Sitting of 5 February 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Managua
    Mr. Meadowcroftasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government's ambassador with responsibility for Nicaragua last visited Managua.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Her Majesty's ambassador, who resides in San José but is also accredited to Nicaragua, is in Managua. He last visited Managua from 17 to 19 December 1985.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: We are glad to hear that the diplomat is in Managua. Does the Secretary of State accept that the efforts of the United States to isolate Nicaragua are self-fulfilling? Do the Government support those efforts? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that to promote the Contadora process for peace necessitates regular communications in Managua by our representative? What progress is being made towards that end?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We support the Contadora process and have our own policy in that respect, in line with that of our European partners. On 20 January the Foreign Affairs Council gave a public welcome to the fresh impetus given to the Contadora process in Caraballeda in Venezuela, and we issued a statement urging that concrete steps be taken to facilitate the Contadora process. We obviously take steps to ensure that the United States is aware of our views. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of representation in Managua. It was for that reason that I decided that the post should be reopened in May 1984, and its manning is kept under constant review.
    Mr. Foulkes: What the Secretary of State has just said is welcome, but is he aware that last week the Minister of State, his hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), said:
    "Terrorism is terrorism from whomsoever it comes … wherever terrorism occurs it must be condemned"?—[Official Report, 30 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 1109.]
    Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that that also includes United States-funded terrorism by the Contras against Nicaragua?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have made it plain that we do not believe that the problems of Central America, any more than of any other region, can be solved by armed
    268
    force. We have urged the need for restraint on all sides, and we have taken note of and welcomed the statement by President Reagan some time ago that he is not seeking the military overthrow of the Sandinista Government.

    British Overseas Interests
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the means by which his Department secures its objectives of promoting and protecting British interests overseas; how he is monitoring their implementation; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): Foreign and Commonwealth Office departments and posts work to agreed objectives and their performance is subject to regular assessment and review. This permits flexibility in our response to changing circumstances, such as the steadily increasing demand for commercial activities.
    Mr. Thurnham: What detailed assessment is my hon. Friend making to show how the Department is doing its job?
    Mr. Eggar: I am delighted to say that we have recently instituted a diplomatic wing top management system which requires posts, departments and under-secretaries to examine their objectives and performance in time for each annual expenditure survey. This is a major new management tool, which supplements the existing arrangements.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: How were British interests protected in Iran in 1980 when the British ambassador evicted five American citizens from the residential compound of the British embassy? Is the Minister aware that that decision was seen as an affront to American public opinion? Is he further aware that there has been a row in North America in the media about what happened four years ago over the hostages crisis? Do the British Government intend to apologise to the American Government for their disgraceful actions?
    Mr. Eggar: At that time, and subsequently, we worked extremely closely with the Americans. Those events took place six years ago.
    Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of securing British interests overseas is through the effective use of the British Council? Will he assure the House that he will fight for every resource that the British Council needs to advance our interests?
    Mr. Eggar: The council performs a valuable role, but that role and its funding must be seen in the context of the FCO's overall resources.

    Terrorism (Colonel Gaddafi)
    Mr. Haynesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate discussions with European colleagues to counteract the threat made by Colonel Gaddafi on 16 January to train, arm and finance terrorists.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have always played a leading part in discussions with European colleagues about terrorist activities and threats from Libya and elsewhere, and we shall continue to do so. On 27 January European

    269
    Community Foreign Ministers made clear their determination to strengthen co-operation to deal with all forms of terrorism and established a new group, within political co-operation, to ensure effective follow-up action.
    Mr. Haynes: When will Her Majesty's Government take action against those countries which harbour and train people for terrorism? Why does the Secretary of State not call in the ambassadors of those countries and let them know, in no uncertain terms, how Britain feels about countries training terrorists to carry out acts in other countries?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I assure the hon. Gentleman that wherever there is evidence of support for terrorism by foreign Governments we do not hesitate to make clear our condemnation and to take the necessary steps to deter and, if possible, to stop such support. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is unacceptable for other countries to export violence to the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although Libya has a gangster regime, that does not justify yesterday's air piracy by Israel? Does he also agree that fighting terror with terror will only escalate lawlessness and encourage the extremists on both sides?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have issued a statement today condemning that action. There was no evidence of terrorists on board the aircraft or of any threat to Israel's security. In our view, the interception was without justification. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a dangerous precedent, which appears to have been in contravention of international law. Such acts can only endanger the lives of innocent people.
    Mr. Ron Brown: As the Government have condemned that act of piracy, will the Secretary of State also condemn America's war fleet manoeuvres along the Libyan coast?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: That has nothing to do with terrorism.
    Viscount Cranborne: Will my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that a Libyan freighter, which has been on fire, is in Portland harbour in my constituency? With their usual hospitality, the people of Weymouth have been harbouring the crew of that freighter. Will he point out to Colonel Gaddafi and his representatives that they would do well to acknowledge that hospitable treatment, and that the Libyan Government would do well to act in concert with the hospitality that has been received?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I readily agree with my hon. Friend that the people of Libya, and of many other countries, would do well to follow the example of his constituents in respect of hospitality and courtesy, and no doubt in many other respects.
    Dr. Owen: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that his comments about the forcing down of a Libyan aircraft by Israeli planes are in strong contrast with the support of Her Majesty's Government for the American action over the Egyptian airliner? Does he agree that if international law and the freedom of the airways are to be upheld, it is not for member states to determine whether aircraft have terrorists on board, and that there must be no intervention? The Foreign Secretary would do well to apply even-handedly his view on upholding international law.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I always appreciate advice from the right hon. Gentleman, but I must tell him that there is a distinction between the two cases to which he referred. In relation to the action against the Egyptian jet, it was relevant to take account of the international conventions on hijacking and hostage-taking, which make it clear that people of the sort involved should be brought to face justice by trial, prosecution or extradition. There is a difference.

    Australia
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's current relations with Australia.
    Mr. Eggar: Our relations with Australia are excellent. As I said on 3 February on Second Reading of the Australia Bill, they are of the greatest importance to us.
    Mr. McNamara: Following the visit of Senator Evans, will the Government confirm that they will take an active equal part in the technical assessment group which is examining the problems associated with the nuclear debris in Maralinga?
    Mr. Eggar: During Senator Evans' visit agreement was reached in principle on two major points. We accepted his invitation to participate in the technical assessment group, and we are represented on the consultative group.
    Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend accept that we all appreciate our wonderful relationship with Australia, and that that is especially identified with the number of Australian visitors to Britain during the past few years? Last year there were more than 500,000 such visitors. Does he accept that they were most welcome in my constituency, which is where Captain Cook was born and raised?
    Mr. Eggar: I echo my hon. Friend's sentiments and hope that tourism in his constituency is suitably increased as a result of his remarks.

    Israel
    Mr. Yeoasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations with Israel.
    Mr. Mikardoasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, following the visit of the Israeli Premier, Shimon Peres, there has been any improvement in Anglo-Israeli relations; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Israeli relations following the visit of Mr. Shimon Peres.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The visit of the Israeli Prime Minister last month as the guest of the Government demonstrated the close links between the United Kingdom and Israel. Out talks with him were friendly and constructive. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accepted an invitation to visit Israel later this year.
    Mr. Yeo: Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to do everything that he can to encourage the

    271
    efforts of the responsible elements on each side in the middle east? Does he agree that Israel could do more to help the peace-making process by refraining from forcing down airliners and by abandoning its policy of establishing settlements in Arab-dominated areas on the West Bank?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. It is essential that both sides should refrain from acts of violence or making threats of violence. We have repeatedly made it clear to Israel that its settlement policy is illegal and is an obstacle to peace. To freeze settlements would increase confidence in Israeli intentions, and that was one matter discussed with the Israeli Prime Minister.
    Mr. Mikardo: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that everyone who met Mr. Peres and listened to him during his visit was deeply impressed by his manifestly passionate desire to further the peace process, at whatever cost, including stopping the establishment of settlements on the West Bank? Will the Government exercise whatever influence they can, limited though it unhappily is, to help him in that objective?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course. It was clear from our discussions with the Israeli Prime Minister that he is anxious to promote the peace process, and for that reason we value the discussions that we had with him. To carry that peace process forward will require a willingness to make concessions on both sides, after we have completed the difficult task of establishing who should be the representative spokesmen for both sides.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: On the question of concessions, can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that Mr. Peres is ready to treat with a Palestinian-Jordanian delegation that could include PLO members, provided that they are not connected with terrorism?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is not yet the position, although it was with the intention of establishing some such way forward that we extended an invitation last September to the joint Palestinian-Jordanian delegation to visit Britain. We must continue the search for every possible way of building that bridge between the two sides.
    Mr. Cartwright: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his condemnation of Israeli action against the Libyan aircraft yesterday will be widely welcomed? Does not the failure of Israeli intelligence involved in yesterday's escapade cast grave doubt on the justification for previous Israeli strikes against alleged terrorist targets in Lebanon, Tunisia and elsewhere, which were based on similar Israeli intelligence?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is not possible to comment on another country's intelligence, least of all in respect of a series of other unidentified incidents. The whole episode underlines the importance of restraint and determination when dealing with terrorists and terrorism, to ensure that only those who are identifiably guilty are the recipients of any recriminations.
    Mr. Walters: Israel has a truly deplorable record of international terrorism and air piracy. I appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend has issued a statement. Will he continue to emphasise to the Israeli Government that such violations of international law are damaging to peace and that it is no good talking about peace unless one acts accordingly?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend has put his question, in the light of recent incidents. When handling all such matters, it is important to remain evenhanded and firm in one's condemnation of every kind of illegality.
    Mr. Janner: I unreservedly welcome the Government's decision to stop the practice of the authentification of Arab boycott documents. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman repeat his condemnation of the boycott as a completely unacceptable interference with freedom of trade?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, we have always condemned the boycott. I am glad to have been able to take a practical step which indicates our views.
    Mr. Hicks: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he advised the Israeli Prime Minister that no meaningful progress can be made in the middle east until the American and Israeli Governments acknowledge the fact that the Palestinians can be represented only by the Palestine Liberation Organisation in any future negotiations, as the Arab world has collectively agreed and repeatedly stated?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate my hon. Friend's presentation of the Arab world's view. We do not accept that the PLO is the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. We have no doubt that the PLO should be associated with negotiations, provided that it renounces violence and is committed to a peaceful settlement along familiar lines.
    Mr. Anderson: Leaving aside the formula of the sole, legitimate representative, the Foreign Secretary will recall that in the Venice declaration of June 1980 we agreed that the PLO must have a role in peace negotiations. No conditions were applied at that time. Does that remain our policy, and, if so, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us the nature of the message that Prime Minister Peres wished him to convey to King Hussein about the PLO's role in peace negotiations?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would not be appropriate for me to give details of the messages being passed in such circumstances. I can confirm that the Israeli Prime Minister and His Majesty King Hussein are seeking to find a way to carry forward the peace process, based on the initiative taken by King Hussein last year. In that context, we have made it clear, as we did in the Venice declaration, that the PLO must be associated with the negotiations.
    Sir Frederic Bennett: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in Strasbourg last week, when speaking to the representatives of 21 European countries, President Mubarak, who is, after all, a founder member of the peace process in the middle east, said that negotiations which did not include PLO representatives had no hope of success?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not aware of that statement by President Mubarak. I shall study the speech to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. I join him in paying tribute to the part played in those negotiations by President Mubarak.

    Iran-Iraq War
    Mr. Robert C. Brownasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiative he plans to take to help end the Iran-Iraq war.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We will fully support any realistic initiatives aimed at bringing an end to this tragic and wasteful conflict, especially through the good offices of the United Nations Secretary General and his special representative, Olof Palme.
    Mr. Brown: What weapons are the Government supplying to Iraq and Iran? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that when he next meets his European counterparts he will go all out for a complete arms embargo to both sides in this dreadful conflict, so that we can at least say that we are not keeping this awful war going?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I share the hon. Gentleman's condemnation of this pointless, prolonged and bloody conflict. The Government's policy is, and has been for some time, not to sell defence-related equipment to either side which would significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. All applications for the export of defence equipment are scrutinised rigorously to exclude such items. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and he should commend that policy more widely.
    Sir John Farr: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is important to ensure that Iraq comes out of this struggle with every honour and assistance from the Government? Will he approach Iran and see what steps can be taken to protect British merchant shipping, which has been subjected to attack and boarding by Iranian troops in the Gulf quite recently? Can we not provide some protection for British merchant vessels?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend about the need to impress on both sides the need to enter into negotiations. I have taken note of the willingness of the Iraqi Government to do so. I hope that that view will be taken on both sides. We deplore the attacks on innocent merchant vessels and have taken action to prevent interference with shipping, consistent with article 51 of the United Nations charter.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: What initiatives have the Government taken to obtain the support of the United Nations to stop the flow of arms to both sides in this war, especially in view of the escalation in the use of chemical weapons, which represent a tragedy and a bigger barrier to a solution?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I share the hon. Gentleman's condemnation of the use or potential use of chemical weapons in this or any other conflict. That is why we took the lead in the European Community, and thereafter in the United Nations, in getting a ban imposed on the export of chemicals capable of use in composing chemical weapons. We have supported resolutions to that effect in the United Nations as well.
    Mr. Latham: As hundreds of thousands of people have already been killed in this war, which has gone on for years, what are the five permanent members of the Security Council doing to stop it? Why do they not try to work in concert on the matter?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: This is one of the relatively few matters on which the five permanent members of the Security Council take a similar view. It is raised in consultations that I have with any of them. The task that has been attempted by almost every conceivable mediator recently, of bringing both sides to a peaceful conclusion of the conflict, has so far eluded all of those efforts, but I shall keep my hon. Friend's advice in mind.

    Central America
    Mr. Ron Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by the Council of Ministers to the United States of America on its policy in Central America.
    Mr. Eggar: None, Sir. However, the United States Government are aware of the Twelve's views on Central America. The Twelve support a comprehensive negotiated settlement in Central America, based on the Contadora objectives. This was made clear in the communiqués issued after the Luxembourg conference, and more recently in the statement issued on 20 January welcoming the impetus given to the Contadora process by the Caraballeda declaration.
    Mr. Davies: What is the response of the Government and the Council of Ministers to President Reagan's recent description of the Contras in Nicaragua as freedom fighters? Does the Minister share the view of many British people that the Contras are nothing more than terrorists, and that the only effect of their actions in Nicaragua is to undermine the democratically elected Government's efforts to improve the living conditions of ordinary people?
    Mr. Eggar: The Government believe that the region's problems cannot be solved by armed force. We constantly urge restraint on all sides. We welcome President Reagan's written assurance to a United States Congressman last year that he is not seeking the military overthrow of the Sandinista Government.
    Mr. Adley: As President Reagan, in the State of the Union message, referred to those people as freedom fighters, and as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said — and we all agree — that we should not be selective in the use of such phrases, will my hon. Friend ensure that a message is sent to President Reagan telling him that many people in western Europe feel that if the phrase "freedom fighters" applies to those people, it should also apply to the ANC, the UDF and the Palestinians?
    Mr. Eggar: We are convinced that the problems of the region cannot be resolved by armed force. We regularly and constantly discuss important issues about Central America with the United States Administration, who are well aware of our views.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister not accept that there is something inconsistent about British policy towards Central America, in that the Government reduced and then removed all aid to Nicaragua, but increased it to Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala? Are the Government prepared to support repressive and not especially democratic Governments, while being critical of the Government of Nicaragua? Should not the Government come clean and, if they do support the

    275
    Contadora process, say that they condemn the human rights violations in the other countries? Will the Government immediately resume aid to the people of Nicaragua?
    Mr. Eggar: There is nothing inconsistent in our policies. We have not stopped aid to Nicaragua.
    Mr. Healey: If, indeed—as we all hope—President Reagan is not aiming at the overthrow of the Nicaraguan Government, is it not the most cynical and brutal irresponsibility for him to ask for arms, organisation and money for a most brutal group of terrorists who are seeking to overthrow the Nicaraguan Government?
    If the Government indeed support the Caraballeda declaration of last week, which was also supported by America's allies in the area, notably the Governments of El Salvador, Honduras and Costa Rica, will they further the recommendation of the Caraballeda group that the United States should negotiate directly with the Government of Nicaragua for an end to the conflict?
    Mr. Eggar: The right hon. Gentleman simply could not have been listening to the replies given by my right hon. and learned Friend and myself. A clear statement was issued on 20 January in support of the Caraballeda process.

    South Africa
    Mr. Stan Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations are being made to the South African authorities regarding the remaining four defendants in the United Democratic Front treason trial.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): We voted for Security Council resolution 560 calling for the dropping of charges against leaders of the United Democratic Front. We have also repeatedly called, independently and with our European and Commonwealth partners, for the release of all political prisoners. That remains our position.
    Mr. Thorne: Although I welcome the fact that 12 people have been released, I must ask whether the Government are prepared to take a further initiative on behalf of the four trade unionists still charged with high treason.
    Mrs. Chalker: We have already made the South African Government well aware of our attitude towards the trial of all the UDF leaders. Certainly the prosecution of the UDF is inconsistent with the South African Government's announced desire for dialogue with non-violent representatives of other communities. We shall make such representations as we can.
    Mr. Dykes: Although I welcome my hon. Friend's reference to the farce of all those trials and her call on behalf of the Government for them to be dropped, may I ask whether she agrees that the UDF, the ANC and other representatives of the black majority are gaining increasing support? Does she further agree that middle-class blacks are becoming increasingly radical and revolutionary because of the absurd oduracy of the South African Government?
    What is my hon. Friend's reaction to the latest laughable suggestions by the State President on the exchange of prisoners and on so-called reforms? Will the
    276
    Government make it clear to the South African Government that until the whole rotten system of apartheid is dismantled there will be no basic justice in that country?
    Mrs. Chalker: I shall repeat what I said in the House last week — that we are positively working against apartheid. We have made our views quite clear to the South African Government. The speech of the President of South Africa last week was only part of the process of reform. While it contained statements of principle as well as outlining positive steps to be taken in this Parliamentary Session, there is much more to be done. Steps must be taken on the road to reform, including those mentioned by my hon. Friend. Those steps must not only be legislated upon this Session, but must be put into effect as fully and as speedily as possible.
    Mr. Anderson: Does not the continuation of the trial against the four trade unionists, and the separate trial against 22 UDF activists, suggest that the real motive of the South African Government is to silence democratic opposition within their country? Does that not seriously put in question the professed desire of President Botha for profound change? Does the Minister realise that yesterday another trial began, of seven Namibians at Windhoek? Does the Foreign Office recognise the validity of the legal structures raised by the illegal South African regime in Namibia, and if not, what is it doing about it?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That has nothing to do with the question.
    Mrs. Chalker: As my hon. Friend says, the question posed by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has nothing to do with the original question. I shall do my best to answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. He knows that we do not have discussions with the Government of Namibia, and therefore we do not recognise them. However, the South Africans have such discussions. We have to avoid hardening attitudes in South Africa, while strengthening the hands of those who argue in favour of internal settlements, whether of trials or any other matter.

