshire and another bus to get to my cottage.
A better example of integration and one closer to hand, is perhaps London Regional Transport, which is under direction to co-operate more closely with British Rail in respect of interchanges, co-ordination of routes; timetables and information; in respect of the avoidance of wasteful duplication of services; and in respect of through ticketing.
I have summarised the directive issued by the right honourable Secretary of State to London Regional Transport and to British Rail on 24th July last—an utterly rational directive, but not one which I can see being issued elsewhere in the country under the Bill that we are discussing this evening.
Tyne and Wear's public transport system anticipates in all respects the directive which I have just summarised. The metro does the trunk hauls while the buses feed into it. It is said that the metro has reduced the number of buses crossing the Tyne bridges by 1,200 a day and yet usage of public transport within the Tyne and Wear metro public transport area has increased considerably and is continuing to grow in spite of the desperate economic circumstances prevailing in that part of the country. Tyne and Wear believes that competition will replace the 1,200 buses that have been shed with 1,800 which will now return to the city centre per day. Indeed, a director of National's subsidiaries up there unwittingly advised me that his staff, as I suggested earlier, are already assessing the opportunities open to them to maximise
1200
profits by going back into the city centre business at the expense of the surrounding outer suburbs and shire counties.
National's subsidiaries are already beginning to establish their identities in preparation for the steps envisaged under the Bill. Quite possibly district councils in Tyne and Wear are considering their options as to secession from the successor bodies to be established in transport terms under the Local Government Bill which has been before your Lordships on other occasions this week.
An integrated system in which £270 million has been invested feels, not without good reason, rather vulnerable. Its consumers do likewise because they realise that service will certainly be provided along corridors where operators can perceive profit. Elsewhere, the tendering procedure—and I am a little surprised that the Bill makes no particularly detailed specifications as to the tender documents to be issued—allied to the pressures of rate capping, penalties and the abolition of transport supplementary grant as a means of subsidising public transport, mean that services become very much more a matter of things which may be provided rather than which will be provided. I wish that I could be certain that they will be provided in terms of meeting people's needs.
I have mentioned the interrelationship between this Bill, the Local Government Bill, TSG and current Government policy on rates and rate support. Although this Bill is largely devoted to buses, it is a Transport Bill and I am concerned also about its implications for British Rail, particularly in terms of Section 20 support. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, negotiating with shire counties is like getting blood out of a stone. From BR's point of view I am worried that council assessment of local needs will have to be such that Section 20 agreements will begin to fall by the wayside. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to the bus agreements falling by the wayside; I am worried that the train agreements likewise will do so.
Investment in metro-urban transport—if that is not an appalling word—will have to take its chance with all the other projects which British Rail considers for submission to the Ministry. Services which often cross county boundaries may well be reduced or even abandoned if they cannot be funded by a falling PSO grant. This is a microcosm of what I might call the disintegration of public transport. Alternatively, is the London situation, as detailed in the right honourable Minister's letters which I have paraphrased, the urban trial area for which several noble Lords have asked today? It certainly seems to me to be the correct way ahead and I wonder why we are not following it tonight.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, one of the great advantages of being this far down the list of speakers is that virtually everything that one thought one was going to say has already been said and almost certainly much more ably than one could ever have done oneself. I shall, therefore—I am sure to your Lordships' relief—be very brief.

1201
First, like some other noble Lords, I must declare an interest. I am a director of a company which uses the services of the National Bus Company.
Secondly, I must apologise that I inadvertently missed the first 10 minutes or so of the opening speech of my noble friend Lord Brabazon. That was not only very impolite, but also most unfortunate, since I understand from the speeches of subsequent noble Lords that my noble friend and others highlighted the success of National Express, on which subject I wish to concentrate. If, therefore, I cover ground already well beaten, I beg the pardon of my noble friend and the House.
I welcome the spirit of the Bill, but like other noble Lords I am somewhat concerned at the proposed timetable on such a complex and highly commercial subject. In Clause 47 two specific time scales are mentioned—three months to submit proposals for the disposal of companies within what is called the "bus group", and three years to implement such disposal programme.
Three months is a very short period of time, during which the NBC must come up with proposals for disposal—almost certainly to a number of different purchasers—of in excess of £200 million worth of net assets. Leaving timing on one side, however, the thrust of the Bill and particularly Part III is, as I read it, to give the optimum value for money. That, as a principle, I warmly applaud.
In this context, however, there may well be a problem in disposal of National Express itself unless there are safeguards. National Express is of course first and foremost a marketing division of the long-distance coaching activities of NBC. It effectively has no assets whatsoever. Coaches are subcontracted in and terminals, and/or coach stations, are owned by other NBC subsidiaries, PTEs, and others.
It is perhaps worth reminding your Lordships yet again that a large proportion of the National Express market is made up of the students and other less well off groups whose absolute requirement for speed is secondary and who therefore use the slower than rail coach services on grounds of price. The unique features of National Express are that it has a nationwide network serving convenient city centre coach and bus stations, operating frequent services on virtually all major routes, at certainly the lowest rates for long-distance scheduled passenger services, and that its services are sold through an extensive network, a nationwide network, of sales agencies.
But what will happen after the breakup of the NBC? One would imagine that privately owned coach owners could, and would, still hire out vehicles. But what of the terminals? When long-distance coach services were deregulated by the Transport Act 1980 British Coachways was launched. It has been discontinued. It failed, I suggest, primarily due to lack of national facilities, and particularly lack of a national terminal network. Here I think I reinforce a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, much earlier in the debate.
Part III of the Bill, as it stands, makes no provision that National Express, or its reincarnation—whatever it might be called—shall have guaranteed use of, at the very least, the eight major coach terminals of England;
1202
I stress "England". Without such guaranteed use this unique and successful marketing organisation performing, I suggest, a most valuable public service will surely fail, just as British Coachways failed. No one, I suggest, in those circumstances will be the winner.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, in commenting upon this Bill I want to say something on the Scottish dimension, of which I have some experience, and at the same time express a view about the general tenor and thrust of this proposed legislation. Therefore, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships when I indicate that I am dismayed by the Government's continued belief that where there are ills to be cured privatisation is the most efficacious medicine.
It appears to me that the proposals in the Bill before your Lordships' House are designed to return the nation's bus services to the chaotic situation of the 1920s. Sanity arrived with the Road Traffic Act 1930, which provided 50 years of public transport coherence. It was supplemented in 1975, so far as Scotland was concerned, by the coming into operation of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the results of which have seen 10 years of responsible coordination by Scottish local authorities giving rise to a stemming and, in some cases, reversal of the downward trends of bus patronage. This not inconsiderable achievement, if the Government have their way, is to be thrown away as a major sacrifice to the god of privatisation.
How, therefore, will the private sector respond to transport demands? In heavily urbanised areas this is by no means difficult to forecast, as we have the model of Hereford, frequently mentioned by earlier speakers in this debate today. But paradoxically Hereford was the prototype on which the Government at first claimed to be basing their proposals, where even in a medium-sized town, with a population of around 50,000 people, during the period of the experiment operators were behaving grossly irresponsibly in their quest to scavenge the fare-paying public.
The result was that chaos prevailed, with passengers not knowing when a bus was due to appear, or what sort of information display it would have—assuming that they knew where it was going in the first place, which many did not. It should be said that for a period fares plummeted, though they have since risen, more or less, to their former levels. Further, all but one of the new entrepreneurs has left the scene; one following the loss of his operator's licence arising from the appalling condition of his vehicles.
This scenario will no doubt be repeated in other urban areas. The more densely populated, the greater the likely confusion. Of course there will be plenty of buses. They will be racing each other along the road for passengers in accordance with the pre-1930 regime, and there will be anarchy in major town centres with operators vying with each other for the optimum loading and setting down points.
The question has therefore to be asked: will the passenger get a better deal? Possibly he will in purely financial terms for a time, though this will be paid for, in my view, by unreliability, bunching of vehicles, and a real possibility of accidents and general instability.

1203
What, however, of the poor rural dweller? For example, over the past 10 years a basic rural framework has been maintained in most parts of Scotland by the assiduousness of the regional and islands councils which, in terms of the co-ordination responsibilities placed on them by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, have gone to great lengths to ensure maintenance of a basic network over virtually all parts of their regions.
What has been their principal initiative in this? Naturally finance cannot be discounted, and direct financial support to unremunerative services has to be provided by the local authorities. However, this support has been at a level substantially less than would have been the case had there not existed the one ingredient which was so frequently referred to earlier today; namely, that of cross-subsidisation.
On this time honoured basis, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd most clearly earlier illustrated, the profits from a profitable service are used to compensate to some extent for the losses on unremunerative services, which means that the tab to be picked up by the local authorities in revenue support at the end of the day is much less than would otherwise be the case.
But, my Lords, what of the future? Cross-subsidy is now to be outlawed, and in any event if operators are to be permitted to compete freely, they will do so only on profitable routes, and profits will thereby be reduced. What therefore of the rural services which do not make, cannot make, and possibly never have made nor ever will make a profit? Is it an objective of the present Government to encourage further rural depopulation?
"But look", say the Government, "our proposals will give rise to competition, and by the very nature of that prices will be reduced". But can this really be so? The Scottish Bus Group constituent firms have already been lauded by the Secretary of State for Scotland for being highly efficient. It is for this reason, we are given to understand, that they are not to be privatised. If they are so highly efficient, how can they reduce costs further by the mere stimulus of unbridled competition? In my view there is a lack of logic inherent in the Government's case contained in the Bill at this point, and it certainly is a question which the Government have not answered.
Most responsible operators, including the Scottish Bus Group, have in recent years embarked on sensible cost pruning exercises, such as conversion to one-person operation and the purchase of flexible vehicles, and in many cases joint operations, taking account of the needs of education authorities, health boards, and the like. Are such initiatives likely to be practised by the private sector without local authority stimulus? Of course there are other ways in which costs can be cut; for example, by the use of part-time drivers who are wholly employed in other demanding duties during the rest of the day but who may nonetheless perfectly legally drive buses in their so-called leisure time.
There is the worry that vehicle maintenance standards may be reduced. It will be interesting to see if the Government are serious in their pledge that standards of vehicle inspection will not only be
1204
maintained, despite the fact that these have deteriorated over a number of years, but will be augmented. What about local authority contract services? That point was mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. Will the local authority be required, as it appears is the case under the Bill, to put each unprofitable but socially desirable service out to tender on an individual basis? Does this mean that where services are interlinked and coordinated by virtue of local authority initiatives such economically sensible measures are likely to continue to be undertaken by the private sector? It would surprise me very much indeed if that were to happen.
Although in terms of the Bill local authorities will still have subsidising powers, their resources are already strained because of central Government limits on expenditure and in my view will be totally insufficient to meet the new requirement for revenue support once cross-subsidisation is no longer allowed to enter into the equation. In my opinion, therefore, large-scale service cuts will be an inevitable result, allied to increasing transport difficulties for the rural population, which is a very real worry in Scotland, inherent in the main provisions—or perhaps I should say lack of provisions—contained in the Bill. In my view this legislation should not be supported in your Lordship's House without very serious and careful amendment.
8.34 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, as the twenty-sixth speaker tonight I shall be very brief and to the point. I shall speak now, following all that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said, about Scotland, because he and I and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, know about Scotland. So far we are the only three people who have mentioned the importance of transport to Scotland. It is very important. There are two areas in particular that I wish to mention. One is the border area where, with all the railways having been removed, there is no public transport except buses, and therefore the bus services are absolutely vital.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, mentioned the Highlands and Islands, which are equally important. These are areas where, unless there are proper bus services—which must be subsidised because the population is scarce—the people will be completely isolated unless they have private motor cars. We all know about private motor cars. Many people have them—far more than ever had them in all my lifetime—but there are still a great number who do not have them. It has been mentioned that old people and young people who cannot get driving licences are among those who cannot travel other than by public transport.
I beg the Government to consider particularly the areas which are absolutely isolated. The two I have mentioned are those I know best, but there are other areas in Wales and the north of England which suffer from the same problem. I should also like to mention a point which has been made by one or two people who stressed the importance of the link between bus services and railway services, because if one cannot get to a railway (in my case, I am 50 miles from any public transport) the only way one can travel is by buses which must be run in conjunction with others.