    Nepal
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his forthcoming visit to Nepal.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall be accompanying Her Majesty the Queen as Minister in Attendance during Her Majesty's state visit from the 17 to 21 of this month.
    Mr. Atkinson: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had the opportunity to study a report that I sent to him of a fact-finding visit to Nepal last month, which included myself and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)? Does he accept that we found clear evidence of persecutions of Christians in many districts of Nepal? When he meets his counterpart in Nepal, will he suggest that such violations are incompatible with his country's support for the United Nations declarations on human rights?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have seen the reports of my hon. Friend's visit and his report on the outcome of that visit. I was glad to see that the joint delegation of himself and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) received full and open co-operation from the Nepalese

    277
    Government. The available evidence suggests that constitutional provisions in Nepal allowing a person to practise and profess his religion are generally respected. However, in appropriate circumstances, we have no hesitation in making known our views on human rights.
    Mr. Deakins: Will the Foreign Secretary take advantage of his trip to raise with the Nepalese Government the issue of deforestation in that country, as in other Himalayan regions? That deforestation is increasing the flow in the major rivers of northern India, and thereby reducing food supplies and availability of land for human habitation in both West Bengal in India, and in Bangladesh. Can the Foreign Secretary get something going to reverse that process?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the importance of the hon. Gentleman's point in general terms, although I am not familiar with the detailed implications for that part of the subcontinent. Some of our aid is already directed towards that objective, and I shall study that matter further in the light of the hon. Gentleman's observations.
    Mr. Alton: Given what the Foreign Secretary said in reply to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), is he unaware of the fact that last year over 80 people were arrested for preaching Christianity and that some of them were sent to prison for six years as a result? This is in direct violation of article 18 of the human rights convention, which specifically and expressly allows people to practise their religion in the way that they would wish. How many more violations of human rights and acts of brutality have to occur before Her Majesty's Government make representations to the Government of the kingdom of Nepal?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We must approach these matters with a little more temperance than the hon. Gentleman has done. We must remember that Nepal is an independent nation, with a sovereign right over its constitution. The constitutional provisions are aimed at preventing conversions from Hinduism by inducement or intimidation. We are in regular contact with Nepalese Christian leaders, who have not asked us to intercede. I understand that the Nepalese Foreign Minister is himself a Christian and has undertaken to investigate specific cases that are brought to his attention.

    Torture (UN Convention)
    Mr. Simon Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now ratify the United Nations convention against torture.
    Mr. Eggar: We intend to ratify the convention, which we signed on 15 March 1985, as soon as possible. We need to check that our current legislation and other arrangements accord with its provisions. We must also consult the dependent territories, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. It is possible that new legislation will be needed.
    Mr. Hughes: While those negotiations continue—and everyone hopes that ratification will be completed as soon as possible—will the Government take steps to remedy the position? At present the United Kingdom is one of the few European countries that has not made the unilateral declaration against torture, called for by the United Nations more than eight years ago. Because we
    278
    have not subscribed to it we appear to condone torture, which is unacceptable to most of our European partners and to countries beyond Europe.
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is less than fair to the Government. We wholly condemn torture wherever and whenever it may occur.
    Mr. Marlow: Arising from my hon. Friend's reply, is there any evidence that Palestinians have been tortured in gaol, by Israelis?
    Mr. Eggar: I am not aware of evidence on that matter, but, if there should be evidence, we deplore all violations of human rights wherever they occur.
    Mr. George Robertson: While we are waiting for the Government to get round to signing the convention on torture, should we not do more to control the export of implements that can be used in countries where torture continues to be practised? Although the Government have already introduced some legislation in that regard, surely the House deserves more information about the method by which the Government judge the human rights records of some countries to which they allow the export of equipment that is clearly used for repression and torture.
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we were one of the co-sponsors of the convention. We are committed to ratifying it as soon as possible, and we were one of the first countries to sign it. Regarding the specific question about instruments of torture, last year we introduced the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1985, which gives the Government power to restrict the export of instruments of torture. We would not give export licences to any destination or country for leg irons, shackles or gang chains for the restraint of prisoners.

    Iran
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made to the Iranian authorities about the recent boarding of a British ship; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tim Renton): Our policy rests firmly on the general principle of freedom of navigation. The Iranian authorities have been asked for an explanation of the reasons why the British registered Barber Perseus was stopped by the Iranian navy on 12 January.
    Mrs. Short: What damage was done to the British ship, and if damage was done, has the Minister sought compensation for it? What steps is he taking towards creating international co-operation to ensure that such an occurrence does not recur?
    Mr. Renton: I can assure the hon. Lady that no damage was done to the ship. Regarding the international legal position, we uphold strongly the general principle of freedom of navigation on the high seas. Iran may be entitled under article 51 of the United Nations charter to exercise an inherent right of self-defence by stopping and searching foreign merchant ships on the high seas. However, that is an exceptional right, and can be used only if there are reasonable grounds to suspect a vessel of taking arms to the other side for use in a conflict.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: What is the difference between one country stopping a ship and boarding it for reasons known to it, and another country doing the same with an aeroplane?
    Mr. Renton: Under article 51 of the United Nations charter there is a specific and inherent right of self-defence by stopping and searching foreign merchant ships on the high seas. The Iranians are using that specific right to stop merchant ships. As my right hon. and learned Friend said earlier, the international convention on hijacking means that terrorists should be brought to trial either by prosecution or extradition.
    Sir Anthony Kershaw: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it would be against our long-term interests to abolish the right of search on the high seas?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, I take my hon. Friend's point. None the less, we are anxious that the Iranians should act extremely cautiously. Our position is based on the general principle of freedom of navigation and the United Nations charter.

    South Africa
    Mr. Cohenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action is to be taken by the Council of Ministers to seek to secure an end to apartheid in South Africa.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Council of Ministers agreed in Luxembourg on 10 September last year on a programme of positive and restrictive measures in relation to South Africa. At the meeting between the Twelve and the front-line states on 3 and 4 February, which I attended, these measures were endorsed. The meeting endorsed also the initiative of the Commonwealth eminent persons group.
    Mr. Cohen: I welcome yesterday's communiqué by the EEC Foreign Ministers and the front-line states, although I do not think that it goes far enough. I note that the communiqué states—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Of course, I am reading from the communiqué.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must summarise.
    Mr. Cohen: The communiqué states that the EEC should consider
    "further restrictive measures against Pretoria"
    if the current limited EEC sanctions do not have the desired results. What is the timetable in which those desired results will be achieved? If those measures are not achieved, when will the restrictive measures be put in place? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reveal what those restrictive measures will be?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot give — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I give notice that I am not reading, Mr. Speaker. The Commonwealth Heads of Government communiqué issued in Nassau stated that, at the conclusion of a period after the establishment of the eminent persons group, further consideration would be given to the position. A similar statement was made in the Luxembourg statement from the Six, but without any limitation of time. The communiqué issued from Lusaka yesterday adds nothing to those two statements. The position therefore remains open.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the light of the speech at the
    280
    opening of the South African Parliament by the State President of the Republic of South Africa, the Council of Ministers should now give full encouragement to the South African Government, who are pledged to remove apartheid from their country, especially in view of the reforms announced by the State President with respect to education, influx control and property rights, and the Government's determination to involve all population groups in the Government?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has drawn attention, as he is entitled to do, to the positive aspects of the President's speech, which we certainly welcome. We noted the commitment in the President's speech and the reference to the goal of parity in the provision of education. The important thing is to ensure that these measures are implemented and carried forward at a pace that carries conviction in South Africa. It is important also that we should do everything that we can to open the way to dialogue between the South African Government and the representatives of the African people in that country. It is in that spirit that we made our comments in yesterday's Lusaka communiqué.
    Mr. Caborn: Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said about the Lusaka communiqué—embodied in that is the reference to the genuine representatives of the black people in South Africa—will the right hon. and learned Gentleman prevail on the South African authorities to start negotiations with the ANC?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is not for us, in respect of South Africa or any other situation, to make the choice as to who are the true representatives of the people concerned. However, it is certainly right that they should take part in the negotiations. We are encouraging the prospect of dialogue between the South African Government and the true representatives of the black people of South Africa. That is one of the objectives of the Commonwealth eminent persons group. It was welcomed by the meeting yesterday in Lusaka. We must hope that it will help to pave the way forward.
    Mr. Forth: Is my right hon and learned Friend convinced of the legitimacy of the basis on which the Council of Ministers seeks to interfere in the internal affairs of another country? When did the South African Government last seek to advise and interfere in the internal affairs of the European Economic Community?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that the examples are exactly comparable. I have no doubt that on many occasions Governments offer advice to others of such a sort. I do not think that the Community has ever been lacking in advice from other quarters. My hon. Friend must acknowledge the importance to the future peace and stability of the whole of southern Africa that attaches to the progress that can be made in removing apartheid from South Africa. That is a matter on which the Commonwealth and the Community, as well as the overwhelming majority of Members of this place, take a common view.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Foreign Secretary stand by the words of the communiqué rather than distance himself, as the Prime Minister appeared to do when she returned from Nassau, from the possibility of any further restrictive measures being taken? Is it not important to underline to

    281
    South Africa that such measures might be taken, lest it think that it is safe from any external pressure so long as the present British Government remain in office?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The communiqué issued from Nassau, in language a little more specific than that which came from Luxembourg in the preceding month, makes it plain that at the conclusion of the work of the eminent person's group the countries represented on that group will then consider the position. We are not committed to any further measures after that point, but consideration whether to take them will certainly arise at that stage.
    Mr. Healey: We on the Opposition Benches share the disappointment expressed by the Foreign Secretary in Lusaka at the failure of Mr. Botha in his recent speech to offer any increase in political power to the great black majority in South Africa. Secondly, we welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's decision to allow his officials to contact leaders of the African National Congress in Lusaka. May I take it that he will extend the same right to his officials to contact the ANC in London? Thirdly, will he explain to the House why, as reported, he vetoed any criticism of the United States Administration's red carpet reception for Jonas Savimbi in Washington, when Mr. Savimbi is involved in an armed uprising against a Government with whom we have diplomatic relations and who were represented at the meeting? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Savimbi is using terrorism and hostage-taking as major weapons in his struggle?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I did not veto any comment of the sort to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in the third part of his supplementary question. The issue was not raised in the preparation of the communiqué. It was clear that the Governments assembled took a different view of the matter from the United States Administration, but that was not so stated in the communiqué. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman says about the decision to have contact at official level with the African National Congress. We took the view that it was important at this critical time to get across the case against violence and that for general dialogue. We wanted also to get across the role of the Commonwealth eminent persons group, which was recognised by the representatives of the ANC. Contact with the ANC in London will be decided in the context of the decision that has already been taken.

    Lesotho (South African Blockade)
    Mr. Pike askedthe Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he received from the South African authorities on the representations he made regarding the blockade of Lesotho.
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Member will know that the South African authorities have now lifted the blockade on Lesotho. We understand that traffic is flowing normally between the two countries.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister explain why the Government did not respond to the request from the former Prime Minister for assistance when it was received? The request remained on the Prime Minister's desk for seven days. Why did the Government allow the blockade to continue by not supplying the airlift that was requested?
    Mrs. Chalker: I think that the hon. Gentleman has one or two matters slightly confused. I do not blame him for
    282
    that, because I can do the same thing myself. We made our concern about the blockade of Lesotho clear to the South Africans from day one. We are pleased that the restrictions have now been lifted. We have been active in Lesotho in trying to assist it and we hope that peace will now return. We shall make whatever representations may be necessary in future.
    Mr. Sayeed: Has my hon. Friend any reason to believe that the South African regime assisted in engineering the downfall of the Government of Chief Jonathan?
    Mrs. Chalker: No, Sir.

    Terrorism
    Mr. Livseyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on an effective co-ordinated European response to international terrorism.
    Mr. Renton: We have taken, and will continue to take, whatever steps we can to achieve an effective response to international terrorism. European Community Foreign Ministers made clear their determination on 27 January to strengthen co-operation to deal with all forms of terrorism, including the establishment of a new group, within political co-operation, to ensure effective follow-up action.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister tell us whether the Government are urging the European Community to prevail upon the Americans and the Russians to co-operate with it in controlling international terrorism, particularly in view of the fact that the Americans, at the time of the interception of the Egyptian plane, acted unilaterally?
    Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. In fact, our response and our approach to other states are somewhat broader than he outlines. We are seeking bilaterally, and within the European Community, to persuade all other countries to co-operate with us in the fight against terrorism. We have no doubt that international co-operation is an essential means of reducing, and in the end beating, the sort of terrorism of which we see far too much at the moment.
    Mr. Dickens: How can the Minister justify his statement about the initiative against terrorism when earlier this afternoon his own Secretary of State condemned the action of Israel in bringing down and searching an aircraft which it had strong grounds to believe was carrying not only terrorists but terrorist leaders from the safe haven of Colonel Gaddafi, who arms, trains and finances terrorism? How can we talk about a concerted effort against terrorism, and at the same time condemn a country that has started to do something about it?
    Mr. Renton: I have to say that I am surprised at my hon. Friend's remarks. As my right hon. and learned Friend made plain earlier, we regard the Israeli action of yesterday as an unjustified and apparently illegal interference with civil aviation. It is a dangerous precedent. If every country were to take its interpretation of international law into its own hands in that manner, we would be reaching an extremely dangerous and worrying international situation.
    Mr. Faulds rose—
    Mr. George Robertson: While we welcome the Community initiative on international terrorism, may I ask

    283
    the hon. Member to confirm that the Government continue to stick to their position that they will not take action against other sovereign nation states unless there is rigorous, objective and verifiable evidence to base it on? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Renton: I can say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think that either he or I caused the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) to leave the Chamber. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that our interpretation of the rigorous or clear evidence which he mentioned might be somewhat different. However, in principle I agree with his statement that action should he taken against terrorism only where there is clear evidence to sustain it. That is the most important feature that we must abide by at present.

    Central America
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Council of Ministers is taking to support the Contadora peace process in Central America.
    Mr. Eggar: The agreement reached at Luxembourg on 11 and 12 November 1985 provides a practical demonstration of the Twelve's consistent support for the Contadora process for closer political and economic links with the Central American states. The European Community also agreed to increase substantially its aid to Central America to encourage regional co-operation.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that in our urgency to placate the United States of America in practically everything, including selling Britain to it, the Contadora peace struggle is being ruined by the United States? Is it not the case that the President tries to get troops to assault a Government who have struggled to break free of United States influence in the interests of democracy, yet pretends that he is advancing the cause of democracy? When will the Government stand up to the United States of America and advise her that it is for her own good openly to support democracy and stop supporting every dictatorship in Latin America?
    Mr. Eggar: We have repeatedly said that we have our own policy. We support the comprehensive and verifiable Contadora agreement, which is based upon the 21 Contadora objectives, which include peace, stability, democracy and development. The United States has repeatedly said that it supports the Contadora peace process. It is well aware of our views.

    Middle East
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on developments in the middle east peace process since the visit to London by Mr. Shimon Peres.
    Mr. Tim Renton: Moderates on both sides have our full support in their continuing efforts to move towards the peaceful negotiation of a just and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute.
    Mr. Latham: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the PLO leaders who have been meeting King Hussein in Amman during the last few days have again explicitly refused to recognise resolution 242? Will he confirm that there can be no place for the PLO in negotiations so long as that remains their attitude?
    Mr. Renton: My interpretation of the Amman discussions is not exactly the same as that of my hon. Friend, although I appreciate his close interest in the matter. King Hussein is clearly trying to reach a formula under which it will be possible for moderate Palestinians who abhor violence and who are prepared to say so in public, and who also accept Israel's right to exist within secure borders, to be incorporated in the peace process. Moderates on all sides ought to hope that he will be successful in that aim.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: How can the Minister claim that there are Palestinians who are not prepared to work for a peaceful resolution of this problem when they have made it quite clear that they are prepared to accept all and every resolution of both the General Assembly and the Security Council?
    Mr. Renton: I wish that what the hon. Gentleman has just said was correct, but unfortunately it is not.
    Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. arising out of question 13. When the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) sought to put his supplementary question I had some difficulty in following him because he sought to use notes and to read from a communiqué. You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that in this House we practice a form of masochism. Back Benchers are never allowed to use notes at Question Time, although that is the accepted practice for those who sit on the Front Bench—a practice which I would not dispute. Can you let me know, because this is very important, whether the practice that allows the leaders of the parties to use notes extends to the leader of the Liberal party and of the other parties when they sit on the Back Benches? Can you also let me know what standing order, convention or guideline in "Erskine May" prohibits Back Benchers from ever using notes when putting questions?
    Mr. Speaker: It has always been perfectly in order for hon. Members to refer to notes, but the convention of the House is that hon. Members should not quote from them.
    Mr. Skinner rose—
    Mr. Cohen rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it would be helpful to take further points of order. We have a very heavy day ahead of us.
    Mr. Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not in order for Back Benchers who want to refer to a specific quotation, as I did this afternoon, to read out the quotation?
    Mr. Speaker: The convention that I enunciated to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has always been the practice of this House.
    Mr. Skinner: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Arising out of questions?
    Mr. Skinner: Yes. There has been another leak.
    Mr. Speaker: Arising out of Foreign Office questions?
    Mr. Skinner: I will just explain. There has just been an announcement that there is an emergency at Sellafield—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order after the statements.
    Sir John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Arising out of questions?
    Sir John Farr: Yes. I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions could be made a little easier to understand. So many of them today have just referred to the views of the Council of Ministers. The correct description is either the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community or the Council of Ministers of the Council of
    286
    Europe. Because of the question asking for the views of the Council of Ministers, would it not be better if the phrase "Council of Ministers" always referred to either the European Economic Community Council of Ministers or the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. It is up to hon. Members to decide the form in which they put down their questions. I do not determine that.