1205
There is one other matter I should like to mention; it has been touched on before. It is a subject about which I know something, as I was chairman for many years of the education committee in Roxburghshire county on the Borders. I am referring to school transport. If school transport can be shared, well and good; that is fine. But if the children who come to the schools are isolated, clearly there must be special bus services. At the moment education authorities pay, but some education authorities are now threatening not to pay and to make children walk.
In the case I know, three miles is suggested as a possibility. In my view it is an impossibility. In the old days rural areas used to have little transport, but nowadays if they do not have transport they have masses of agricultural machinery, vans that bring food to farms and rural areas, post buses, and so on. Those vehicles make it very dangerous for children to walk any distance even on a rural road. We simply must not underestimate the importance of school transport. I hope that under the Bill we shall be able to have school transport extended or shared so that it will be more important and better in those outby areas.
The other matter I should like to say a word about—I congratulate the noble Lord who made his maiden speech on the subject—concerns transport for the handicapped. Some buses will have room for wheelchairs and some will not. Access rails for handicapped people going in and out of buses are essential. We must see that handicapped people are not left out by the public service, although obviously this cannot apply to every bus. When bus schedules are being put out for given areas it should be compulsory that some of the services have accommodation for the handicapped.
Much has been said about people being able to get to shops, hospitals and so on. I agree entirely with it. That would be helped by the Government's proposal for the sharing of transport. Mini-buses, taxis and post buses will help rural areas and I am optimistic that this system will succeed and will prove very useful. However, these services will have to be subsidised in rural areas and some people are worried that the transport authorities will not realise the needs of these rural areas. Some people have said to me that they think it is a mistake that county councils will no longer be the licensing authorities. I do not think that is a mistake as long as co-operation between the transport authorities and the counties remains close, and I hope the Government will see that it does.
There is no doubt that the long-distance buses have been a great success. Other noble Lords know more about them than I do. But as your Lordships know, I support the railways very strongly. Every week of my life I spend two nights on a train. Therefore I do not want the long-distance buses to interfere with the trains. I do not think they need to do so, but that could be helped by co-operation between the bus and the railway services. I beg the Government to see that that continues.
One of the organisations with which I have been in touch is the Bus and Coach Council, which deals with the independent sector. It has asked whether the Office of Fair Trading, to which the controversial issues are to be referred, will be able to cope quickly. There is a suggestion in the memorandum I was sent by a large
1206
bus company that to refer something to the Office of Fair Trading means a wait of at least a year. That would be absolutely hopeless. Decisions about such matters must be taken quickly. I hope that the Government will see that the Office of Fair Trading deals with these issues as quickly as possible; otherwise it will be disastrous for all the hopes they have about the new services. I hope that the Minister can assure us about that.
Another question that has been raised with me and other Members is: why change the registration of bus services from county councils to the traffic commissioners when the county councils supposedly know more about local needs than the nine traffic commissioners? I believe the answer is that the cross-country routes and the necessary co-operation over large areas will be better done by nine commissioners covering very large areas than a great many county councils and regions. I hope we are right about that. I think that is one of the things which the Government have to look out for. It would be a disaster if everything was slowed down because of these larger areas. Again the need is for co-operation between the county councils and the traffic commissioners.
I support the Second Reading of this Bill. I reserve the questions of discussion in Committee and possible amendments to improve the Bill. I do not want to do away with it. I think there has been too much pessimism expressed here. Where there is a will there is a way. If the Government want to make this a success they can do it; but they will have to work jolly hard to do it.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Pender: My Lords, it is late and I like to think that most points have been covered by your Lordships, so I shall be very brief. While I agree with the broad principles of the Bill, there is one aspect that causes anxiety to those of us who live in Kent. Kent, demographically, is highly populated and its requirements may appear far removed from, say, the Highlands or the Borders. I live in East Kent. Apart from the city of Canterbury, Dover and Folkestone, we are very much a rural area.
The pitfalls following deregulation must be avoided. There will inevitably be a period of instability whilst bus operators indulge in unfettered on-the-road competition, including destructive attacks on individual route patterns. It is, however, unlikely that real competition will continue. Two or more buses operating where there are only sufficient passengers for one can only lead to financial losses. Only one operator can survive in such a situation. There are many precedents to show that it will be the operator with the greatest resources who will win. In Kent, even after privatisation, it is likely that the National Bus subsidiaries will be the dominant operators. They will establish their own areas of interest for local bus services and will compete agressively with any other operators attempting to operate in those areas. By the simple technique of operating additional buses on the same route as any new operator and accepting a short-term financial loss for that service, they can force the new operator to incur heavy financial losses. Few, if any, new operators will have the financial resources to accept such losses and to maintain a challenge, and

1207
when this situation becomes generally known, new operators will not enter the arena. Inevitably deregulation will lead to dominant operators establishing monopolistic positions in the viable local bus service network. This is a position they will be able to exploit against the interests of the passengers, with many services needing more subsidies or ceasing to operate.
I believe—and this is the point I want to make—that the public can be provided with a more comprehensive network and a greater variety of bus services at no extra cost to the passengers within the existing levels of subsidy if comprehensive competitive tendering is adopted. This method offers the advantage of sustained genuine competition, improved productivity and reduced costs, better use of resources than deregulation, stability and reliability, cross-subsidy restricted to realistic commercial and, frankly, necessary levels, retention of "statutory schoolchildren" on local buses where cost effective, and the cost to education authorities for transporting "statutory schoolchildren" minimised.
There is a sincere belief among country councillors that hard off-the-road competitive tendering will ensure stability of services to the public while providing efficiencies of competition. I hope that the Minister will be able to consider this suggestion sympathetically.
8.47 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this Bill has been described as a high risk Bill by Members on all sides of your Lordships' House. I imagine that the Government are used to that accusation and are not particularly worried about it.
I must confess that I rocked back somewhat on my heels when I heard Lord Harris of High Cross comment wryly that it seems to be Conservative party on the whole that is prepared to put forward radical measures and to take high risks whereas the Opposition is affecting the conservative (with a small 'c') stance and resisting high risks. I can only say to that that, if that were the case, then I should feel very strongly that serious changes would have to be made in the policies of the Labour party, but I believe that that is a misrepresentation of the issues as we have them before us today.
I believe that we have here not a genuine, radical experiment, but a fumbled and inadequate piece of analysis of an extremely complex issue. What is wrong with the present situation of buses?, asked Lord Brabazon in opening the debate. He said that we must ask ourselves—and he is clearly quite right—whether the existing system meets the needs of the moment. It is certainly true that the bus share of travel in this country has reduced over the years from something like 40 per cent. to a figure now of 8 per cent. That has been commented on as though it was some sort of disaster. Of course it is not a disaster in the real sense because the decreasing percentage is reflected by the increasing mobility of those who have cars and the great increase in the numbers of journeys being made. The purpose of maintaining a bus industry is not necessarily to try to drive back that percentage on to the buses—that would be seeking to go
1208
backwards—hut to ensure that we have the kind of mobility for those without cars that is already available to those with cars. That seems to us not only a matter of social justice but a matter of economic necessity and a matter which should be a social and economic objective for all of us.
A number of noble Lords in looking at these figures and at the decline in bus services had very different prescriptions for the cause of the decline. A number appeared to think that it is the subsidy which is the main problem. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent said that the size of the subsidy was the major reason for the proposed change. In fact, if you compare the United Kingdom with other European countries, our subsidies on bus services are at the bottom of the list: 75 per cent. of the cost of our bus services are met by passenger fares. To take a middle country, the figure for Germany is 63 per cent.; the figure for Italy is 18 per cent. I am not suggesting that we should follow Italy, but I am suggesting that there is some failure of analysis if we have not looked at these differences.
A number of noble Lords suggested that the cause of the decline was regulation. Lord Peyton of Yeovil referred to a complex of outdated rules as being the significant element in what is wrong with our bus system. Again, if one makes European comparisons, or comparisons with almost anywhere in the world, that does not appear to relate to the economic health or size of the bus service or the bus industry. A number of noble Lords who are much better connected with the bus industry than I am have with some authority denied the idea that it is regulations imposed on buses which are the cause of their decline. Other noble Lords have suggested—and I think that here we come much closer to the heart of the matter—that the real cause is the increase in car ownership. That is the one element which is consistent across all Western developed countries. The one thing which can be found consistently throughout the world is that the size of bus services is in inverse relationship to car ownership.
I would submit that to seek remedies which either depend on the abolition of subsidies or on a reduction of subsidy or on the abolition of regulations is to be looking for a cause which is not the true cause of the present state of our bus industry. Surely, we must be looking for a business analysis of the bus business. I welcome the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, saying that what was required here was a business plan. As a moderate and not a revolutionary Socialist, I am pleased to associate myself with him rather than with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who said that our requirement was for a revolution in the bus business.
After all, running a bus is not simply a matter of using your redundancy money to buy a bus and to hire a driver. In order to have a bus service which really serves the public, you have got to be concerned with the interchange with rail and other services, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, has said. You have to be concerned with providing a service for schools and hospitals as well as for commuters to work and for shoppers. You must have ticketing arrangements which are comprehensible to everybody and which permit interchange without financial penalty and which encourage regular passengers to feel that they have a service which can meet all of their needs.

1209
You have to have some sort of information system and marketing to make use of the bus service at a time when it would otherwise be less used, to increase, in the electricity supply industry's phrase, the "system diversity" of the bus industry. And you have to have passenger facilities which will be attractive to the passengers—not just the seats on the buses but the places where passengers wait or can get information.
None of these things is really possible with a rag-bag of the kind of small bus operators which appears to be the objective of the Government in deregulation. Even beyond that. it is not just a matter of the full range of services which has to be provided by an efficient bus business. The bus business does not operate in isolation; it is part of our transport system. Buses have this relationship to rail, to the car, to the taxi. They use the same roads as the cars and the taxis. Their road and track costs have to be compared with those of the rail system. It cannot simply be assumed forever that British Rail must pay its track costs where the bus service does not.
Here, the example of the 1980 deregulation of Express Buses I thought was one of the most prized examples. My noble friend Lord Shepherd gave the game away when he said that the National Bus Company's target was BR. That is a perfectly proper commercial target for the National Bus Company. But, from the public point of view, of course it was a disaster because it meant immediately that British Rail was losing £7·5 million, which was either a loss made up by the taxpayer or a profit foregone. It was a real cost which did not come to the passengers on the Express buses, quite apart from the congestion of buses coming into Victoria Coach Station and all the other coach stations in the other cities.
You cannot put these things on one side and think that the bus industry can operate by itself in the way that I am afraid a number of noble Lords who are supporting this legislation appear to think is possible. They appear to think, as the Government appear to think, that deregulation is the unique answer to the problems of the bus industry. I believe that that view has been adequately and forcefully contested by a number of speakers in this debate.
Then we must turn to the whole issue of cross-subsidy. Here again the financial effects of such legislation as this have to be analysed much more carefully than they have been if we are going to give this Bill an easy passage through your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, again gave the game away by referring to the cross-subsidisation "to keep empty buses on vanishing routes". That was his exact phrase. Clearly, Lord Harris is not worried by the abolition of cross-subsidisation leading to the abolition of empty buses on vanishing routes. But the Government are trying to pretend that there will be no diminution of services which are socially necessary but financially not desirable. I do not think that they can be thankful to have the noble Lord as their candid friend in this matter because he is really exposing the inadequacy of their own thinking.
The Association of County Councils in a brilliantly written little pamphlet gives an effective example of what happens with the abolition of cross-subsidisation. It posits a route in the country of
1210
Barsetshire which goes from the town of Barchester to the housing estate at St. Ewold to the suburb of (I think) Episcopi—
Earl De La Warr: It is Plumstead Episcopi.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad to be corrected by the noble Earl. Then the bus goes on to some place called something like Canonicorum. This route is in three parts. The first part, to the housing estate, is highly profitable at all times. The second part, to the suburb, is profitable at peak hours only but not in the early mornings or evenings or week-ends. The third part is never profitable.
Under existing arrangements, Grantley's Bus Company has provided a service with a subsidy of £5,000 and this has been a mutually acceptable deal whereby, through cross-subsidisation—let us be quite honest about it—the people who live in St. Ewold are subsidising the people who live in the rural village, just as those of us who send letters with a 17 pence stamp to our neighbour in the next street are subsidising those who have the same-priced stamp on a letter going to Scotland. We do not enormously object to that because we are aware of the administrative costs which would be involved in a more heavily-graded system.