English Water Authorities (Privatisation)
3.35 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the future of the water authorities in England and Wales.
On 7 February 1985, the then Minister for Housing and Construction, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), announced that the Government would examine the prospects for privatisation in the water industry. A discussion paper followed in April. In the light of the responses, and of professional advice on the financial issues, the Government have now decided to transfer the 10 water authorities in England and Wales to private ownership; already, 25 per cent. of water is supplied by private sector water companies.
With my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I have today presented to Parliament a White Paper setting out our proposals. Legislation will be necessary, and we shall put the water authorities on the market as soon as possible thereafter.
Transferring water to the private sector will offer unique opportunities and challenges. The water authorities are not merely suppliers of goods and services. They are managers of natural resources. They safeguard the quality of our rivers. They control water pollution. They have important responsibilities for fisheries, conservation, recreation and navigation. These functions are inter-dependent and inseparable.
We will maintain the principle of integrated river basin management and we will maintain existing boundaries. The water authorities will be privatised with all their existing responsibilities but for the one exception of land drainage and flood protection. Financing and co-ordination of that function will remain a public sector responsibility.
The authorities are largely natural monopolies. The public will, rightly, expect us to set up a firm regulatory framework. We will appoint a director general of water services. He will control the authorities through an operating licence. This will lay down strict conditions on pricing and on service standards. The system of promoting the interests of consumers will take into account a report which I am publishing today from Professor Littlechild of Birmingham university. Under the director general, there will also be strong machinery for representing consumer interests and investigating complaints.
Water authorities are responsible in England and Wales for the implementation of national policy for the water environment. Necessary existing safeguards—including appeals against water authority decisions on discharges and Government controls on the authorities' own discharges—will continue. And we shall strengthen the system of pollution control in two main ways: first, we shall legislate to make their river quality objectives subject to ministerial approval; secondly, we shall provide for any new requirements to be laid down through a parliamentary procedure. In this way we shall use the opportunity of privatisation to improve environmental standards on a continuing basis.
Over the last seven years considerable progress has been made in improving the management efficiency of
288
water authorities. Their operating costs have been reduced in real terms, even while the demand for their services has been growing. Manpower has been reduced by 20 per cent. The number of board appointments has been reduced even more dramatically — from 313 to 123. In 1979 their investment was falling; in real terms it is now above its 1979 level and it is rising. In the last six years we have made the water authorities fit and ready to join the private sector; and, as reported to the Public Accounts Committee, the quality of water services has been improving in almost all regions.
Privatisation is the next logical step. It will bring benefits to customers, to the industry itself and to the nation as a whole in improved quality, more efficient service, greater commitment of the staff to the work they are doing, and greater awareness of customer preference.
With the disciplines and freedoms of the private sector, I expect the industry to move from strength to strength. I know that these proposals will be welcomed.
Dr. John Cunningham: How can there possibly be any justification for a Government selling off what is the nation's most fundamental natural resource on which the people's very existence depends? Is the Secretary of State aware that 99 per cent. of households in England and Wales are connected to the public water supply and that 95 per cent. are connected to the sewerage system? Is it not true that the proposals cannot do other than create private monopolies without affecting in any way choice or competition for the consumer?
Does not the increasing burden of medical evidence about water purity show the need for even more careful public scrutiny and control than exists at present? That is why the Secretary of State for the Environment has had to exempt 25 per cent. of current water supplies from the purity standards set by the EC. Is not the reality that existing problems, including the average currently of more than 4,000 significant sewer collapses for each of the past three years, show the urgent need for massive public investment now?
How can the Government plan to sell off the £27 billion of assets that they do not own and for which they have never compensated local authorities or the ratepayers? The Government do not own those assets. That is the reality.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, following the Government's consultation paper, only seven respondents favoured selling off the water authorities? Is he aware that under existing law Ministers have a statutory duty to promote a national policy for water? The Government have ignored that duty and are now planning to abandon it altogether.
What are the implications for the millions of anglers, water sport enthusiasts, ramblers, ornithologists and others involved in leisure pursuits of paragraph 75 of the White Paper, which says:
"As a general principle, WSPLCs should aim for the maximum possible cost recovery for those services"?
Is not the reality of that that there will be massively increased charges for all the millions of people, or, even worse, possibly denial of access altogether?
Will private monopolies have the right to disconnect people from their water supply? Will the right hon. Gentleman name those towns to be included in the compulsory metering trials which are envisaged? What estimate has he made of the capital cost involved in meter installation, and who will pay? Will not families with

289
small children, large families and those with disabled or invalid people among them be financially much worse off as a result of water metering proposals?
Against the background of massive need for investment, how can privatisation guarantee the hundreds of millions of pounds of urgent and essential investment that is required? Could all the financial objectives that the Government apparently require be met more simply and more quickly by the Government releasing the water authorities from the financial straitjacket in which they have imprisoned them?
These are appalling proposals from a desperate government. They are another example of the Prime Minister's pawnshop politics. Their motivation is a crude, desperate grab for cash to buy votes. They will necessarily endanger public health, pollution control and water purity. The Government are gambling with the nation's health and well-being. In common with the British people, we believe that water resources are national assets, which should be in public ownership and control. A future Labour Government will act accordingly.
Mr. Baker: I gather from the hon. Gentleman's latter comment that, when the proposals proceed and the water authorities are privatised, they will be returned to public ownership. That adds to a long list. When I made a statement five years ago on Cable and Wireless, the Labour party promised that it would take it back into public ownership. It said the same about British Telecom. That is not going to happen.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a series of questions and I will seek to answer them. He asked why in principle we should invite private capital into the ownership of water, which is a monopoly. In other countries, private capital is already invested in water In France, 65 per cent. of the population receives water supplied by private companies. In the United States, 40 per cent. of the utilities that supply water are privately owned.
The hon. Gentleman asked about investment. He was a member of the Government that cut water investment faster and quicker than any other Government in our history. Investment is rising. In 1986–87, for the first time, capital investment in water, including the water authorities and flood protection services, is likely to exceed £1 billion. The level of investment is higher in real terms than it was in 1979.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the water authorities' assets. The assets of the predecessor bodies were vested in the water authorities by the Water Act 1973. Water authorities are public bodies whose members are appointed by the Government. There can be little doubt that the proceeds of the sale should be paid into the Exchequer.
The hon. Gentleman asked about water purity and he alleged strongly that public health was at risk. The high quality of drinking water standards and river quality objectives will be maintained, as will other important public health standards. In no way will the present regime of water standards be weakened. Indeed, in several respects it will be strengthened. For example, standards of effluent discharge will continue to be subject to Government approval. In future, the Government will set river quality objectives, which at present the water authorities set for themselves.
290
I remind the hon. Gentleman that under the new regime the Secretary of State will retain responsibility for public health standards, drinking water quality and the quality of rivers and bathing waters.
The hon. Gentleman asked about powers to cut off water supplies. Privatisation will not affect water undertakers' powers to cut off water supplies. An elaborate regime operates with a code of conduct in which the DHSS is involved. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will continue.
The hon. Gentleman ended by saying that our approach was dogmatic and doctrinaire. If it is dogmatic to believe in private ownership, if it is dogmatic to believe in employee shareholding and if it is dogmatic to believe in improved customer services, I am dogmatic. The Labour party believes that the state should own everything from telecommunications to gas to water to council houses. We profoundly disagree with that proposition.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there are two statements on this matter, followed by a Ten-minute Bill and two Opposition day debates. Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in the first debate. I regret that I shall have to limit questions on statements today. Questions on this statement may continue until 4.15 pm, and then we shall have to move on.
Mr. Charles Morrison: My right hon. Friend's statement is welcome, not least because it will release the provision and organisation of water from the restrictions imposed by the public service borrowing requirement. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on deciding to maintain integrated river basin management. Taking account of the fact that each river authority has different requirements, will the pricing control be organised regionally rather than nationally?
Mr. Baker: On the latter point, I ask my hon. Friend to examine the report published today by Professor Littlechild. He recommends an interesting form of price regulation which relates to service standards. I agree with my hon. Friend completely, as do the representations that we have received, that water authorities should be privatised on a river basin authority level. The authorities have worked well on a river basin basis since 1979, and I confirm that that is our intention. It will improve customer services.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not made a case for water privatisation? There is no good reason for it. Is it not clear that the Government are prepared to put profits before the interests of the British people? Is it not time that they stopped privatising everything that they see? The logical conclusion of their activities is that, in the end, the British people will have to pay for the air that they breathe. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again. If he will not do so, I ask Conservative Members to think again about exactly where the country is going.
Mr. Baker: A major advantage of seeking private capital is that the capital requirements of the water authorities will not have to compete with all the other demands for capital on the public purse. That trade-off goes on, and Opposition Members know it. There is no reason why the capital requirements of the water authorities should not go to the private sector.

291
The most important investment programme in the hon. Gentleman's area is the Mersey basin initiative, which will cost more than £4 billion during the next 20 years. I confirm that that programme will go ahead.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Bearing in mind the fact that we are not talking about nationalised resources but in many cases resources paid for by local ratepayers, what compensation will local ratepayers receive for the nationalisation and then denationalisation of the resources for which they, not the state, pay?
Mr. Baker: As I said in response to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the assets of the predecessor bodies were vested in the water authorities by the Water Act 1973. Water authorities are public bodies whose members are appointed by the Government. For that reason, the proceeds will be paid to the Exchequer.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Minister aware that after an expenditure of about £400 million, the river Tyne is almost clean and that first class water facilities are provided by the Northumbrian water authority? Incidentally, the Northumbrian water authority is now earning an annual profit of £6 million. Why should that be taken away from the people of Northumbria? Can the Minister guarantee to the people of Northumbria that water prices will not shoot up? On past evidence, privatisation pushes up prices.
Mr. Baker: The price regime which the Government envisage introducing after water privatisation is related to consumer standards and standards of water quality.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: That is meaningless.
Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman should read the Littlechild report, which has been published today. If the right hon. Gentleman does so he will find that it is not meaningless.
With regard to the level of water prices after privatisation, I have made it clear to the House that there will have to be a regulatory regime. Some water authority chairmen believe that, following privatisation, there will be a reduction in prices. I heard the chairman of Thames water saying on the radio this morning that he looks forward to the privatised regime as that would lead to reduced prices for Thames water.
Mr. Richard Alexander: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on proving that the Government still have many radical and reforming ideas. Will the private water companies be able to build on the 25 per cent. service that they give to the rest of the country? I hope that the dead hand of the Treasury will be out of taxpayers' bills when they pay water rates in future.
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend could almost have been quoting my words when I stood at the Dispatch Box five years ago announcing the privatisation of Cable and Wireless. I was asked what the advantage was in privatising Cable and Wireless, and it is recorded that I said that that would relieve—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are under great pressure to make progress.
Mr. Baker: I am answering the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander).
I said five years ago, and I repeat it today, that pressure on public resources can be relieved by going to the private
292
sector. My hon. Friend asked about the 25 per cent. of water supplied by the private sector at present. Opposition Members seem to have forgotten that role played by the private sector. The Government intend to build on that, and those private companies will continue to operate.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does not the Minister realise that, instead of putting the water industry back where it belongs under democratic control, his announcement today will be widely perceived as the latest example of the Government siphoning off national assets in order to keep themselves and their wretched economic policy afloat. Can the Minister tell us what advantages there will be in efficiency, and in competition and for the consumer, or will there be a series of dud buys, as happened in East Anglia, and damage the environment which the private sector has never adequately protected?
Mr. Baker: I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's last point; there will be no damage to the environment. Statutory protection will be built into the proposals for the first time, particularly to safeguard areas like East Anglia, by covering river quality and beach standards.
With regard to consumer protection, I can inform the hon. Gentleman that we envisage statutory consumer committees, and the relation of price regulation with standard will be much greater as reports can be made to the director general, who will have direction powers over the water authorities.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it was the great Joe Chamberlain, who was a genuinely radical Tory, who did more to raise the health standards in this country than anyone else by setting the great example of bringing water into public ownership? If it is desirable to take the water industry out of that bogus statistic the PSBR—which has done so much damage to our economic policy—that could be done by an administrative announcement tomorrow.
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend will be aware that that would have immense implications for the operation of the national economy. There is no easy answer. The water industry is an economic activity which can be effectively financed by the private sector, and we should welcome that fact.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that the existing health and safety machinery for water workers will be maintained? Is he aware that the dangers to water workers from disease have been significantly reduced over recent years through trade union action? Is not the proposed structure of the water industry a public subsidy of private companies, because investment in land drainage and river protection will remain in public hands? He will, in effect, be handing public money into the private hands of his friends.
Mr. Baker: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes, and to the latter, no. Sea defences and flood prevention are a public sector responsibility which will be paid for by the public sector.
Mr. Roger Freeman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members strongly support his statement? Will he confirm that privatisation will

293
enable and encourage water authorities to charge customers for the volume of water used rather than on the basis of rateable value?
Mr. Baker: There will be an experiment on water metering. Many customers in different areas across the country are already switching to meters. I hope to bring legislation effecting the privatisation of the water authorities to the House in the next Session of Parliament. It will include provision for widespread experiment and, possibly, each new house would be obliged to have a water meter should it be in the experimental area.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: What guarantees will the Secretary of State give that domestic consumers will be able to choose whether to have a meter installed under privatisation, and what safeguard will there be against market forces to ensure that if there is a drought the price will not go up?
Mr. Baker: Metering and privatisation are separate issues. We published a little over a month ago the Watts report on metering in which we set out the problems and advantages of metering. We propose to have large scale trials. There is no doubt that some consumers prefer metering because consumption is tied to the price that they pay.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is yet another step forward in the privatisation programme which will be welcomed by those thinking people who realise that transferring assets to the people from the state is very much in their interests and those of the consumer? Is he satisfied that the Littlechild formula that he proposes will stop any abuse of monitoring power? Will he be able to satisfy the House on that point?
Mr. Baker: When my hon. Friend has seen the proposals contained in the Littlechild report, he will be more than satisfied that any abuses of monopoly power will be adequately dealt with. There will be a series of protections. There will be the director general and the Secretary of State will continue to have certain responsibilities. Statutory consumer committees will report to the director general who will have powers, which do not exist now, to direct water authorities and to deal with consumer complaints and standards of service.
Mr. William O'Brien: Does the Secretary of State accept that the people of Yorkshire in particular, and throughout the country in general, will say that this is the worst piece of legislation that the Government have introduced? He said that there would be strict control over prices. Does that mean that there will be no VAT on water charges and that standing charges will be abolished?
Mr. Baker: I accept that those detailed points are important. I also acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of those matters. We do not envisage any changes.
Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, contrary to the views expressed by Opposition Members, there will be a welcome in the north-east and Northumberland for today's statement as his proposals will lead to the operation being put on a firmer
294
financial basis, with the introduction of private money, thus enabling the long-term debt for the Kielder dam to be eliminated and prices to the consumer to be reduced?
Mr. Baker: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. He also is an expert in these matters. I am glad to know that so many of my hon. Friends greet the proposals with enthusiasm.
Mr. John Ryman: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the matter is legally more complicated than he said? Has he taken advice from the Law Officers about paying compensation? He has said, wrongly, that the members of the present water boards are wholly appointed by the Government. Until recently, local authorities nominated many of the board members. Is he aware that the Northumbria water authority is the most efficient in the country? What are his proposals for the timetable for the privatisation of the water authorities. There are strong rumours that the Government intend to privatise the Northumbria water authority because it is the most efficient. Will the Minister confirm or deny that rumour?
Mr. Baker: I propose to bring in a Bill during the next Session of Parliament to allow the privatisation of the water authorities. They will not all be done at once. We envisage two or three being ready for privatisation in 1987.
Sir John Farr: Will my right hon. Friend deny the rumours which are now sweeping the Lobby that the water industry has been sold to a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors.
Mr. Baker: That is an unlikely eventuality, because the ownership of American water companies is widely spread on a localised basis. I suspect that that will be the pattern of ownership in the United Kingdom as well.
Mr. Robert Litherland: Who will provide the massive amount of finance needed for the renewal of the sewers in the inner cities of the Manchesters of this world?
Mr. Baker: That money has been provided more generously under this Government than under the Labour Government. It has been provided by the Government for the operation of the water authorities. It will continue to be provided by the water authorities which will have the advantage of going to the private sector to obtain that capital.
Mr. Derek Conway: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance on the flood protection works carried out by water authorities? That is a problem with the river Severn in Shrewsbury. Will he bear in mind the fact that Conservative Members would be much more anxious about his proposals were it not for the fact that water authorities are remote, high-handed and bureacratic? Will he also bear in mind that the only thing that the Opposition know about water authorities is the manufacture of crocodile tears?
Mr. Baker: I made it clear in my statement that flood and sea defences and land drainage will continue to be financed by the public sector. I give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Mr. John Cartwright: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement appears to owe more to the need to build up the Treasury's coffers ahead of the