But as soon as you have deregulation of the sort that the Government propose, you then get the situation where there is competition for the profitable routes, the first stage; it is possible to persuade somebody to undertake the second one in conjunction with the first. And the third route can only be operated on a complete subsidy which comes to £15,000 in the ACC example and at which the subsidy required from local authorities is therefore trebled. The pamphlet gives a number of examples of the way in which variations of Government policy would still come in the end to the same thing. As the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, asked and as my noble friend Lord Kirkhill asked; from where are the local authorities going to get the money? Because this is in the context of a deliberate attempt to decrease subsidies through the rates, in the context of penalties for overspending and, in some cases, even of rate capping.
It cannot be argued that deregulation is the answer to the subsidy problem. Indeed, it can be much more effectively argued that from the local authorities' point of view and from the people's point of view it is actually the opposite. And if it could be argued beside that that there is still some case for making these financial changes as a good business proposition, then perhaps we could be less wholeheartedly in opposition to deregulation. But in fact the financial high risks for the operators themselves, as well as for the local authorities, are very great. The administrative costs of the tendering procedure are going to be very high and protracted. There is going to be the probability—nay, the certainty—that from time to time operators will withdraw. Sometimes they will become bankrupt. There will be a cessation of services which will have to be made up in some way; it cannot be left alone.
There will be the complete, hopeless weakness of the local authorities in bargaining with the operators for the residual services, the third route in Barsetshire that I gave as an example before. No, my Lords, the

1211
financial risks of deregulation as well as the bad social effects of deregulation cannot be doubted and it cannot be said convincingly that deregulation is the answer to our problem.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware in this catalogue of extra expenses of the increased cost of audit which arises from deregulation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I am glad to add that to my list of criticisms. My Lords, I have concentrated on the deregulation issue mainly because your Lordships have done so over the past six hours and because it does seem to me to be the central and most controversial issue. But I think I must say that there are a number of other aspects of the Bill where we, on this side of the House, will be looking for significant change. We are not satisfied with privatisation as a procedure. I know that my position is somewhat weakened by the views of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, who was perfectly content with privatisation for the National Bus Company, but I think that even he would agree that there are examples of transport operations which ought not to be privatised and where, at the very least, we ought to be thinking of management buy-out or co-operatives as an alternative, if we are looking for something less monolithic than central nationalisation.
There is the issue of democracy; the question of the role of local authorities; the question, as a number of speakers have said, of who does the registration. What is the relative position of the traffic commissioners as opposed to elected local authorities? The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, in his opening speech, said that local authorities would have responsibility for formulating the general policies on transport for the area. My question to him and to the noble Lord, the Minister, must be: how? I ask that because all of those responsibilities are being taken away, and specifically local authorities are being denied the key responsibility for securing the co-ordination of services in their own area. That is a responsibility which we believe, and we shall seek to ensure, must remain a popular, democratic decision of the people living in any one area.
There is the whole question of safety. It is only too well-known from recent experience that the safety standards regarding construction of coaches are not as effective as those of stage-carriage buses. The issue ought to be to extend the safety standards to all passenger-carrying road vehicles, not to run the risk that the numbers of vehicles which are so protected is actually reduced. And if we are talking about extension to mini-buses, fine, but let us see that they are safe mini-buses, at the very least.
There is the question of the timing, which a number of noble Lords, such as the noble Lords, Lord Teviot, Lord Geddes, and others have raised. There really will be huge problems for the local authorities and for the operators in the setting of budgets, in the analysis of tenders, and in bargaining on the residual services; and there will certainly have to be an attempt at Committee or later stages to see that a more realistic timetable is set for this Bill.
1212
There is the whole question raised by my noble friend Lord Shepherd and others of the rights of the staff in the bus industry concerning their pension rights and their continuity of employment. I have to say that there is the question of concessionary fares. Despite the concessions made at Report stage by the Government, there are still questions about the amendments which were put forward. There is in one of them the phrase,
"unless the operator gives notice of withdrawal from concessionary fare arrangements",
and we will want to know what that means. There is the Secretary of State's power to remove or add to the conditions that the local authority seeks to impose on concessionary fares. Again, we believe this should be a matter for local, democratic decision and not for the Secretary of State. Finally, there is the inescapable conclusion that the penalties on rates, involving high rates and rate capping, will affect the ability of local authorities to provide adequate concessionary fares.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, in a speech which went beyond my theological capacity, that this is an exercise in theory determined by faith. That is perhaps a more offensive remark for me to make than it is for him, but I am reminded of the great painter Francisco de Goya, who was also a great thinker, who said:
"The sleep of reason produces monsters".
I believe that we have here a Bill which arises from the sleep of reason. I think it might be going too far in your Lordships' House to call it a monster, but it is a Bill which contains a great deal of bad and sloppy thinking. It is also a Bill which contains a great deal of bad analysis, and it has had a deservedly critical Second Reading here in your Lordships' House. I believe that it requires a searching and critical passage and I hope that it emerges in a much more rational, economic, thoughtful and democratic form than it is in now.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those of others of your Lordships to my noble friend Lord Zouche on his excellent maiden speech in today's debate. My noble friend spoke from the standpoint of a close interest in disabled people and I am sure it is the hope of all your Lordships that he will be taking part in the Committee stage of this Bill and also in many other debates in your Lordships' House in the future.
In addition to my noble friend's speech, this long debate today has produced a variety of different views on this Bill, but on two issues I think there has been a wide measure of agreement. The first is that bus services are important to the people of this country, and indeed my noble friend Lord Beloff explained that, for him, as for many other people, buses are an absolute necessity. Secondly, there has also been considerable agreement that all is not well with the bus industry. While the bus share of total travel has declined considerably, fares and particularly the costs of supporting services have now risen dramatically to well over £500 million a year for fare support alone. All this, of course, has been happening in recent years, at a time when one-man services were being introduced. It is not surprising that rural services have

1213
become costly and sparse in some cases, and that the weight of subsidies for urban transport has become almost unacceptable.
I must say I was most grateful to two of my noble friends who speak with very great experience of transport matters, my noble friends Lord Nugent and Lord Peyton. Both of them clearly said that surely the time had come when the Government, and indeed Parliament in your Lordships' House, really had a responsibility not just to sit there and say that it is all very difficult, but to do something to try to help the industry arrest the spiral of decline, so that it can increase its share of passengers and we can all take pride in the service in which it is so right that pride should betaken.
The Government are saying in this Bill that we believe the answer is to put the emphasis first and foremost on the interests of the customer, the passenger travelling, and that the way to do this is to encourage competition. So this is a Bill which will extend to local bus services the freedom from restrictions which has proved successful both in the trial areas and also for express coaches.
I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, for reminding your Lordships of the outstanding success of the 1980 Act, which I believe I am right in saying has produced a 60 per cent. increase in passenger carryings on express coaches for the National Bus Company alone—testimony, I am sure, to the energetic chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he occupied that chair.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the difference, surely, between the national express experiment and the experiments with local buses which are now proposed is that the total available market for inter-city travel is divided between rail and buses. That 60 per cent. was in part new business, but there were also very considerable losses to the rail service. This would not be the case under the provisions of this Bill.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is a skilful argument hut, if I may say so, both the noble Lord and the rest of the House are proceeding into the unknown, as has been made very clear by the Exeter experiment—
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, there is the additional point that this improved coach service has taken a good many private cars off the road. The owners now come into London in coaches when they used to come by private car, and that is a considerable gain.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for making that point. That shows that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who, I suspect, has a great deal more expertise than I have in this matter—though how we shall all be in a few months' time when we have been working on this Bill is another matter—has overlooked a point which has been made by my noble friend. He is possibly overlooking the fact that we none of us can be sure about the future. The noble Lord smiles, but the experiment in Exeter produced—which from the noble Lord's speech I do not think he would have predicted—a 100 per cent. increase which was achieved by great enterprise using a different form of service in a well-known provincial cathedral city—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords—
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords. I shall not give way again. I am simply saying that the 1980 Act, which was passed five years ago, and which was greeted by a whole list of condemnations which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, read out to the House, has proved an overwhelming success and has brought a splendid increase in business to the National Bus Company and to private operators as well.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I do not want to disturb my noble friend's train of thought, but he talked about the 1980 Act and I should like to remind him that there were some excellent cross-country services which went nowhere near London and which have disappeared. There was one operated by a private operator of great repute in Cambridge. The service was called the Eastlander, and it ran near my noble friend's native Suffolk. There were two spurs, one from Felixstowe and another from Harwich, which went straight through to Cheltenham and connected with everywhere in the country. The National Bus Company has certainly been very successful, but there are many important services which have disappeared because of that Bill.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may reply to that long intervention from my noble friend, he and I have worked together on transport matters for a very long time, as he reminded the House, although perhaps I stopped in the intervening period. The fact of the matter is that the 1980 Act—let us be absolutely clear about it—has, on the overwhelming balance of advantages, been a great success, not necessarily for the operators but for the travelling public. Those are the people whom the Government want to serve and I know that the bus industry wants to serve them as well.
Therefore, the first point that I make is that we believe that competition can give the customer a better service. Secondly, I should like to make the point that this is a Bill which retains a framework of safety controls and provision for social needs which I realise is absolutely essential to the bus industry. This is a Bill which will not mean an end to subsidies for uneconomic services in rural areas, or indeed anywhere else; it will not threaten the continuation of concessionary fares and it will certainly not allow dangerous or unreliable services. Considerable trouble has been taken to write in provisions so far as that is concerned. But we believe it will mean new services and lower fares for passengers and better value for money for ratepayers and taxpayers.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, cited a desk study by six local managers of his at the time, which suggested that there would be major service withdrawals under a deregulated system. It seems to us that the study did not appear to take account of three vital factors: first, the continued existence of local authority subsidy; secondly, the effect of competition on costs; and, thirdly, the effect of competition on patronage. So it was hardly surprising that the study produced the picture that it did.
If the noble Lord will forgive my saying so—because I realise that both he and the National Bus Company are exceedingly forward-looking so far as the future and the question of acting commercially are

1215
concerned—this is an example of a point which was put forward by my noble friend Lord Mottistone: it is not always easy for those who have been operating in a wholly regulated system to envisage the opportunities of freedom to operate—
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the noble Lord is aware of the desk study and he may have seen the maps. I wonder whether between now and Committee stage, taking the supposition that he has made, we could have a discussion as to what could be put into the maps to relieve what I believe will be the disappearance of the services. The noble Lord has made the suggestion that there is a resolve in it. I should like to know what it is.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, let us come to the disappearance of services in just a moment or two. I realise that I have much to learn from the noble Lord, and of course I should be delighted to sit down with him and discuss this aspect.
Perhaps I may turn next to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. In a speech which, if I may say so, I very much enjoyed and which covered a very wide field he suggested as I understood it that regulation is very probably not an ingredient in the cause of decline. I realise that other noble Lords believe this. I would only say that we have reached the point in the fortunes of the bus industry in this country where, if we were to retain the system of road service licensing, we need some justification of what is a very elaborate system confronting a small operator trying to start a service with a lengthy and expensive contest against the lawyers of existing operators. It is a system which, despite the best of intentions, has really gone quite a long way now to fossilising bus transport and preventing gains from efficiency and innovation which are so much needed if the industry is to prosper.
I enjoyed the noble Lord's speech very much but I was a little sad that the noble Lord made it very clear when he talked about the ragbag of companies which would result from the Bill that the Labour Party still cannot abide the idea of smaller businesses being allowed to provide employment and being able to give a service to the general public. Surely our objective has to be to encourage competition so that more operators provide a greater variety of services.
A good deal has been said today about the trial areas, and doubtless we have a good deal still to learn from the experience of them, but what is certain is that deregulation of services in the Hereford area has resulted in more services with lower fares. After all, at the end of the day, that is what matters for the individual customer.
Perhaps I may try to answer some of the individual points which your Lordships have made during this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in his opening speech, suggested that unsafe operations might start up as a result of the bill. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and other noble Lords also referred to the safety aspect in different ways. It is important that I say that the existing law already gives traffic commissioners, as many of your Lordships well know, powers to refuse or revoke a public service vehicle operator's licence or to limit the number of vehicles
1216
that an operator can run. In addition an operator's maintenance arrangements must be approved, and buses and coaches have to undergo a special annual bus MOT-type test. But the Bill will add to the existing safety factors.