295
election than to any rational system of running the water services? Does he recall Ministers constantly telling us that competition provides the best protection for the consumer? What competition is provided in those arrangements? How does he suggest that consumers shop around for the best buy in privatised water and sewerage services?
Mr. Baker: 1 dealt with that in my statement when I described them as a natural monopoly. The competition that will exist in the future will exist between the various water authorities competing for capital funds in the private sector.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I welcome the statement, but will my right hon. Friend ensure that the water ratepayers of south-west Devon are protected from the inefficient track record of South-West water? The South-West water authority loses 30 per cent. of its water through leaks and it is unable to provide enough water for the local ratepayers even though the area has one of the highest rainfalls in the country.
Mr. Baker: I have no doubt that, when these proposals are carried through, the managerial efficiency of water authorities will improve.
Mr. Walter Harrison: Is the Secretary of State aware of what happened to his predecessor when he did the dirty work on behalf of the Government? I go some way towards privatisation with the privatisation of conception.
Mr. Eric Forth: Reading.
Mr. Harrison: Thank you very much; I had not noticed. However, I found out that this Government are hell bent on the privatisation of birth, the privatisation of cremation, the privatisation of communication, the privatisation of transport and the privatisation of everything else. They are now to privatise water. There is only one thing left, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), the privatisation of fresh air. Where will the Government finish?
Mr. Baker: There are other operations in the public sector which could also be prepared for privatisation.
Mr. Charles Wardle: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the obligation to protect the beaches from sewage pollution will not be overlooked after privatisation?
Mr. Baker: I can give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance that environmental standards and pollution control will remain. I have already suggested the several ways in which these controls will be strengthened. I make that absolutely clear to the House so that that particular canard is not allowed to run.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Secretary of State aware of the implications of his decision on the Lake District national park? Is he aware that Ennerdale, Thirlmere, Haweswater, Wet Sleddale, Hayeswater, Meadley, a number of rivers in the Lake District and 40,000 acres of beautiful land in the Lake District owned by water authorities will be sold off? Does he not understand that there are thousands of people in Britain who use the national park and who will object to this national heritage being sold off to city cowboys?
Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about rights of access, under the privatisation regime the rights of access and rights of way will be preserved.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that 25 per cent. of our water is already supplied perfectly adequately by private water companies? When he was looking at methods of privatisation, did he look at the acceptable method in France, where even Communist local authorities work through private sector organisations? What is wrong with franchising? Would it not lead to more competition?
Mr. Baker: We looked at franchising, but it has difficulties. It is alleged to increase competition but, in our judgment, competition of an unreal type. The critical decision that we have to take is whether water authorities will be held together on a river basin management system. That is the heart of the matter. I agree entirely with the point that my hon. Friend has made. Opposition Members should recognise, as they begin to start their tremendous campaign against this proposal, that 25 per cent. of water supplied in Britain is supplied through the private sector.
Mr. John Evans: Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting that once the North-West water authority is privatised a group of philanthropic businessmen will spend scores, if not hundreds of millions, of pounds of their profits clearing up the stinking, polluted river Mersey? Is it not a fact that once the organisation is privatised the river Mersey will never be cleaned up?
Mr. Baker: I have already said in reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that the Mersey scheme, to which I attach a great deal of importance —£4 billion has been spent on it over 20 years—will continue.
The river will be cleaned up, not just where it passes through Liverpool, but as it passes through Salford arid into the rivers of the north-west.
Sir John Page: Will my right hon. Friend assure the country and the House that when he is preparing his legislation he will keep price, quality of water and quality of service to the customer uppermost in his mind?
Mr. Baker: I can give my hon. Friend a complete assurance. As I have already said, the regulatory regime which we envisage will relate precisely to price and will inter link with standards of quality and standards of service. Also, on a point which has been raised again and again this afternoon, we will maintain public health standards.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Secretary of State aware that there has never been any profit in cleaning up pollution but only in creating pollution? Wherever water is provided overseas by private concerns, one has to buy bottles of water in the shops to make sure that one is not poisoned. After the Government have implemented this policy, the advice which will be given to visitors to this country will be, "There are two things which you must beware: do not drink the water and do not breathe the air."
Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that whenever one goes overseas it is necessary to drink bottled water in order to drink pure waver, he cannot have travelled

297
widely recently. The standards of water purity will be preserved. They will have statutory backing and will come under parliamentary procedure for the first time.
Mr. Paul Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a warm welcome in my constituency for his announcement? It will be hoped that more equitable charges will be established. The Forest of Dean is serviced by the Welsh water authority and the Severn-Trent water authority. There are large unfair differences between what has to be paid to the Severn-Trent water authority and what has to be paid to the Welsh water authority. Does my right hon. Friend think that this anomaly will be cleared up?
Mr. Baker: The charging regime which will operate after privatisation will be operated through licences issued and policed by the director general of Water Services. He will have powers to vary the licences and for the first time he will be statutorily obliged to receive and deal with direct complaints, not only on prices but on standards of service.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I have carefully noted those hon. Members who have not been called, and I will give them precedence when this matter is next discussed.

Welsh Water Authority (Privatisation)
4.16 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the privatisation of the Welsh water authority.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has told the House, the Government have decided to transfer the water authorities in England and Wales to private ownership and a White Paper setting out our proposals has been presented to Parliament. The House will be aware that the water authorities in England and Wales were established so that a single body controls water and sewerage in river catchment areas; and that the Welsh water authority excludes that part of mid-Wales which drains into the Severn, but covers those parts of England that drain into the Wye and Dee.
During the consultation that followed the publication of our discussion paper last April, the Welsh water authority urged that the present integrated river basin management should continue if the industry was privatised. We agree with that recommendation and the authority will therefore be privatised with its existing boundaries and functions intact, with the exception of the co-ordination and financing of flood defence and land drainage. The privatised Welsh water company will operate under a licence from the new director general of water services, who will lay down strict conditions on pricing and service standards. The director general will appoint a regional consumer committee representing all consumer interests and in Wales this committee will be assisted by divisional committees. The privatisation of the WWA will, for the first time, enable employees and customers in Wales to have a direct stake in the industry.
The regulatory regime will provide general powers with regard to the supply of water in bulk between undertakings. The right of appeal will remain when water undertakers are unable to agree terms for such transfers, but this will be to the director general, rather than the Secretary of State. In determining appeals he will apply the same general principles as apply to other aspects of charging policy, in that charges should be cost-related and should not be discriminatory.
Considerable progress has been made since the authority was reorganised in 1982. Services and efficiency have been greatly improved and a large investment programme undertaken. I pay tribute to the chairman, board and employees for these achievements. I believe that privatisation will enable them to get on with their job with greater freedom and without the constraints on financing which public ownership imposes. Customers will benefit from the improving service that will result.
Mr. Roy Hughes: First, I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones).
I have listened to the Secretary of State this afternoon. I am profoundly disturbed by his proposals about the water supply in Wales. Water is a basic amenity and one does not need to be a political extremist to believe that its proper place is in the public sector, under democratic control. I appreciate that strictly regulated and controlled private water companies exist, but water should not be subject to the vagaries of the market place, as these proposals envisage.

299
The Welsh water authority and its chairman Mr. John Elfed Jones, oppose privatisation. They believe that it would be inefficient and cumbersomely administered. Rural areas would certainly suffer, because the Welsh water authority provides jobs in those areas, many of which are heavily blighted by economic conditions. Charges could escalate in rural areas as a result of these proposals.
The trade unions in the water industry oppose the proposals. That applies to white-collar workers, essentially represented by the National and Local Government Officers Association, and by the operatives represented essentially by the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. They are not seduced by the glossy promises of shareholdings. They appreciate the puny percentage that went to the employees of British Telecom. Water authority workers have cause for concern about their pension rights. They bear in mind the recent experience of busmen as a result of transport legislation. They now appreciate the difficulties affecting workers in the gas industry.
The Welsh water authority has already experienced many turbulent and highly expensive reorganisation schemes. Likewise, the Government have changed the method of accounting for the water industry, which has forced charges up, yet restricted borrowing and investment. All these measures have sent prices rocketing and, of course, it is the consumers who have to pay.
The Government's actions are underhand, to say the least. They have been preparing the groundwork for privatisation. These proposals are yet another example of selling the assets of the nation to fill the Treasury's coffers in order to bribe the electorate so as to secure a Tory victory at the next general election.
It is estimated that the sale of the water assets throughout the country could raise between £3 billion and £5 billion — even more than the flotation of British Telecom. The Secretary of State for Wales is part and parcel of this sordid exercise. Once again, he is selling Wales short. The Opposition will oppose these proposals through all the avenues open to us.
Mr. Edwards: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will oppose these proposals, just as he has opposed every constructive proposal that has been presented to the House in my time.
The hon. Gentleman said that the water authorities' proper place is in the public sector, but he did not attempt to substantiate that statement. He admitted that many water authorities run perfectly well in the private sector under strict regulatory control, as in the United States and France.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the vagaries of the market place. The market place will be a powerful factor in improving efficiency. It will set a standard against which efficiency can be measured. The performance of authorities is best measured by the market.
There is absolutely no reason why charges should escalate. Professor Littlechild shows convincingly why the proposed regime for controlling prices and services should result in lower charges, which will be passed on to the consumer.
The hon. Gentleman asked about employees' rights. They will be protected. I am sure that many employees will welcome the opportunity to share in the enterprise in
300
which they work, just as many employees have a share in British Telecom. Pension rights to which they have contributed will be safeguarded.
The hon. Gentleman said that charges had risen. If they have, it is to pay for the massive capital programme being undertaken by the Welsh water authority following the neglect and capital cuts initiated by the Labour Government. It will be possible to raise money in the markets more cheaply and with greater freedom than under the present arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the views of the chairman of the Welsh water authority. I have discussed the matter with him. He told me that privatisation and the removal of Welsh water from the constraints of Government financial controls offers opportunities for wider share ownership among employees and customers, and that the benefits will be passed on in higher standards of service, which can be protected adequately under these arrangements. The chairman also tells me that he hopes that Welsh water will be one of the first in the queue for privatisation.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I again remind the House of the time constraints today. I shall have to limit questions on this statement until 4.45 pm.
Sir Raymond Gower: Will my right hon. Friend have general ministerial responsibility for this service and for some ancillary matters such as the protection of the coast and sewerage?
Mr. Edwards: Yes. The licensing and direct control of services will lie with the director general. He will appoint local consultative committees. At present they are appointed by the water authorities. This is a clear advance in consumer representation. Land drainage continues to be publicly financed, and the proposed changes do not alter my responsibilities.
Mr. Michael Foot: Can the right hon. Gentleman name any reputable public body in Wales which has expressed its support for this proposition? If so, it would be contemptible support for a contemptible proposal.
Mr. Edwards: I see no reason to describe as contemptible a proposal which improves the freedom of water authorities to operate without detailed financial constraints such as they operate under at present, which will improve water and pollution standards, and which will improve the consultative regime and allow the Welsh people to own shares in the enterprise.
Mr. Stefan Terlezki: For the foreseeable future, many water consumers in Wales will continue to be anxious about charges. Can my right hon. Friend say whether we can look forward to charge increases remaining within or below the rate of inflation?
Mr. Edwards: I am sure that the regime will help to improve the efficiency of authorities and therefore to reduce charges. When my hon. Friend reads Professor Littlechild's recommendations, he will see that they are based on RPI-X. That is the proposal on which the pricing arrangements will be based.
Mr. Geraint Howells: I listened with interest to the Secretary of State's statement about the privatisation of the Welsh water

301
authority. My only comment is that it is a scandal that he is prepared to connive at the disposal of yet another priceless national asset.
What will happen to the inherited and present debt of the Welsh water authority, which amounts to about £440 million? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the elderly, the young and the needy in Wales that they will not pay more for their water supply after privatisation? Will he tell the House what the prospects are for those currently employed by the Welsh water authority?
Mr. Edwards: I have already given assurances about employees. I am sure that the proposed arrangements will improve efficiency and lower costs.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a priceless national asset. I am sure that members of the public will wish to have direct ownership of and participation in that. He referred to the capital position of the authority with respect to inherited debt. In order to bring the authority to the market there will have to be careful financial restructuring, and that will involve rearrangements for capital debt. If the hon. Gentleman reads Professor Littlechild's report, he will note that that is one of the matters that we will have to consider for each water authority, so that they come to the market on a sensible basis.
I have made that matter perfectly clear to the chairman of the Welsh water authority, and I am sure that that is one reason why he has substantially changed his views since he first heard the suggestion and feared that the changes would go ahead on the basis of the existing capital debt —something that has been the subject of concern in the Select Committee and elsewhere for a long time.
Mr. Ian Grist: Is my right hon. Friend aware that swapping a private monopoly for a public monopoly is not necessarily an advantage? It will be rather difficult to convince many people that it is. Who will compete to supply my home with water?
Mr. Edwards: If my hon. Friend reads the report of Professor Littlechild, he will recognise that there are real advantages to be gained and that many will be passed on to the consumer. Not least, the performance of the authority will be measured in the market place, and the performance of management will be judged in the market place when it wishes to raise finance. There is also always the threat of takeover by another authority as an inducement to better management. In the competitive service between authorities there will be a real inducement to improve efficiency, even in the monopoly referred to by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Brynmor John: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the industrial and housing development in Llantrisant in my constituency has been harmed by inadequate sewerage facilities for many years. Does that not point to greater local responsibility for the Welsh water authority, rather than to the lesser responsibility in the proposals? How will market forces ensure that the sewage works, when finally built, will be properly constructed on a greenfield site rather than cheek by jowl with a built-up area?
Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that problems with private owners have held up that development. I do not think that the fault lies with the Welsh water authority.
The shortcomings in the sewerage arrangements that will be inherited from the state-owned body should be easier to overcome because it will be easier for the new authority to raise money in the market without annual financial constraints from the Treasury, which will make it easier to provide facilities of the sort which the hon. Gentleman rightly desires for his constituents.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend assure my worried constituents that the privatised water authority will not emulate British Telecom in devising a charging structure that benefits the large users to the detriment of the small users?
Mr. Edwards: I see absolutely no reason why that matter cannot and will not be adequately covered by the director general and by the proposed licensing regime.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: May I bring the Secretary of State to the bottom line of this question? Is it not the truth that the net assets of the Welsh water authority are £1,600 million, and the current return 1·5 per cent., giving a profit of £24 million? Thus, to obtain a return in the market place that will make the investment attractive, will it not be necessary either to double the charges made by the authority to bring in an additional £140 million a year or to sell the assets at a fraction of their real value, making it an asset-stripping giveaway? Which of those does the Secretary of State think is likely to happen?
Mr. Edwards: I find that question curious coming from someone who, over a long period, has repeatedly, asked that we should write off the inherited capital debt.
Mr. Keith Raffan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the chairman of the Welsh water authority gave evidence to the Select Committee during its inquiry into coastal sewage pollution, he said that because of the strong nature and longevity of the infrastructure there was a strong argument that the authority should borrow more? Would not privatisation enable the authority to do just that? Could not the authority then free itself from financial restraints, such as the external financing limit, and accelerate its £75 million programme of outflow replacement?
Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend is right on every point. The chairman of the authority wants to get on with the capital programme and therefore is anxious that privatisation should come sooner rather than later.
Mr. Donald Coleman: The Secretary of State chastised my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) for voting against so-called constructive proposals. May I remind him that in a previous Parliament he voted for the present arrangements?
How does the right hon. Gentleman expect flood protection schemes, which are a community service, to be carried out by a private concern? How does he think sewerage management — I am concerned about the Neath trans-sewage scheme — will be carried out by private companies?
Mr. Edwards: I see no reason why, under the licensing arrangements, sewage cannot be properly and effectively

303
controlled. Flood defence and land drainage will be managed by separate public bodies, and their financing and control will remain with the public sector.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the transfer of the appointment of the consumer representative body from the state-owned water authority to the independent director general, together with increased powers for those consumer bodies, will represent much a superior and truly independent system?
Mr. Edwards: There will be a real advance in consumer representation arrangements. Many people have long complained that authorities appoint their own consumer bodies. The fact that they will in future be appointed by an independent director general will be a considerable advance.
Mr. Ron Davies: What powers will be available to the successor private companies to require the installation of domestic meters, against the wishes of individual home owners?
Mr. Edwards: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said earlier, we intend to conduct experiments on metering. We have already issued a consultative document and we will have to see how the experiment works before we take any final decisions on the eventual introduction of metering on a large scale. However, a considerable number of Welsh water authority customers have already chosen to meter, and a significant number have transferred to that during the past 12 months.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: How many privately owned houses in Wales are served by unadopted sewers? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that those houses will be made up to public sewerage standards before privatisation? Thirdly, will he ensure that there is a separate Bill for Wales and the Welsh water authority?
Mr. Edwards: There will be one Bill to cover England and Wales.
I am sorry that the existing authority and its predecessors have left arrangements for unadopted sewers which the hon. Gentleman considers unsatisfactory. There is nothing in the proposals that will change the existing position.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I do not disbelieve the Secretary of State's account of his conversation with the chairman of the Welsh water authority, but is he aware that 70 minutes ago I had a conversation with the chief executive of the Welsh water authority, who said:
"The Welsh Water Authority as a whole can see no benefit for the consumer in privatisation."?
This is not the first time that the Welsh water authority has spoken with two heads. Which is the true head?
Mr. Edwards: The hon. Lady will know that when we consulted on this matter some time ago the authority said that, on balance, it could not see any great gains from the proposals to privatise. It believed that there would be greater freedom and thought that there would be some anxieties. Since then, I have discussed these matters with the chairman and I have spoken to him today. I too can quote, because I wrote down his words myself. The chairman believes that the proposals offer a real
304
opportunity to maximise the benefits of the business for employees and customers. believe that the chairman is absolutely right.
Dr. Roger Thomas: In view of the almost total anti-privatisation need, well documented in a memorandum produced by the chairman of the Welsh water authority less than a year ago, would it now be the honourable thing for the Minister to sack his handmaiden and his hand-picked board?
Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman should look at the evidence given on this matter to the Select Committee. He will discover that as the proposals have clarified themselves, and as the members of the authority board have begun to see what the Government intend on capital reorganisation, licensing and control systems and the proposals set out in the Littlechild report, they have begun to realise that there are real advantages. I repeat that the chairman believes that it is to the authority's advantage that it should be privatised sooner rather than later.
Mr. Ray Powell: I am surprised that the Secretary of State prays in aid the evidence of the Select Commitee report. The Select Committee sat for 18 months preparing a report which he rejected on the Floor of the House. Therefore, for him to pray in aid some of its points is wrong. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) said, the statements made in the report were subject to amendment by the chairman, John Elfed Jones, whom the Secretary of State appointed to the Welsh water authority, and by other appointees who have declared their opposition to privatisation.
I am concerned about the limiting of charges for customers. Only 12 months ago, a system of streamlining charges was introduced, which increased charges to the poorer rated areas in Wales, particularly in ray constituency, where mining valley communities are paying twice the water rate that they were paying in 1973. I am further concerned about the new proposals limiting charges, under section 62(4) of the regulations for customer protection. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do something about that.
Mr. Edwards: I have already referred to the evidence given by the chairman to the Select Committee, who made it clear that it would be attractive to have the freedom to borrow according to the means of the authority. He was concerned about the regulatory aspects, and the way that we are dealing with those has now been spelt out. The regime that I have described, with the director general and licensing arrangements, will provide safeguards for individual householders and for the pricing system. which will be at least as good as, and in many respects better than, any arrangements in force now.
Mr. Richard Livsey: The Secretary of State will know that I represent the constituency where the headquarters of the Welsh water authority is situated. I can confirm that the management is opposed to privatisation of the authority. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that after privatisation the Welsh water authority headquarters will remain in Brecon and that local employment will be protected?
Mr. Edwards: That will be entirely a matter for the organisation, but I see no reason why it should wish to move, particularly as it is going ahead with the construction of new headquarters there.