The traffic commissioners will be able to prevent an operator from running a local service if there is evidence that it has been operated incompetently or unreliably or that the operator has behaved foolishly. We also intend to introduce provisions under which the driver of any vehicle adapted to carry 17 or more passengers will have to have a special driver's licence. Under the Bill all buses, not just public service vehicles as at present, will be subject to spot checks and can be prohibited from further use until defects are put right. I would repeat the undertaking which was given at the beginning of the debate by my noble friend Lord Brabazon that whatever resources are necessary to maintain standards in the future we intend to see that they are made available.
My noble friend Lord Pender, in his speech at the end of the debate, spoke about the theory of comprehensive competitive tendering. If my noble friend will forgive me, as this really arises from the report of the Select Committee to which my right honourable friend's department has not yet replied, I think perhaps that at this stage of the evening at any rate and before the reply is issued it would be better if I did not reply in detail to my noble friend. But I have no doubt that we shall come back to this point again in Committee.
My noble friends Lord Pender and Lord Monk Bretton were both really on the same point in drawing particular attention to the importance of subsidised routes in rural areas. The Government recognise that there will be services which operators cannot run profitably, as has happened in the past, which are vital to those people who count on them. The Bill gives local authorities a clear duty to secure such services by the payment of subsidies.
As to competition with subsidised routes, I think it is fair to point out that where a route is clearly unprofitable it is highly unlikely—is it not?—that someone would come along and compete unsubsidised against the subsidised operator. If there is a profitable time of day on that route or a profitable section of an otherwise subsidised route, then almost certainly someone will be offering that service already as well. In a competitive system, that operator will be not only working with subsidy but, we would hope, will be working more efficiently than he otherwise would have been.
We know that in Herefordshire the Midland Red Bus Company improved its productivity by no less than about 25 per cent. I am saying that in a deregulated system the possibility of a subsidised service contract being undermined by the unforeseen appearance of a competitor is I think going to be rare unless the subsidised route operator is not meeting the needs of passengers.
Nonetheless, my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton, who I know has studied this subject closely, spoke this afternoon of the admirable ESCORT system, as it is called, in his own county of East Sussex. He suggested that in Hereford the county council was able to protect

1217
the subsidised services. He asked that a similar protection should be extended in the Bill to all local authorities.
My noble friend is not quite correct about the Herefordshire system. There were no powers of the kind which he attributed for county councils in the trial areas. In Herefordshire and Worcestershire, the county wrote into subsidy contracts a requirement for each operator not to compete against any other operator who was receiving subsidy. Quite apart from the rights and wrongs of doing that, it did not amount to protection. It did not apply to other commercial operators. Indeed, in the first round of tendering for subsidy, it forced the local NBC subsidiary to decide not to compete for tenders at all.
I shall put briefly the other side of the competition in rural areas because I believe very strongly that it has not been as appreciated by some of your Lordships as the Government hoped that it might have been. We know that in the trial areas there has been an improvement in services at less cost to the ratepayers so far as rural areas are concerned. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about the situation in Herefordshire. The answer is that in the rural areas there was an increase of 2 per cent. since the Hereford trial began. This was at a time when services were being withdrawn on a wide scale in many other parts of the country.
We have heard a great deal today about the loss of cross-subsidy. The trial areas have shown that at any rate some rural services must have been getting precious little benefit from cross-subsidy. I make that assertion because, as my noble friends Lady Carnegy of Lour and Lord Nugent of Guildford said, there really is an opportunity for increased efficiency in a freer system. After all, we have the evidence from the trial areas of the benefits of uneconomic services being put out to tender.
I know that we are talking about only a small area of evidence but it is fair to address ourselves to the fact that Hereford, on its first round of tendering in 1981, made a saving of 38 per cent. on its previous subsidies. There is also the well-known story of Norfolk, where a group of services were put out to tender and obtained for £150,000 instead of the £500,000 originally asked for. I am simply saying that those of your Lordships who have dismissed the effects of being able to reduce costs through the system which this Bill is seeking to introduce are being less than fair in respect of the opportunities that may exist.
In addition to the references to the traditional bus services under the Bill, there is also the whole complex of mini-buses, community buses, school buses, taxis and hire cars which can contribute to a better service. As your Lordships may know, the Government are committed to providing a transitional grant for the first four years of deregulation while the benefits of competition are emerging, in order to get the new pattern of services off to the best possible start. There is also to be a £1 million innovation grant for the development commission to encourage new types of rural services, with similar arrangements to be made for Scotland and Wales through the Scottish and Welsh Offices.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend before he leaves the issue of cross-subsidy? The department must have done some studies as to the effectiveness of cross-subsidy and what it has achieved. Plymouth has carried out studies which indicate that if cross-subsidy is eliminated, or phased out, another £392,000 will have to be found from the rates. Therefore it is possible to do these studies. I asked my noble friend to tell us what studies the Government have done, and I should like to have an answer so that we can look at them before the Committee stage.
Lord Belstead: My Lord, I will see what I can find, and I cannot give my noble friend a better answer than that this evening. However, if I may say so, my noble friend has gone down precisely the route which two minutes ago I begged him not to go down. My noble friend simply says that a local authority—a great local authority, Plymouth—has simply said that under a new system it will need more money. So far as I know it has not gone deeply into the saving of costs. That does not reflect on Plymouth because nobody knows about the saving of costs until one turns to the operators themselves to find out what they can save.
What we do know—and I accept that it is on very slim evidence—is that in the two pieces of evidence which I have given to your Lordships this evening, in regard to Hereford and Norfolk, there were very considerable savings in costs. It is that factor to which my noble friend is not addressing himself. Indeed, if my noble friend will forgive me for saying so, he does not like the whole idea of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Sandford asked one direct question. Why, he said, do the Government not just rely on rate capping in order to reduce subsidy? That expresses a basic misunderstanding of the Bill. The Government have consistently said that the Bill is not attempting to control or reduce levels of local authority subsidy. It will tackle the underlying problems of the industry to tap the potential for increased patronage and thus ensure subsidy is spent where it is really needed. In some areas authorities may, as a result, choose to spend less on public transport, as was the case in Herefordshire where a slightly higher rural mileage is being run for less cost. Other authorities may choose to maintain expenditure and provide more services with it. But where expenditure is at reasonable levels in the shire counties the Government certainly have no quarrel with that.
I shall just say a brief word, as quickly as I can in literally just a couple of sentences, about concessionary fares. I believe that the Bill provides a firm basis for the continuation of travel concession schemes for the elderly, the disabled and children. Indeed, Clauses 89 to 92—to answer the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, who wanted some guarantee—give local authorities new powers to secure the participation of operators in concessionary fares schemes.