Points of Order
4.44 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is always keen to debate matters of public concern. I raised earlier a question about the news that there has been a nuclear fuel leak at Sellafield and that all bar the emergency staff from one part of the building have been evacuated. In view of that, has anybody contacted your office, Mr. Speaker, about the Government making a statement on this issue either today or as soon as possible? This is a matter of great public concern. Therefore, it would be a good thing if we were able to shed a little more light on the subject.
Dr. John Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise, first, because my constituency is involved and, secondly, because I speak for the Opposition on these matters. This is a matter of concern. I have called for an immediate statement from the management and I have a copy of that report here, although I shall not detain the House by reading it. I am assured that the appropriate regulatory authorities have been notified of the incident, that no-one has been damaged and that there has been no release of radiation to the environment. I put it on record now that we shall be considering further information in due course, and I might, on behalf of the Opposition, be calling for a statement tomorrow from the Government.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister opened the statement by saying "With permission". I understand that it is with your permission, Mr. Speaker, that Ministers make statements to the House. Today, we have a controversial Supply Day and the Government have deliberately chosen to eat into its time by making a statement on another controversial matter, which may knock British Leyland out of the headlines. When the Government do that deliberately as part of their news management, should you not refuse that permission, Mr. Speaker, and let them come another day?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The "with permission" preamble is nothing to do with me. As I understand it, it is purely a convention. Unfortunately, I have no power to refuse to listen to a statement.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order arising out of questions to the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the Secretary of State deliberately misled the House and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has not deliberately misled the House.
Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Only you can decide on and interpret this.
Over the past few months we have had a sufficient number of mis-statements, incidents of the House being misled, and on occasions deliberately lied to.
Mr. Speaker: Not in this House. The hon. Gentleman knows that everyone in the House is equally honourable, so we do not lie to each other.
Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not referring to a particular case. I am suggesting that the House has been misled by the Secretary of State on the determination of the chairman of the Welsh water authority and his board about privatisation of water.
Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of these matters. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can pursue them at Welsh Question Time.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have had two statements, one relating to England and one to Wales, on an important matter that will bring immense benefit to people living in those areas. Have you had any intimation from the Scottish Office that we are to know what the proposals for Scotland are? I appreciate that there water is the responsibility of the local authorities.
Mr. Speaker: No intimation has been made to me.

Sellafield (Spent Fuel Discharge)
4.47 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No.10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the discharge of spent fuel at Sellafield causing danger to people."—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are under great pressure today because of subsequent debates. The hon. Gentleman is within his rights to make a Standing Order No.10 application but I hope that he will do it briefly.
Mr. Hughes: The request is specific because, as I think that you are aware, Mr. Speaker, there was an incident at 11.45 this morning in the chemical separation complex at Sellafield, when radiation leaked, as has been confirmed by a spokesman for British Nuclear Fuels plc. Staff have been evacuated—
Mr. Robert C. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot take points of order during a Standing Order No. 10 application. I shall take it afterwards.
Mr. Hughes: The matter is important because the spokesman for BNFL has said that there has been a release of radiation into the air and the incident, in his words, was "very unusual". The House takes a serious view, as it has always done, of such incidents.
Finally, it is urgent because BNFL has refused to confirm or deny the report that the cause of the leak was the spillage of spent nuclear fuel.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that this matter can be debated under Standing Order No.10 tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No.10 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the discharge of spent fuel at Sellafield causing danger to people".
I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said and the points of order earlier. I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

People's Right to Fuel
4.50 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent disconnections of domestic fuel supply in cases of hardship; to introduce a comprehensive system of fuel allowances taking into account climatic variations between different parts of the United Kingdom; and for related purposes.
This is my fourth attempt to introduce such a Bill, and the need for it is now greater than ever. Last year throughout Britain 146,000 households had their electricity or gas supply disconnected, compared with the previous year's total of 134,000. That represents an increase of 9 per cent. Those figures are a national scandal and represent an aggregate of human misery for thousands of families.
Recently, the Policy Studies Institute conducted a survey of disconnection cases, and discovered that 90 per cent. fell within the special categories of people specifically mentioned in the existing voluntary code of practice. They include people receiving supplementary benefit, family income supplement, and unemployment benefit, retirement pensioners, the blind, the sick, the disabled and families with young children. Therefore, it is clear that the existing voluntary code of practice is not working. People need statutory protection. My Bill aims to replace the existing voluntary code of practice with a statutory code.
The fuel boards would require a court order before they could disconnect domestic fuel supplies, and any disconnections without a court order would be illegal. It is illegal for a landlord to evict a tenant without a court order, so surely it should be illegal for a fuel hoard to disconnect fuel supplies without a court order.
My Bill would also provide for early statutory liaison between the board and the consumer to identify debt problems at an early stage. If necessary, that early liaison would also extend to the Department of Health and Social Security and the social work department, if the consumer came within their responsibility. An arrangement could then be worked out at an earlier stage for easier payments by instalments. The Bill would extend the present fuel-direct scheme which applies to people on supplementary benefit. Anyone receiving any DHSS benefit would have the opportunity to pay their fuel bill directly from their benefits, if they wished. Similarly, people would have the right to have a pre-payment meter, if they wished, unless there were compelling reasons of safety or security.
My Bill also intends to tackle the root cause of disconnections —the widespread incidence of fuel poverty. That has been caused, or at least exacerbated, by the Government's fuel pricing policy. Since 1979, when the Government came to power, gas prices have increased by 131·6 per cent. and electricity prices by 93·7 per cent. Both figures are well above the rate of inflation, as measured by the retail prices index. If British Gas is privatised, the position will become worse, not better, because a publicly owned enterprise will be replaced by a private monopoly run by people whose motivation is to maximise profits, rather than to give the best service to consumers.
The Bill would introduce a comprehensive system of fuel allowances. At present some assistance is available to some people on supplementary benefit. In most cases the additional heating allowance works out at £2·20 a week,

309
which would not buy even half a bag of coal, and would not go far towards meeting electricity or gas bills. Recently, particularly in Scotland, we witnessed a justified public outrage about the severe weather extra heating allownce, when people in colder climes —in Scotland and the north of England—were deprived of that allowance while those in the warmer climes in the south received the allowance. I understand that under the new DHSS proposals that allowance is likely to be scrapped completely.
The aim of the Bill is to introduce a fairer, more comprehensive scheme of fuel allowances tied to housing benefit, so that anyone receiving housing benefit would also receive a fuel allowance. Surely if people are entitled to a subsidy for a roof over their heads, we must accept that a house is not a home without heating and lighting. A further advantage of tying the allowance to housing benefit is that it would avoid the need for another means test. The exact amount of fuel allowance would depend on the financial and domestic circumstances of the consumer, and the climate of the area in which the consumer resides.
It has been estimated that it costs 28 per cent. more to heat a house in Scotland than in the south of England. That may explain in part why the number of disconnections is proportionately higher in Scotland than in the south. Fuel poverty causes hardship and leads to serious health risks, especially for old people and young children. Low temperatures and dampness cause or exacerbate conditions such as bronchitis, pneumonia and hypothermia. Every year about 50,000 more old people die in the winter months than in the summer months, and the quarter between January and March accounts for nearly half of the annual total of post-neonatal deaths. Many of the deaths could be prevented, if we could eradicate fuel poverty. My Bill is a charter to do that. Therefore, I ask the House to support me, and I ask the Government to grant time for further progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. Michael Welsh, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and Mr. Bob Clay.

People's Right to Fuel
  PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO FUEL
  Mr. Dennis Canavan accordingly presented a Bill to prevent disconnections of domestic fuel supply in cases of hardship; to introduce a comprehensive system of fuel allowances taking into account climatic variations between different parts of the United Kingdom; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 February and to be printed. [Bill 77.]
Opposition Day
[6TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  British Leyland
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I should like to repeat what I said earlier. There is great pressure to speak in this important debate. May I say to both Front Benchers and Back Benchers that this is a day on which brief contributions will be very much to the benefit of other hon. Members.
  4.58 pm
  Mr. John Smith: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the willingness of the Government to dispose of British Leyland's commercial vehicle enterprises, which will lead to substantial job losses in vehicle construction and motor components manufacturing, the loss of independent British capability in design, research and development and a further damaging reduction in Britain's manufacturing base; and calls upon the Government to abandon forthwith its proposals to sell off Austin Rover Group, the last remaining British owned volume car producer.
  Before I embark on what I hope will be a brief contribution, may I, on behalf of the Opposition, express our dismay at the way in which the Government arranged to make two statements on the afternoon when this important debate was to be held. The Government's strategy—I know that it has nothing to do with you, Mr. Speaker; it is entirely a matter for the Government's business managers—is crystal clear. They want to push this debate as far as possible into the afternoon so that it will not be reported in the news bulletins at 5 pm and 6 pm. The Government may be able to obfuscate matters temporarily by these stratagems, but they cannot escape responsibility for what we extracted from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last Monday. The right hon. Gentleman was forced to come to the House to confirm the fears that were expressed in Birmingham at the weekend by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). What the Secretary of State said was sufficiently informative for us to discover that the Government have in mind a plan to sell off Leyland Trucks and Land Rover to General Motors and to dispose of Leyland Bus to the Laird Group. We know that talks are taking place with Ford, and perhaps others, on the future of the Austin Rover Group.
  This debate is timely because, now that we have flushed the Government's intentions out of them, Parliament and the country have an opportunity to express their views before these matters are finally decided, although we re told that they are at an advanced stage. The Government have hopelessly miscalculated public opinion c this matter. The representations flooding in from all over the country, especially the west midlands, are ample testimony to that.
  I start in the hope that what is said in the debate by hon. Members on both sides of the House will influence Government opinion so that the Government will desist from the course of action on which they have embarked. I begin with Leyland Trucks. It is well known that General Motors has been looking for an acquisition in western Europe. It has been to Spain and West Germany, although

  311
  it is significant that no one even thinks that it might go to France. The French would never consider such a proposition from General Motors. The company has been rebuffed, or its discussions have not been fruitful, so it has come to the soft touch of western Europe —Britain under this Government.
  General Motors' purpose, as with most such multinationals, is to promote its parent company's strategy for gaining a world market share and maximising its long-term profits. As part of that strategy, General Motors may indeed carry out manufacturing in the countries in which it trades—either real manufacturing or assembling. It may even carry out research and development, depending on how it suits the company. Let us never forget, however, that in companies such as General Motors policy will be decided at home—in Detroit, or, in the case of GM world bus and truck division, in Pontiac in Michigan. Most of the profits will flow back to the home of the parent company. Once the company has knocked out or taken over competition, it is free to shift the balance of investment in plant or research towards home or markets elsewhere.
  I do not doubt that the proposal makes a great deal of sense for General Motors. First, it will eliminate a significant competitor. Secondly, after GM has knocked out that competitor, it will gain the market share that Leyland Vehicles held. Thirdly—this is an extra bonus —it will obtain access to splendid new plant and equipment which has been provided at public expense at more than £300 million.
  It makes sense for General Motors. But what are the consequences for Britain? It is clear that there will be heavy redundancies. In the case of Leyland Vehicles, if the acquisition goes ahead, there will either be rationalisation at the Bedford end or redundancies at the Leyland end. Whatever happens, there will be high unemployment and another addition to the remorselessly rising unemployment total.
  When the Government tell us that there has been a new increase in unemployment, almost in tones of puzzlement as to the reasons, they should remember that unemployment increases so relentlessly because of decisions such as this—the relentless closure of plant after plant from one end of this country to the other.
  The proposal will result in the elimination of one more important British industrial centre and a further reduction in our manufacturing base, with serious consequences for Britain.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is some common ground, in the sense that there is a serious overcapacity problem, both in heavy vehicle manufacturing and in private cars, not only in Britain but throughout Europe? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore agree that, whichever solution is adopted, the problem must be dealt with?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is common knowledge that there is an over-capacity in car and bus manufacturing in western Europe. But why, when these matters arise, is it always Britain that has to give up its share of the car market? Why do the Government not learn to compete rather than surrender?
  Land Rover is being put into the deal as a sweetener, if you please, to induce GM to take over Leyland Vehicles
  312
  for a song. No doubt it will be asked to pay some small contribution to acquire Land Rover. Land Rover is one of the United Kingdom's most successful products which is reckoned throughout the world as a triumph for British engineering, marketing and industrial success. That product is to be Americanised. However, last Monday, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told us that we do not need to worry too much because special assurances will be given that the British marque will be maintained. We do not need to worry—the products will he owned and sold by GM and the profits will go to America but there will be a token Union Jack on the Land Rovers that are sold around the world to remind people that the product was once British.
  It is disgraceful that this important product is dealt with in this way. That was one of the assurances that the Secretary of State gave us, but we have heard other assurances from Ministers at the Dispatch Box. Only a week or two ago, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), gave us assurances on behalf of Sikorsky-Fiat, saying that the product would be British researched and designed and that there would be an independent British capability and British independent managerial influence. We have had assurance after assurance. Conservative Ministers find themselves continually coming to the Dispatch Box and giving assurances on behalf of American companies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Labour is anti-American."] The feeling in the House is not that the House is anti-American but that the Government are anti-British.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark indicated assent.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well, because he is a keen student of these matters. The bus market has collapsed because of the Government's transport policy. First, we had deregulation, then privatisation and then rate capping —three hammer blows at the bus industry, completely knocking the bottom out of demand for public sector buses. Why do the Government not change their transport policies instead of sacrificing yet another important British company on the altar of their dogmatism?
  Once again, there will be an inevitable loss of jobs because, if the Laird Group and Leyland Buses come together, redundancies will occur at either or perhaps both plants. Again, there will be a loss—Britain will have moved out of another important industrial centre.
  The problem arises not just in primary manufacturing. All hon. Members who represent seats in the west midlands, the black country and throughout the rest of Britain will know of the crucial importance of the components industry. For every man who stands on a production line in a car plant, there are seven others whose jobs depend on his work. With the shrinking in size of the manufacturing base which these changes imply, the market for components is bound to diminish to a large extent. Perhaps even more importantly, the loss of British control will operate sadly to the detriment of those people. British Leyland buys British —92 per cent. of the components it buys come from British companies. That is British Leyland's settled and firm policy. The component manufacturers are entitled to, and do, rely on that sure market when investing and deciding for their future.
  Let us remind ourselves of the experience that this very Government have had with GM. It was only in October

  313
  1985 that the Secretary of State's predecessor was reported in the Financial Times under the heading: "UK content in Vauxhall's too low says Brittan."
  The article reads:
  "In the most critical public remarks yet made on the subject by a minister, Mr. Leon Brittan, Trade and Industry Secretary, told the Commons he regretted that, 'after lengthy discussions Vauxhall is not yet ready to go further in proving that it really is a British car producer.'"
  If that is the position when the company is competing with British firms, what will be the position after it has taken them over?
  Mr. Richard Caborn: My right hon. and learned Friend has referred to the components industry, but in the area which I represent about 18 per cent. of the special steels produced in Sheffield goes to British Leyland. There is great concern within the steel industry. It has already been treated unfairly by the Government and run down. Any takeover of the firms in question will have a major impact on the steel industry in the area which I represent.
  Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The importance of special steels, especially in the Sheffield area, is well appreciated. However, with respect to my hon. Friend, the importance of the industry extends beyond Sheffield. Strip steel is also involved, and there are many areas in which strip steel production is of great importance.
  Mr. James Hill: In speaking on behalf of my constituency and the port of Southampton, I hate to hear General Motors being denigrated. For many years it has operated a successful factory called AC Delco, in Southampton. The factory continues to produce and it employs many of my constituents. The anti-Americanism that is creeping into our debates is beginning to have an effect on the company's future expansion plans. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will bear that in mind.
  Mr. Smith: That is a curious definition of anti-Americanism. Are we being anti-American when we object to our own industries being sold out for a song to American multinationals? If that is to be defined as anti-Americanism, I hope that the majority of the House will share the view that I have expressed. I do not seek to denigrate General Motors. I think that the company has acted intelligently in its own interests. I seek to denigrate our negligent Government.
  We know from its track record that the assurances of General Motors raise some doubts when we come to consider whether they can be relied upon. All those who are employed in the components industry—
  Mr. Michael Grylls rose—
  Mr. Smith: No, I shall not give way. I have given way frequently already in what is a short debate.
  I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have received letters today from components companies in the west midlands. I shall quote from one which I received. I shall not name the company because I do not have its permission to do so, but —[Interruption.] Very well, I shall name it. I must free myself from the inhibitions arising from my wish to be fair to all concerned. In the interests of Conservative
  314
  Members, I shall tell them that I received the letter from Concentric plc of Sutton Coldfield. I think that many hon. Members will know that it is an important firm. The author of the letter wrote to me in the knowledge that the debate was to take place, and welcomed the fact. The letter reads:
  "There is no doubt in our minds that should the decision-making process for BL leave these shores, then the future of this group is in dire problems. Not only for the 10%of sales with BL but because the whole manufacturing infrastructure that we require to make all our products will slowly disappear.
  Our considerable success in overseas markets can only be sustained with a home market base. Our very considerable innovative ability can only be sustained if there is market opportunity.
  In the particular of course GM and Ford have pursued a policy in recent years that have contributed more than most to our industrial problems here."
  The final paragraph reads:
  "Whilst we are concerned about work for the unskilled in the short term, we are more concerned for the opportunity for people of vision and innovation to be able to create more work in the future."
  That is an unsolicited letter from a concerned company, and it goes right to the heart of the matter.
  As we are short of time, I shall not go into the important defence considerations which arise. Some of them were referred to yesterday, and I have no doubt that others will refer to them again this evening. These considerations involve Land Rovers through to tank transporters. In future, the British Army will be dependent on a foreign supplier.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. and learned Friend—[Interruption.] In this instance we are either all friends together or we are all lost on the motorway. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that over 90 per cent. of British Leyland's products are made from British components, whereas British components comprise only 68 per cent. of the products of the Ford Motor Company? I do not seek to denigrate Ford but now that it is closing down its forges in this country and transferring forging operations to Germany, British components will comprise only 63 per cent. of its products next year. Why should it treat British Leyland and the British people any better than that?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on seeing these issues so clearly and on speaking about them so well. I hope that he will continue to do so. I am sure that he knows—I hope that this is appreciated by Conservative Members generally —that the concern about this matter crosses party divisions and has spread throughout the country. The Government are only just beginning to discover the depth of feeling that exists in non-industrial as well as industrial areas.
  I turn, finally, to the proposals for the Austin Rover Group—
  Mr. Grylls rose—
  Mr. Smith: No, I shall not give way. I have given way frequently in this short debate.
  Mr. Grylls rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. It is obvious that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is not giving way. Interventions, especially from those who are waiting to catch my eye, will make it more difficult to call all those who wish to participate in the debate.
  Mr. Smith: The Secretary of State did not tell us very much about the Austin Rover Group on Monday. However, on television, a few minutes after he left the Chamber, the information was tumbling out of him that the Government had sanctioned talks between Austin Rover and Ford. That must have come as a considerable shock to most of the country.
  When the Prime Minister was asked about the matter yesterday, all she had to tell us was that £2 billion had been committed to the British Leyland Group. She kept telling us about the Varley-Marshall guarantees of £1·5 billion. The right hon. Lady knows perfectly well—if she does not, she should—that not a ha'penny has been paid under the Varley-Marshall guarantees. They would be called upon only in the liquidation of the company.
  The Prime Minister might have said—[Interruption.] I hope that Conservative Back Benchers who find these matters amusing will remember that not one penny piece has gone from the taxpayer to the Austin Rover Group in the past two years. The Prime Minister did not find time to mention that. Why did she have to tell us about the money that has been invested in British Leyland when asked about these matters without once managing a word of praise for the success story of the Austin Rover Group over the past two-and-a-half years? She demonstrated no pride in the British achievement that turned the Austin Rover Group round to a successful future.
  I accept that there was substantial public investment in the group. There should have been and there was. There was a considerable investment of capital and there was also a great sacrifice. Thousands lost their jobs and livelihoods in the remodelling of the group.
  Mr. John Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Smith: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The investment and sacrifice will have been made for nothing if they are disregarded at the moment when the results of both are coming to fruition. This is not the time to sell the Austin Rover Group. The notion is gaining currency that the Government are willing to dispose of the group to almost any purchaser, such as Ford, Honda or General Motors. It seems that they would be willing to dispose of it to any company which wishes to take it off the Government's hands, which suggests that they regard it as a terrible liability.
  This is the time to support, not sell, the Austin Rover Group. We must support it through to success. If there is a tie-up with Ford, that will smash the strategy that has been devised with Honda. It will mean that the strategy of launching the new Rover 800 —one of the most important of all initiatives —cannot be sustained. If there is a tie-up with Ford, Ford will want to replace Austin Rover's engines with Ford engines. The Austin Rover Group will not be able to maintain its independent capability realistically unless it proceeds on its present course.
  Of course, Austin Rover will have to collaborate. All car companies have to collaborate from time to time in the modern world. It must be understood that collaboration is quite different from surrender and capitulation, which is likely to be the result if the current talks continue. That is why we ask in our motion that the talks be ended forthwith. The Government should say quite clearly that there is no point in any discussions taking place. I understand that the
  316
  executives of the Austin Rover Group are being forced to conduct discussions with Ford. There is no enthusiasm to do so. Indeed, there is outright hostility to the talks among those who manage and run the company. However, they are being forced to conduct negotiations.
  The motor car industry is not, as many mistakenly assume, old and dying. It is part of our manufacturing base. It cannot be allowed to be closed down and to disappear. The development of CADCAM and robotics means that the motor car industry is the most important market for the modern elecronics industry. Without markets, industries die. If we eliminate the market that is created by the motor car industry, we shall kill our electronics industry as well. It is an industry in which we must resolve to stay because we will have none of the services if we do 'not have the manufacturing base which provides the market for them and which provides the wealth which sustains our wages and standard of living. Therefore, we must resolve to stay in an industry which, because of those technical changes, will permit us to operate on the scale of the Austin Rover Group without necessarily having to become a world car outlet. The technology allows a medium-sized operation to be sustained successfully.
  We have watched with dismay the collapse of one area after another of our manufacturing industry, to the extent that more than 20 per cent. has disappeared since 1979 and more is clearly going. We are watching that decline and also watching a new development—the way in which our industry is passing into the control and ownership of others.
  In his book "Back from the Brink", Sir Michael Edwardes, who played a significant part in the fortunes of the Austin Rover Group, sounded a warning which he said both his successors and Ministers might find relevant, although I do not think he ever thought is would come to pass:
  "The dangers of a link with a multinational would be that BL would become no more than an offshore assembly operation—not even the Right wing of the Conservative party would have been sanguine about that outcome."
  Sir Michael Edwardes has more to fear than the Right wing of the Conservative party. We have reached the shameful situation where the British Government are co-operating in making important British industry an "offshore assembly operation".
  The country is shocked at the casual way in which the Government have gone about this matter and the easy way in which they shrug off responsibility. The country is shocked at the easy way in which they talk about anti-Americanism and forget about their obligations to be pro-British, and, above all, the country is shocked at the blind dogmatism which prefers a foreign private sector solution to a British national interest. In this episode three elements of Conservative industrial policy are coming together. It always results in a loss of jobs, it always results in permanent loss of plant and it nearly always results in the loss of British independent control.
  The depth of feeling is growing in this country. I think that this will be an angry debate because angry people are calling the Government to account for the responsibility they hold. They are letting British industry not only die but pass into the control of others.
  5.22 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'notes with approval the Government's continuing determination to work towards a viable and internationally competitive automotive industry located in the United Kingdom; and endorses the view that, subject to satisfactory terms and conditions, the merger of the commercial vehicle activities of Land Rover, Leyland and Bedford would contribute to that objective and provide the best prospects for secure long-term employment in the industry.'
  I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on one point. The motion deals with an extremely important industry in our country, a central part of our manufacturing base, nd one of the most important sectors within the economy at large. It employs about 500,000 people directly and in supplying industries, and has a turnover of about £12 billion per annum. Many other thousands of people depend on the prosperity of the motor industry for their livelihood.
  The debate should be about how we can best achieve a viable and internationally competitive vehicle industry. How can we make those thousands of jobs more secure and build a better future for this vital industry? We have already put £2·2 billion into BL and we are standing behind another £1·5 billion of additional obligations. I ask the House to take this matter seriously. We have to ask ourselves how much longer we can support the company with taxpayers' money, whether we can continue to have these liabilities indefinitely, and whether there are not other options which should be seriously considered. Any responsible Government would at least want to look at the options.
  There are two separate and different issues in the Opposition's motion. The first concerns the future of Land Rover-Leyland, where discussions are at an advanced stage. The second concerns Austin Rover, where discussions with Ford have only recently started and the joint studies are at a very early stage.
  Let me start with the first part of the Opposition motion, which addresses the discussions in hand with General Motors on the future of the Bedford and Land Rover-Leyland businesses. I heard the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East say on television that under no circumstances and on no terms should any merger of Bedford and Land Rover-Leyland be contemplated. I believe that that is a shortsighted and ill-judged assessment. Of course, a condition of any sale will have to be satisfactory assurances and I shall return to this later. If a merger should prove to be the best way of creating a strong industry and preserving thousands of jobs in the long term in the companies and the components supply industry—
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It seems anomalous that we have a new Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box defending the Government on an extremely important subject, but that only one Cabinet Minister is on the Treasury Bench.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I submit that it is a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The presence of Ministers is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Channon: As I said, if a merger should prove to be the best way of creating a strong industry and preserving thousands of jobs in the companies—
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State is talking about preserving jobs. Will he take into account the experience of David Brown Tractors in my constituency? Six years ago it was sold to an American conglomerate —Case Tenneco International. It then employed 4,000 men and women directly. It now employs 1,100 and that number is diminishing. Is that the pattern which the right hon. Gentleman thinks will save jobs?
  Mr. Channon: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my case, he will hear the answer to the question which he and others have been putting.
  We are attempting to see what is the best way of preserving jobs in the companies and in the components supply industry —jobs in Bedfordshire, Lancashire, Glasgow and the west midlands. I believe that we have a duty to look objectively at the possible solutions. It is no good putting our heads in the sand and pretending that problems do not exist, or that we can solve them just by throwing taxpayers' money around.
  The problems in the commercial vehicle industry are not confined to the United Kingdom. The European commercial vehicle industry has substantial over-capacity. Some have said as much as 40 per cent. over-capacity, and most of the European truck companies are making losses, cutting back capacity and searching for partners. Joint ventures and mergers will increasingly be necessary in order to spread the costs of developing new products and securing economies of scale in manufacturing, marketing and research and development.
  As the Labour party's policy document on the motor industry published last year said:
  "Collaborative arrangements, providing scale economies and new market outlets, are exactly the strategy which a manufacturer such as Leyland should seek to pursue".
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Channon: The United Kingdom, and British Leyland in particular, cannot be immune from those trends. Land Rover-Leyland and Bedford together made losses of over £120 million in both 1983 and 1984, and there were further substantial losses in 1985. That cannot continue. Some solution has to be found. Capacity has already been cut and plants closed.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Channon: No, I will not give way.
  Some other strategy has to be followed. It would be a disgrace to allow a withering away of those businesses. A merger, if the terms are right, could be the salvation of both.
  Both companies have a strong British tradition and are committed to the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Robert Adley: As part of the opportunities which my right hon. Friend is exploring, has any discussion taken place with any European manufacturers, and does he intend to explore that avenue?
  Mr. Channon: No discussions have taken place with European manufacturers. I do not think that any European manufacturer would be interested in the proposals which the House is discussing. They both have their European —[Interruption.] I had assumed that the House would wish to hear the argument. The Opposition asked for this debate. I imagine that they want to hear the reply. Both of these companies have their European research and development centres in this country. Both of them manufacture all of their European and Third world trucks here. Bedford has manufactured over 4·5 million trucks here since 1931 and has exported over half of them. Bedford has probably been the major supplier of trucks to our defence forces since before the second world war.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Channon: No.
  The Bedford company even designed the Churchill tank. One cannot get much more British than that, yet the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East referred to a defence risk. Opposition Members do Bedford Commercial Vehicles and its work force a grave disservice when they denigrate the achievements of GM subsidiaries and imply that a merger with Leyland will leave the United Kingdom with only a screwdriver operation. By combining the strength of those organisations the United Kingdom should have a much better chance of retaining a major manufacturing capability and design base, of winning major export orders and of securing the investment and resources which a company the size of GM can provide and which are so necessary for new products and facilities.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Channon: Exactly the same arguments apply to Freight Rover and Land Rover. Both these companies have worked hard to turn themselves around, and I pay tribute to what has been achieved. Despite these efforts, neither is generating the profits necessary to reinvest in new models and facilities and capture world markets, particularly in the face of Japanese competition. The GM route offers greater financial security, vast research and development and other resources and far easier access to markets, especially in North America, where Land Rover and Range Rover have great market potential, but where Land Rover has no distribution network and would have to spend many millions of pounds setting one up.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Channon: GM's worldwide distribution network—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Channon: No. [Interruption.] This is a very short debate.
  GM's worldwide distribution network offers even greater opportunities, which I am sure the Land Rover management will seize with enthusiasm if this deal proceeds. Under the GM umbrella, Land Rover will have a more secure future than it currently has or than it could have if it tried to make it on its own.
  Mr. John Smith: The Secretary of State is speaking almost as though a deal has been concluded and he is drawing our attention to possible advantages. Since this is a matter of great consequence to all concerned, may we be told whether the Cabinet has discussed it?
  Mr. Channon: No deal has been concluded. If the House will allow me to make my speech, it will hear the arguments that I think are important. No decisions have been taken. There are therefore no decisions for the Cabinet to discuss—[Interruption.] I get the impression that the Opposition are more interested in shouting me down than in hearing the truth. All they want to do is create a little party political capital out of this rather than to hear the truth about the motor industry.
  I want to talk about real jobs and real people, and about the prospects for the company in a hard, commercial world. The board is well aware that, if left to go their own way, the businesses would be small fishes in a pond full of piranhas and that the interrelationship between the various companies would make a separate sale of one part impractical. As such —
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Channon: No, I will not.
  The future of the component supply industry is essentially tied to the fortunes of the vehicle manufacturers and their success. Before any deal can go forward, we shall need assurances on United Kingdom manufacturing—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Channon: No.
  We shall need assurances on United Kingdom manufacturing, research and development, exports, investment and the like. No deal will go forward unless those assurances are forthcoming. The track record of Bedford is a proud one and should give everyone in the industry confidence in the future.
  Let me now deal with the other part of the Opposition's motion. As I said at the beginning, discussions between Austin Rover and Ford, which have the full approval of the BL board, are at a very early stage. [Interruption.] I repeat to the House, since I am challenged, that the discussions have the full approval of the BL board. However, the small fish in a big pond analogy applies also to Austin Rover.
  The House will expect me to pay tribute to the sustained efforts of the management and work force, who have achieved a highly creditable turnround in the performance of the company in recent years. I repeat to the House that from a loss of £266 million in 1980, the company in 1985 was trading around break-even. It has introduced a successful new model range, to which will shortly be added the XX.
  The Austin Rover Group exported over 100,000 vehicles in 1985. Without that progress, the prospects for the survival of ARG as a volume car manufacturer would have been very gloomy. Nevertheless, the House must face the fact that the United Kingdom's market share has not grown as all of us had hoped. The European market share remains very small, at 3·9 per cent., and continued taxpayers' support will be necessary to give the company