As regards disabled passengers, we listened to my noble friend Lord Zouche with great attention. He very fairly recorded the commitment which the Government have already given in another place for disabled passengers. Incidentally, in addition to what my noble friend said, the Bill has already been amended to require the transport commissioner to

1219
have regard to the interests of the elderly and disabled when determining traffic regulation conditions. However, there were other points mentioned by my noble friend Lord Zouche and I am sure that we shall be coming back to them in Committee.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said that the Bill will damage poor people. It is a central feature of the policy which we are putting before your Lordships in this Bill that what we seek to achieve is a system of transport in which public funds are directed towards real social needs. One of the greatest criticisms of the present arrangements is that local authorities who provide the funds do not know precisely on what the money is being spent.
It is never clear in a cross-subsidised system, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy made very plain in her speech, exactly who is gaining at the expense of whom. It seems more likely that it has possibly been poorer passengers on busy routes who have paid more in fares than they might have done to keep other less used services going perhaps in just those areas where car ownership is relatively high. I would only say at this stage of the Bill that surely with a more flexible approach and more competitive spirit better services could be provided for the same amount of expenditure.
I was particularly interested in the point made by my noble friend Lord Peyton about the London taxi trade. I agree with him that it provides an excellent service, equalled in few, if any, other places in the world. I would just remind your Lordships that the London taxi trade, though it is subject to stringent quality control, has no limitation made on entry. In other words, there is no quantity control. We believe that a bus industry subject to quality control but with no barriers to entry will be able, like the taxi trade in London, to provide the travelling public with an excellent service, the envy of the world.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked me a direct question about the licensing of private hire cars in the Greater London area. There are no provisions contained in this Bill that will introduce any form of licensing of private hire in London. However, as I think he knows, we have undertaken completely to review all taxi and hire car legislation once the Bill is out of the way, and that matter will of course form part of that review.
I think that both the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Tordoff, suggested that the arrangements in the Bill for transition are inadequate because there will be too much pressure on time. The proposals in Schedule 5 for transition are designed specifically both to ease in competition by relaxing licensing for a period before deregulation and to give as much information as possible to local authorities for their task in organising tendering for subsidy contracts. If there are ways within the timescale provided in the Bill of improving Schedule 5 to give authorities better information at an earlier stage, we shall be most willing to look at that again.
My noble friend Lord Teviot and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham made similar points about small operators. But the Bill is not about creating or preserving the smallest operator, as I think
1220
the right reverend Prelate suggested; nor is it designed to help the under-dog, as my noble friend suggested. The point about competition in the Bill is to improve services to the customer. If a larger operator can do that best, not because of his historic advantages but because he is more efficient or more imaginative, good luck to him. It is the customer in the end who is going to benefit.
Perhaps I may penultimately come to an important point which predictably was mentioned, but only mentioned, by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and spoken to also by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. It is the position of NBC and local authority staff and pensions. So far as local authority and PTE staff are concerned, the position is that accrued pension rights earned up to the time of transfer will be protected by existing legislation. In the case of NBC staff there are several possibilities for the future of pensions. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, well knows, the main concern in debates in another place has focused on the arrangements which will be made if it was decided to close existing pension schemes. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave a clear assurance that the Government would ensure that those schemes were adequately funded at the time of privatisation to the satisfaction of the Government and trustees so that the assets were sufficient to meet the accrued liabilities. This evening I cannot go further than that, and of course I quite appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be wishing to return to this matter, which is very much one of concern to him.
Finally, let me say just a word about Scotland. My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked me a direct question as to whether the commissioner as registration authority was going to be able to respond quickly enough when the registrations were sent so that the local authorities would know what the registrations were. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Elliot asked the same question. We are confident that a system can be devised which will achieve that. Work on it is already in hand. My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked me whether the Secretary of State wil consult local authority associations before making regulations to do with registration. The answer to that is most certainly, yes.
Both my noble friends the noble Baronesses asked me about school transport so far as it is affected by this Bill. As my noble friends know, education authorities in Scotland, the regional and islands councils, have a duty to make educational provision for children in their areas; and, in order to discharge this duty for pupils who do not live within walking distance of school, they may provide home-to-school transport.
Both my noble friends outlined the way it happens in Scotland. It is not envisaged that the Bill will alter the way it happens. The use of public transport to take pupils to and from school will be a matter for cooperation between the education authority on the one hand and the transport authority on the other. I hope my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood will be pleased to hear, however, that the difference between what has been going on so far and what is provided for under the Bill is that there will now be a duty on these authorities to co-operate with one another so as to achieve value for money in carrying out their functions. I am therefore very glad that both my noble friends raised this particular point.

1221
I know I have not answered all the questions. It is not entirely my fault. There have been one or two interruptions, about which I make no complaint, because there will be much across-the-Chamber debate before we are through with this Bill. However, I suggest to your Lordships that this Bill is a positive Bill. It is not a Bill which is content merely to manage a continuing decline in public transport. If I may say so to your Lordships, it is not a Bill about cutting. It is a great pleasure to be able to stand up and say that. We believe that there really are good prospects for local bus services, provided operators are free to put their energies as much into seeking new customers as into serving the existing ones.
At the beginning of this debate, my noble friend mentioned the new NBC mini-bus services in Exeter. I just say again, look what happened there. There was a doubling in patronage. I wonder who really would have thought that such latent demand could have been so readily tackled. Just think what that result could mean for bus services in the rest of the country, provided operators are encouraged by removal of the barrier of regulation. Thus at a difficult time for the bus industry, we believe it is competition 'which will open up this market for the benefit of passengers. That is why it is competition which is the guiding principle of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Swansea City Council (Tawe Barrage) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before ten o'clock.

  MERCENARIES IN CENTRAL AMERICA
  MERCENARIES IN CENTRAL AMERICA
  PRISONERS' TOILET FACILITIES
  PRISONERS' TOILET FACILITIES
  PRISONERS' BATHS AND SHOWERS
  PRISONERS' BATHS AND SHOWERS
  VIDEO RECORDINGS: CLASSIFICATION BOARD
  VIDEO RECORDINGS: CLASSIFICATION BOARD