  321
  even a reasonable chance of keeping its head above water. It is essential that we should now build on this progress—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is Freight Rover to be transferred to the Austin Rover Group?
  Mr. Channon: I dealt earlier with Freight Rover and Land Rover.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman did not do so.
  Mr. Channon: Freight Rover is in the same position. It is essential to build upon the progress of the Austin Rover Group and the confidence that it has generated by considering the options for the long-term future.
  I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the car industry is a fast-changing industry. It is at the forefront of technological change, in the use of robotics and electronics, and in the application of new materials, but its structure worldwide is also in the process of change. The age of the self-contained company has gone. Even the giants of the industry feel the need to create links with others. Austin Rover has itself forged links with European manufacturers and buys components from Peugeot and Volkswagen. It also has its design, component supply, manufacturing and marketing links with Honda.
  The discussions that have been started with Ford must be seen against that background. They involve an examination of areas of mutual interest to see whether there are links between the two companies which could usefully be exploited to produce scale economies and other benefits based upon European, and specifically British, design and manufacture.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Bearing in mind the preeminence of Ford of Europe, what does my right hon. Friend think of the comment of Bob Lutz, the head of Ford of Europe, that Austin Rover is a dead body on a life-support machine? Does my right hon. Friend agree with that comment? Would he like to negotiate with a man who holds that opinion about Austin Rover?
  Mr. Channon: As I am trying to explain to the House, the talks with Ford are at a preliminary stage. No decisions of any kind have been taken. When he thinks about Ford's commitment to Britain, my hon. Friend will surely agree that Ford's European headquarters are in Britain and that its major research and development centre is in Britain. Most of its trucks and tractors are manufactured here, with an average United Kingdom content of 80 per cent. The cars that Ford builds in this country have a 78 per cent. United Kingdom content. The company invests about £250 million a year in Britain, employs about 50,000 people directly, and is one of the top 30 employers in the country. I hope that no anti-American feeling will come out of all that.
  Ford exports, by value, 20 per cent. more than British Leyland. It manufactures twice as many gear boxes and engines in this country as does BL, with obvious benefits to the United Kingdom component supply industry.
  The Labour party document says:
  "Ford Uk has been the strongest force in the British car industry for over a decade.… As an integral part of Ford of Europe's production system, Ford UK has enormous resources in terms of design, investment and management."
  322
  The detailed examination that is now under way may —I emphasise "may"—suggest that a comprehensive merger of the car operations of those strongly British orientated companies would make sense. Perhaps it would make better sense than the alternative "go it alone" policy or other joint ventures and would be more likely to produce a stronger United Kingdom manufacturing base, with more secure long-term job prospects for all. However, it is too early to say. Neither we nor the BL board have closed our minds to other options. I must ask the House to support me in the view that it is ridiculous at this stage to say that we should not even consider the options.
  No conclusions have emerged, and no judgments can be made until at least the first stage of the studies is complete. Meanwhile, as I think the House will agree, both Ford and BL recognise the need to reach early conclusions so that the period of uncertainty is reduced to a minimum. If the studies show that a merger could create real benefits and lead to a stronger British industrial base than any other likely options, it would be foolish not to consider the conclusions most seriously.
  Despite the undoubted progress that BL has made, it is still a long way from becoming fully viable. As I understand it, the Labour party's answer is to keep BL alive by a drip-feed of taxpayers' money to replace its losses while sheltering behind a wall of protectionism and anti-Americanism. The Labour party is guided by an isolationist mentality which welcomes a Ford or a GM when an engine plant at Bridgend is in prospect. It then emerges from its shell to throw tens of millions of taxpayers' money around in an effort to woo a company which it otherwise pretends it would rather do without.
  My concern is to see a viable and internationally competitive motor industry in the United Kingdom. That is the only way in which we can safeguard the thousands of jobs which are dependent upon it. I am determined that every option which offers a way of achieving that should be examined. I urge the House to reject the motion.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Denis Howell: We have just heard a statement which amounts to the biggest act of political and industrial treachery that the country has ever heard. The give-away for the Government is the total secrecy with which the negotiations were initiated and have been conducted. The Minister said that the discussions are at an advanced stage. At the end of his speech he even had the impertinence to tell us that we should remove the uncertainty. Can he tell us who initiated the developments? They could not possibly have been initiated by the BL board; they must have been initiated by the Government. The Secretary of State shakes his head. I am willing to give way if he wants to tell us that British Leyland initiated the developments. Who did initiate the developments?
  Mr. Channon: Ford approached British Leyland.
  Mr. Howell: If Ford approached BL, where did General Motors enter the picture?
  Mr. Channon: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Member, because this is a short debate. There are two issues, GM and Ford. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was talking about the Ford proposal. Ford approached the Government and talks are taking place between Ford and British Leyland.
  Mr. Howell: The Secretary of State has still not told us how General Motors entered the act. Was it before or after Ford? The House is entitled to have an answer so that the motives of the Government may become crystal clear.
  Whatever view one takes about the merits of the case —I shall express my view about them—the fact that the negotiations are, according to the Minister, at an advanced stage without any reference to the House and without public discussion can only lead us to believe that the motives of the Government are very low. That is of great importance.
  The House will understand the terrible feeling that is already apparent throughout industry in the west midlands, and particularly in Birmingham, and on all sides of the political spectrum. The west midlands has been reduced almost to an industrial wasteland during the last six years, and the position is bound to get worse.
  The Minister talked about the components industry, but he has failed to give us an assurance or to set out the minimum terms and conditions for the British content of motor manufacturing which, one hopes, would be legally binding. The Government set great store by such conditions.
  There is nothing in the figures available to us to give us confidence in what the Secretary of State has told us. We know that 70 per cent. of vehicles manufactured by Ford in the United Kingdom have an 80 per cent. United Kingdom content; 45 to 56 per cent. of vehicles manufactured by General Motors in the United Kingdom have only a 49 to 50 per cent. United Kingdom content, although the Government hope that that figure will increase. There is no assurance in those figures for the British components industry, which is in a parlous state.
  We have evidence before us about Peugeot Talbot. In spite of all that we have been told in the past, we know that at Coventry French components are being used in the manufacture of cars to the detriment of the British components industry. Therefore, the Minister knows perfectly well that he will not be able to come to the House with any legally binding agreement about the minimum percentage of British components if the deals under discussion are concluded.
  The House must find out what the atraction is for Ford. In the 1970s the strategy of Ford was to develop a world car; in the 1980s its strategy is to develop a world truck. Design is a key feature in that strategy. The first casualty of any development such as the Minister is examining will be the design potential and capacity of the British motor industry. Some smaller components may be manufactured here, but as centralisation and rationalisation take over, all the components of Ford and General Motors will have to be made to the design of the country of origin, which will not be this country. Therefore, the position of the British components industry will worsen progressively.
  I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that the timing is absolutely appalling. Just when we have had massive investment in the British motor industry and the possibility of a breakthrough for Austin Rover and Land Rover, the Government have initiated takeover talks.
  We have not been told by the Government—and I do not suppose we shall be told — about the anticipated job losses. It is only common sense that if Ford and General Motors succeed in their endeavours, there will be
  324
  standardisation of engines, components and electronics, which must be to the detriment of British manufacturing, and particularly the components industry.
  The new Rover 800 has had a successful launch and may emulate the success of Jaguar in the American market. That again brings into question the competence of the Government as well as their strategy in undertaking talks at this time.
  Job decline in Birmingham could not be more, disastrous. I want the Government to return to the understanding that they cannot divorce the destruction of the British manufacturing industry and the British motor industry from the terrible social consequences that have followed that decline. Anyone who, like me, represents a neighbourhood such as Lozells —it is part of the Lozells-Handsworth syndrome which occupied the attention of the House recently—anyone who has 34·5 per cent. unemployment, anyone who has at least 70 per cent. of school leavers unemployed, and who then sees the rest of manufacturing industry in Birmingham threatened, faces responsibility for the most serious social consequences.
  It is no good saying to whole generations of school leavers and young family men—
  Ms. Clare Short: And women.
  Mr. Howell: —and women—that there is no hope for them and that even the little security that they now have will be sacrified or threatened by a sellout on this scale. Ministers who contemplate that, who fail to provide alternative industries, cut investment in the social programme for housing and schools and now threaten jobs at Austin Rover and Land Rover, deserve heavy censure not only in the House, but in the country.
  I pay tribute to Conservative Members from Birmingham and the midlands who have courageously stood up in the past few days, realising that this is not a party political matter but one of the greatest concern for the city and the region. They know perfectly well that the political consequences of this is that all of them and all those people will be consigned to the knacker's yard at the next election. The only qualification that comes out of the Chicago monetarist school is the ability to be a knacker's yard operative.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Edward Heath: May I add my congratulations to those which have already been offered to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his appointment. I wrote to him immediately but I want to congratulate him publicly. Having been Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development more than 20 years ago, I know that that Department, even though it no longer has regional development, is one of the most difficult and onerous of all the Departments of Government. It is more onerous than that of Chancellor of the Exchequer and I wish him well in it.
  The debate today is important because it goes to the heart of Britain's industrial future and the Government's attitude towards it. Therefore, I regret that there should be so few members of the Cabinet on the Government Front Bench.
  Many of us have watched the deterioration and erosion of Britain's industrial base over the past few years and we

  325
  have held our peace. History may blame us for that and hold us culpable. But there comes a time when, despite the natterings behind me, one has to protest publicly against the proposed action of the Government towards the motor industry. The business and financial world, quite apart from the members of the Conservative party, are stunned by the revelation that the Government are proposing to sell the remains of the motor industry to American firms.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will not accuse me of being isolationist. I have been accused of many things in my life, but not of being isolationist. Moreover, I hope that he will not accuse me of being anti-American. I first went to the United States in 1939 as a student. I fought alongside the Americans. I have worked closely with four presidents of the United States. I am a great admirer of the Americans. Moreover, I admire what General Motors has done. I well recall one of the most famous phrases in history under President Eisenhower's Administration, that what was good for General Motors was good for America. That may well be true, but it does not follow that what is good for General Motors is good for Britain, and that is what concerns me.
  My right hon. Friend accused the Opposition of playing party politics, of wanting everything in public ownership and so on. That is of no concern to me, nor, I think, to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. What does concern us, I must repeat, is the future of the motor industry and what remains in British hands.
  The onus of proof in this case rests on the Government. They cannot try to shift the responsibility on to the boards of the firms. They said that they were doing so in the case of Westland. I have withheld comment on any aspect of Westland so far and I want to make only one now. No Government is justified in wiping its hands of a company which is integral to our defence programme. I am afraid that that is a matter of principle for me. That is all that I want to say about Westland.
  The Government are the owner of the motor industry and so they must accept full responsibility for what they do about it. Moreover, two Governments—the Labour Government up to 1979 and this Government —have, apparently, put £2·6 billion into the motor industry. Very well, that is a second reason why the Government must accept full responsibility for what happens in the case that we are discussing tonight.
  It has constantly been said that because £2·6 billion has gone into the industry we must make an end of it. On any ordinary business judgment, to have put £2·6 billion into a concern would have given one every justification for carrying on. When my right hon. Friend rightly pays tribute to the workers and the management of the remaining firms and says how well they have done—
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: And they have.
  Mr. Heath: I agree. But what sort of response is it to say, "Now we will sell you out to the Americans"? It is no response at all for what they have achieved, even if they are not yet perfect and even if they cannot at the moment do without some financial contribution from the Government. The point of having contributed £2·6 billion is that the Government and my right hon. Friend should now continue to do what is necessary to put those firms completely on their feet.
  326
  Is that possible? I believe so. But apparently some of my hon. Friends do not. What is this fatalism about the motor industry? What is this despair about British industry? The Conservative party wants —the Government are said to want the same—to restore faith in Britain and what we do. How do we restore faith in our industry by selling out to the Americans?
  I said that public opinion, business and finance were stunned by the announcement. They do not know what to expect next. What else will the Government negotiate to sell? Will we get rid of Rolls-Royce to Pratt and Whitney because we still have to support Rolls-Royce? Some Conservative Members say that we are anti-American, but does anybody imagine that the Americans would ever allow their motor, aero engine or aircraft industries to be sold to foreigners? Not for one moment would they consider it. I know that full well from my discussions with President Nixon and his advisers over Rolls-Royce and Lockheed and how we managed to save those.
  Let us get away from this so called anti-Americanism. What is happening and is visible in public opinion is that because of Westland, and now because of this, the public are becoming anti-American. They do not want to see our country and our industries handed over more and more to the American firms.
  We have heard about international investment. It has come to Britain with Nissan in the north-east. That company has started a new plant, provided the money for it, created new jobs and is providing cars that it will export for us. By the way, when we are discussing components it must be remembered that Ford has a deficit on its payments. It imports more than it sells abroad and that does not help our trade position. Nissan is a constructive investment providing plant, jobs and exports. It is completely different when a firm comes in, buys what we have and does not pay the Government for the £2·5 billion that they have put into the firm.
  We export capital abroad—to my great regret, far too much capital. Firms know that with interest rates as they are, with sterling as it was in 1981—which destroyed our markets —and with sterling fluctuating as it is at present, they cannot be successful here. That is why they invest abroad. Does the result of their investment abroad return? No, it stays abroad for further investment. Every penny of profit that Ford makes here goes back to the United States. When American Ford took over the whole of the shareholding—it was formerly held by individuals in Britain who were bought out —part of the arrangement was that all the profits should go back to the United States. The same will happen with General Motors. That is detrimental to British interests.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Ford has just invested £100 million in its Transit plant at Swaythling in Southampton?
  Mr. Heath: The profits will all go back to the United States, and that will happen with General Motors. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) mentioned General Motors plants. We are not denigrating General Motors plants in Britain —[HON. MEMBERS: "The Opposition are."] I am not responsible for that. What remains of our motor industry, which is vital and which has a defence interest, should remain in British hands and not be completely taken over by the United States.
  General Motors wants to buy British Leyland, either because it can make a go of it or to wind it up. Those are

  327
  the options. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not want it to be wound up. Why is it that only General Motors can make a go of it? Why do we not tackle the problem of management and education? Instead of cutting back on our universities and technical colleges, why do we not deal with the problem through the education of management? Obviously it will take time for a firm like BL, which was in the doldrums during the 1970s, to recover completely, advance its technology and regain its markets. It has done remarkably well. It has regained the percentage of the market that it had in 1973, which was a good percentage.
  I am told that BL now has truck technology that is in advance of that in America. That is why General Motors wishes to buy it. It will always buy technology that is in advance of its own and keep it for itself. I do not blame General Motors; that is what it has always done. America did the same over atomic power with the McMahon Act. We contributed to the atomic energy knowledge of the world during the second world war. Afterwards America clamped down with the McMahon Act and said, "Nothing more." That is something we will always remember in relation to defence. Some of us may have long memories, but there comes a time when experience is useful.
  If British Leyland is sold out to overall American control, our control is lost. I ask my right hon. Friend, who is an honourable man, not to talk about guarantees, because they will not be kept. They have not been kept in the past. Already his predecessor has been complaining about the fact that Vauxhall uses less then 50 per cent. of British components. British Leyland uses up to 92 per cent., so that that type of guarantee is useless. Any guarantee about the number of jobs is useless because, if it wants to close down, it merely goes to the Secretary of State—as I know from personal experience—and says, "If we cannot wind down, we shall pack it in altogether." We would be faced with that alternative as a result of a handover to American firms.
  It is clear that we must forge ahead with technology and not hand over what we have to American firms. An undertaking has been given about exports, but that will not be kept. We know that from experience. None of the undertakings will be kept if the position changes. Above all, when the automobile industry goes into a recession in the United States, British plants will be wound up. Alas, that happens in our country. Some of us have fought against it for years. Plants are established in Scotland and Wales; a recession arrives, the midlands keep going and Scotland and Wales are shoved out.
  Exactly the same will happen to the British motor industry. It will be wound down to keep Detroit going. General Motors and Ford carry out the greater part of their research in Detroit. I have been a round their laboratories. What will our young people think? There will be only one place for them to go if they have any technological knowledge or if they wish to gain technological experience. That is how we shall lose the best of our young men to the United States. We have already lost far too many and I do not wish to see them lost in that way.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Bathgate, in my constituency, still has the greatest concentration of machine tools under one roof in Europe. Many of us ask what will happen to that great concentration of skill and expertise.
  Mr. Heath: I hope that it will be maintained, because I hope that we can persuade the Government to abandon this project.
  I recommend an attempt to develop European cooperation. My right hon. Friend has said that no attempt has been made to do so, but that we must consider all the options. He attacks the Opposition for saying that that was an option that they did not want. If he has not examined the European option, his case is not proven. In the European option, we maintain control through the Community. The Opposition may not wish to acknowledge that, but we could continue to maintain control over British firms that are co-operating in Europe with European firms.
  It is said that there is overproduction and overcapacity, but is that a reason for selling out to the Americans? It is a reason for Europe to be sensible, to adjust its capacity to world demand and, with efficiency, to gain a larger share of the world market. In present circumstances, the United States becomes more and more protectionist and would not take in our vehicles produced by General Motors and Ford. The alternative option is to work for a European arrangement —not a takeover, but an arrangement—which would be a joint operation. We have been successful in defence. There is no reason why we should not have success in the automobile industry.
  I wish to be plain and honest. I cannot support the Government's proposition to sell out the remains of the British motor industry to American firms. I shall resist it in every way possible.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) have completely demolished the Government's case for allowing parts of British Leyland to fall into the hands of two giant multinational American companies. A reasonable person listening to the debate would not think that the Government had grounds for proceeding along the path that they are contemplating. They are suggesting that a key company in a core sector of British manufacturing should be handed over to a major competitor in volume car manufacture and a major competitor in buses and trucks. If the volume car business fell into the hands of Ford, and if the proposals for handing over the truck division to General Motors went ahead, 60 per cent. of the British car market would be dominated by American multinational companies.
  Why is it important to retain the ownership of British Leyland in the United Kingdom? Cars are central to British manufacturing industry, not only in metal bashing and engineering but, as Japan, the United States and almost every other country have demonstrated, in electronics, in materials such as ceramics and plastics, and in almost every high-skill and high-technology area. Therefore, it is vital that we retain a thriving British presence in the industry.
  It is not surprising that, during the past 30 years, the Japanese have done everything possible to have a thriving motor industry. As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, it is not surprising that President Eisenhower said what he did about General Motors being good for America, because the motor industry is central to the economy of any country. British Leyland and the British people will have been dismayed by the revelation

  329
  that talks are taking place. The company, its employees, the House and the people believed that the Government had a clear strategy for British Leyland's future. It was a strategy of collaboration with Honda that would allow British Leyland to thrive as a medium-size vehicle manufacturer, I hope growing into a larger manufacturer, which could meet the competition from the Pacific basin, the rest of Europe and the United States. It is almost impossible for any vehicle manufacturer to survive without having a foothold in the Pacific basin, and it was clear that the link provided British Leyland with access to the knowhow and technology at Honda and with access to Honda's market. Thereby, it could build a successful business not only in Europe but elsewhere in the world.
  The discussions that were revealed this week have called that strategy into question. The Minister has a responsibility to spell out to the House and to British Leyland exactly what will happen to the Honda option if those discussions come to fruition. I hope that he can make that clear. As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, the Government have invested billions of pounds of taxpayers' money in British Leyland, and it is only fair and reasonable that taxpayers should have some return on that investment.
  British Leyland has just begun to turn the corner. It has not made extra demands upon the public purse in recent years, and this should have been the last occasion for the Government to suggest the sale of parts of the company or its major volume business to its American competitors. Instead, they should have reinforced the success that the employees and management of British Leyland have achieved and helped them to achieve even greater success.
  I hope that the Government will reconsider the permission which they gave to the company to proceed with discussions with General Motors and Ford. I hope that the Government will pursue their previous policy, so that if they wish to dispose of parts of the company that are not central to the volume car business, such as Land Rover, management buy-outs can become an option. Such a buy-out allowed Jaguar to develop and succeed, which has benefited not only the midlands but the entire country, and justified the previous investment in that company. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will tell the House that the possibility of employee or management buy-outs of parts of British Leyland will be considered and discussed with the management, and whether offers of assistance will be made to management should they wish to consider buying out.
  Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a distinct difference between the market potential for a prestige executive car such as Jaguar, which has been extremely successful in the United States, and the truck and volume car markets, both of which have overcapacity? Is not drawing a parallel between them, as the hon. Gentleman is attempting to do, very hazardous?
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the bus and truck divisions, where there is obvious over-capacity and a major structural difficulty. However, I was referring to Land Rover, where the position is different. It has been one of the most successful parts of British Leyland, and many of us are amazed that Leyland has been unable to make it a greater success. Not long ago, there was a waiting list to buy Land
  330
  Rovers. I cannot imagine any other commercial vehicle manufacturer not making a success of a vehicle for which there are waiting lists. Indeed, it is sad that the Government did not come forward long before now with proposals to support the management of Land Rover in making a buy-out offer for that potentially successful company, as they did for Jaguar.
  I hope that the central reason for the debate will not be lost. Although the truck and bus divisions and Land Rover are important, the overwhelming importance lies in the volume car business. It has implications for components suppliers and it plays a key role in the motor industry. We should not lose sight of that fact.
  If the Minister has any doubts about the strategy of the companies that he is considering allowing to buy parts of British Leyland, especially Ford, and whether they have any desire to look after British interests rather than the interests of multinational corporations, he should examine the statistics for the United Kingdom content of cars sold in Britain between 1973 and 1984. The United Kingdom content of Ford cars sold in this country fell between 1973 and 1984 from 88 per cent. to 46 per cent. For Talbot it fell from 97 per cent. to 42 per cent. and for Vauxhall-General Motors it fell from 89 per cent. to 22 per cent.
  That is one of the reasons why we have lost tens of thousands of jobs in the motor car industry. If the Minister examines the track records of those companies, he will see why there is so much anxiety about the possibility of British Leyland falling into foreign hands. If the decision-making process and the design authority are taken away from this country, the technology and jobs will disappear and this country will become a branch factory outpost of the multinational corporations.
  As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said, those hon. Members who have in their constituencies branch factories of corporations which take decisions and have headquarters elsewhere know how damaging that can be once the recession comes. I hope that the Minister will listen to the clear voices he has heard in the debate and the clear view of the country, which will tell him to think again about the strategy he is contemplating for British Leyland and ensure that the company remains in British hands.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Hal Miller: I hope that the House will forgive me if my delivery lacks polish and point. I have not been able to speak in the House for 16 months because of my position. I should make it clear that I am speaking this afternoon as a constituency Member, representing the constituency with the largest number of car workers and component workers in the country, and not as the vice-chairman of the Conservative party organisation.
  After listening to the Opposition today and reading their motion, I am reminded immediately of how selective their memory is. Have the Opposition forgotten that Leyland, the successful and famous lorry company, was compelled to make a forced marriage with various car-making companies by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? The wheel has now turned full circle and we see Leyland Vehicles in dire trouble and the car companies unable to generate the cash to sustain their investment and distribution. It is a sad and serious day for the motor industry that that has come to pass, but the roots of the matter lie with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.

  331
  Have the Opposition, in their xenophobia and pseudo-anger this afternoon, further forgotten that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) was tripping over himself in his desire to hand out taxpayers' money to get the Ford engine plant established in Bridgend? No account was taken at the time of the effect that that would have on Austin Rover or the midlands.
  What about the dispersal policies of the Labour Government and their desire to take the motor industry away from the midlands and its concentration and put it in Scotland and Liverpool? All those places have subsequently collapsed at great cost to the taxpayer. The Opposition now have the effrontery to say that the Government are doing down the motor industry. What a nerve. My goodness me, the Opposition should be accountable to the House and to their constituents for their actions.
  In case my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) gets the wrong impression, I must stress that I am not lacking in optimism or fight. I have a record of fighting for the motor industry which is as long as that of any Member. I am proud of that and I intend to continue my efforts.
  This afternoon we are trying to assess how we should consider the matter now that the damaging leak has become public property before decisions have been made. The more the Opposition try to raise the temperature and paint a picture of woe, the greater is the commercial damage and the certainty that more jobs will be lost. The Opposition are pleased because they see that as a weapon in their efforts to bring down the Government. That is the only reason why the Opposition are raising the matter.
  There is genuine uncertainty and anger in the west midlands. I acknowledge what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said and I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) gave effective voice to that uncertainty and anger.
  We have suffered in the west midlands and we find it difficult to understand how money is found for British Steel, which puts private firms in the west midlands out of business —an issue on which I resigned earlier from the Administration—and why the fuel and energy costs of the National Coal Board and other nationalised industries are subsidised at the expense of competing firms in the west midlands. When there are difficulties in the west midlands there is apparently some obstacle to helping us. I recognise that that is a genuine fear which has been effectively voiced.
  The Opposition seem to have forgotten the debate about Bathgate and the right hon. Member for Small Heath gave us the Opposition's only prescription for dealing with the. bus industry. The Opposition believe that we should subsidise routes on which people do not want to travel and that fares should be subsidised to attract people on to those routes. Many people do not want to use these buses which are, in any case, unsuitable vehicles for many roads. The Opposition then believe that we should subsidise the bus manufacturers. It is a vicious circle and there is no future along that road. The Opposition deliberately set their face against the future and look back selectively to the past.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Miller: I am sorry, I shall not give way as I am in a hurry to allow other hon. Members to take part in the debate.
  332
  An examination of the truck industry will reveal that the Leyland vehicle, the Road Train, is an award-winning design. I had the pleasure, with the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne), of welcoming that vehicle outside the House of Commons as a demonstration of Leyland Vehicles' achievements. Leyland is in a strong position with regard to manufacture and technology but its marketing and distribution side is not so healthy. A powerful company could give assistance to Leyland but no Government or taxpayer could supply it. British Leyland's efforts deserve such assistance.
  I am not concerned for the position of Leyland Vehicles as much as I am concerned for the position of Bedford Vehicles as a result of any proposed merger I am confident that Leyland Vehicles has the strength to compete and it has demonstrated that. I do not take such a pessimistic view of our domestic technology, design and construction. Rather I believe that it is the question of distribution and marketing, especially overseas, that is essential. No amount of taxpayers' money or Government purchasing will help in that respect. Only overseas marketing will assist because the British market is so limited.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup fought in the desert with my father-in-law in the Honourable Artillery Company. To my knowledge they went to the front in Bedford trucks.
  Mr. Heath: I should like to correct what my hon. Friend said. I never fought in the desert, let alone in a Bedford truck.
  Mr. Miller: I was perhaps giving my right hon. Friend more credit that he should have had. He did, however, certainly serve in the HAC with my father-in-law who was definitely in the desert.
  The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) raised the difficulty about the inclusion of Land Rover in the deal. I should have liked Land Rover to have the chance to operate by itself, although the success of that company has been greatly over-stated in the House. One need only look around the farmers and growers of Worcestershire to see what vehicles they are driving. They are not using Land Rovers; they are driving Land Rover derivatives, lighter four-wheel drive vehicles with a greater degree of comfort for their wives who can use the cars to take the children to school, go to the post office and do other things that wives do.
  The failure to develop the Land Rover range has put the company into its predicament. It needs substantial financial resources. The difficulty with the management buy-out solution is that, unless there is substantial financial backing, it will not be able to produce the necessary derivatives. I join those hon. Members who seek assurances that Land Rover production will remain arid will be developed in this country. That is my reservation about the General Motors proposals.
  The Austin Rover proposals are in a different category. I say that not because I live in the west midlands but because the talks are by no means so far advanced. The Opposition say that they have been taken by surprise by the GM proposals which have been touted in the press for months. They have not done their homework, because if they were to read BL's corporate plan they would see clearly set out that its future was seen as an assembler and as a manufacturer of some specialised items only.

  333
  It was inevitable that once the Ford-Fiat talks broke down the Ford Motor Company would seek another avenue to reduce the amount of over-competition in the European market. It amounts to about 2 million vehicles out of a 3 million worldwide overhang. That is serious.
  One need only talk to one's local dealer about the amount of profit he can make on a car sale now to know that dealers wish for a return to a much more orderly market with some prospect of a profit. Their reactions will be governed by that more than by any other consideration. They will influence their customers.
  We must have an early resolution of the problem because of the commercial damage being done. When Austin Rover is trying to set up a new agent distribution network in America to handle the new Rover models; when it is trying to set up Austin Rover Japan to promote not just its production but the Peugeot 205 and Jaguar sales; when it is about to conclude an agreement with Honda for the production of additional models in the west midlands; and when the new Rover replacement upon which the company's marketing and export strategy depends is about to be launched, a huge uncertainty is cast on the scene. There will be doubts amongst suppliers, dealers, customers and, more importantly, the work force which, over the past 12 months, has given such a convincing demonstration of what can be achieved. We owe it to them to end this damaging uncertainty which could be commercially crippling if it is allowed to continue beyond the end of this week.
  I am more than happy to support the Government tonight, because it is significant that their amendment does not mention Austin Rover. I believe that the plan is forward-looking. People who object to the talks conveniently overlook the well-known fact that Austin Rover has been engaged in talks with Volkswagen, Renault, perhaps Fiat, and BMW. It is no surprise that the talks have been going on. I hope that the Ford initiative is found to be unacceptable, although as a west midlands Member I am confident that the manufacturing costs in Longbridge are far lower than those in any Ford plant in Europe. If any sale were to be fairly conducted, production would be assured at Longbridge, but my fear is that with Ford coming in Honda would pull out. The utilisation at Longbridge would drop and the costs would rise. The company would be unfairly threatened on that basis.
  Honda's reaction to the announcement is vital. What assurances have the Government been able to obtain about its continued co-operation? What is the Japanese industry's attitude to continuing the voluntary industry agreement if there is to be no native British industry to protect? That is an important question. What is Nissan's attitude? It was brought into this country on one assumption and it is now faced with a completely different market. There are serious questions that will need quick answers, but I am happy to support the Government in their amendment.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. George Park: It is obvious that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) was trying to earn his corner as the vice-chairman of the Conservative party organisation. Even he could give only qualified approval to the proposals, because the implication of what he said was that if the Government's
  334
  amendment had included the words "Austin Rover", he would not have been able to join the Government in the Lobby tonight.
  The discussions about the future ownership of parts of BL have profound implications for the whole of the United Kingdom, but once again the information, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said, has had to be dragged out of the Government by a private notice question and by the Opposition providing time for the debate today.
  We are debating an industry which is the backbone of the economy and is the country's largest employer, but which will be put sadly out of joint if the current discussions to sell part of BL are allowed to continue. Despite the assurances on which the Secretary of State said he would insist, let there be no mistake about the outcome. If General Motors is allowed to buy BL's commercial vehicle division, and if the Ford Motor Company acquires Austin Rover, there will be a clear conflict between the worldwide strategy of those multinationals and the United Kingdom's national interest. In the process, thousands of jobs will be lost, and the capacity to design and build vehicles, with the skill that goes with that, will also go.
  The Secretary of State believes that those acquisitions will provide a more secure future for BL's employees. Over-capacity has been mentioned. Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that BL's market share would be added to that of General Motors, or Fords, and that everything would go on as before? Is it not likely that, following those acquisitions, there would be rationalisation—the polite name for sackings—because of the overlap and similarity of the model ranges? Has the right hon. Gentleman never heard of tied imports and the lack of exports from the United Kingdom by the multinationals? Is he aware that their design capacity is located outside the United Kingdom and that the only remaining such capacity is in BL? Is he aware that the key decisions affecting the multinationals' operations are taken well outside the United Kingdom? If the Government want Great Britain to become just another star on the United States flag, why do they not say so?
  From the Government's recent and current action, it is clear that they have no confidence in British management or in the work force, so why should the people of Britain have confidence in the Government? The Government have not lifted a finger to do anything about the miserable Austin Rover-Spanish export quota or the differential tariffs, a subject which I have mentioned many times on the Floor of the House.
  The apparent justification for the dicussions, put forward by the Prime Minister, is that BL cannot be allowed to be a continuing drain on the taxpayer. The right hon. Lady should have distinguished between the different parts of BL before she made that statement.
  It has been said that Austin Rover has had no taxpayer's money for more than two years. It was £250 million in the red in 1980, but it is breaking even now. It should not have escaped the attention of the House that all the European volume producers are incurring losses. Land Rover, incidentally is in profit.
  Productivity at Austin Rover is as good as, if not better than, that of its competitors. In a recent survey by The Engineer magazine, the Metro line was classed as the most efficient in Europe. Production levels at Austin Rover, with the introduction of new technology, will be up to Japanese levels in two years, if it is allowed to carry on.

  335
  As I speak of the Japanese, it reminds me of the so-called gentleman's agreement between the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and its counterpart in Japan. This agreement limits the imports of Japanese vehicles to 11 per cent. per year. If there is no home-based industry, there is no need for the agreement, which is entitled JAMA, and therefore there will be no restrictions on Japanese imports. It follows that there will be a squeeze on Ford, GM, and Peugeot.
  The acquisition of Leyland Trucks makes sense to GM. It allows GM to buy a market share in Europe and it will give it better facilities and better engines. The repercussions in jobs, however, could be felt at Luton or Dunstable. It will not solve the problem of over-capacity for either GM or Ford, but it will provide an opportunity for them to restructure their European operations. Any assurances given to the Secretary of State will be pushed to one side in the face of the intense rivalry between these two companies. With the acquisition of Land Rover, GM will acquire a type of vehicle that it does not make, but the defence implications of such acquisition have not been properly answered.
  In this past month, of the 41,000 vehicles sold by Ford, only 27,000 were made in the United Kingdom, and of the 29,000 sold by GM, fewer than 15,000 were made in the United Kingdom. If the Minister thinks that this trend will not accelerate if discussions come to fruition, he knows little about the motor industry.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: My hon. Friend is discussing the reasons for GM's wish to take over part of BL. I am the ex-employee of Self Changing Gears, which is in the constituency of our hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) and which is part of the BL empire, does he agree with me that GM may wish to take over the firm in an effort to eliminate competitors for certain contracts for gearboxes and thus ensure that it has all those contracts? The employment consequences in Coventry of such an acquisition would be tremendous.
  Mr. Park: I agree that the situation outlined by my hon. Friend is most probable.
  A considerable proportion of the content of the vehicles sold by Ford and GM is sourced from Europe and Japan, as distinct from BL, which obtains 92 per cent. of its components from Britain. The effect of a takeover by or a merger with Ford or GM would be disastrous for the components industry in the United Kingdom. Ford and GM would source their low technology parts from the United Kingdom, but high technology parts would be shipped in from elsewhere. Local content would be increased, but the impact on skill and technology would be immense.
  The Minister has suggested that such a takeover would lead to greater security of employment. My personal experience of the takeover by Chrysler of Rootes was that it did not provide greater security. When Peugeot took over from Chrysler, it did not want the production capacity, but it did want access to the dealer network. Does the Minister imagine that the dealer network will remain intact after acquisition by Ford or GM? How many jobs and how many businesses would go in that rationalisation?
  Despite the Government's avowed support for small businesses, for the vehicle industry the Government seem
  336
  to believe that big is beautiful. By their tremendous efforts, the management and work force at Austin Rover have shown a medium-sized car producer can survive and prosper, given flexibility among the work force and proper equipment. Austin Rover is at the forefront in the use of new technology, and Ford would love to gain access to its design and production technology.
  Austin Rover has recognised that it is not in a position to do everything, so it has collaborated with Honda, initially with the Acclaim, and currently with the 2·5 litre engine for the Rover 800, with which it hopes to break back into the United States this summer. Austin Rover has developed and built the 1·3 engine for the Rover 213 at Longbridge, and it uses the Honda five-speed gearbox in the Montego and Maestro. It is Austin Rover's intention to build this gearbox at Longbridge, with the addition of 400 jobs. Since Honda would not wish to collaborate with Ford, the Montego and Maestro would be stranded, with no five-speed gearbox, and plans to get back into the United States this summer with the Rover 800 would be aborted.
  Collaboration is one thing; takeover by a foreign company is another matter. The bidders have made it clear that it is their intention to reduce capacity in the bus division because the bus market has collapsed as a result of Government policy on public transport, which has stopped orders from local authorities. Throughout the motor industry, employment has fallen by 176,000 since 1979. Employment in the west midlands, in particular, has been decimated. The Government are apparently so calloused against their record-breaking unemployment figures that they are prepared to contemplate and even encourage discussions which will undoubtedly lead to more job losses.
  It would be interesting to know who made the first move—did the multinationals approach BL, or did the Government approach the multinationals—but shall we ever be told? Taxpayers' money has rightly gone into BL, but it needed the wise use of that money to acquire and develop the latest technology, tremendous efforts by management and a willing work force, good industrial relations and a belief in its products to bring BL to a point of viability. Is it now to see those joint efforts auctioned off in the market place, creating disillusionment and further unemployment, all for the sake of political dogma?
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Robert Atkins: This is an auspicious day on which to speak. It is a watershed not just for British Leyland but for myself as it happens to be my 40th birthday.
  Will this debate solve anything? Will it answer any of the questions that have been posed? Will it merely build upon the synthetic indignation of the Opposition who see their role as embarrassing the Government, however much they may worry ordinary people in the process?
  Is it because that chameleon the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) —a chameleon changes its colour to match its environment —came blustering around Chorley a week or so ago and was forced yet again to make commitments that he could not keep?
  Do the Opposition have: any understanding of the concern of my constituents at the manner in which they raised questions in the House on Monday about my constituency without doing me the courtesy of informing

  337
  me in advance? They asked questions concerning an issue which is not a secret in Leyland and Farington, which has been in the offing for some months and which management have openly admitted to trade union leaders was in process. The Opposition ought to be ashamed of themselves.
  Here we are, however, and there are several points that I should like to make to the House and to my Front Bench about Leyland Vehicles, whose truck and bus division, which employs some 6,000 people, is centred in my constituency. Since 1983, during which time I have represented South Ribble, I have had the good fortune to be in regular contact with management and unions on the future of the truck and bus division. Indeed, I have led three delegations to Ministers to discuss problems, and will do so again this Friday. The trade unionists have taken great trouble to think about, to research into, and to discuss the difficulties, the options and the solutions as they see them. They have impressed me, and I know that they have impressed the Ministers that they have met, with their commitment and sense of responsibility.
  I therefore urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench not to ignore or to talk at the trade unions. They should have a proper and detailed discussion with them and use their ideas. If I can do anything to help, I shall be more than pleased to do so and to facilitate meetings.
  Secondly, is it any wonder that politicians get such a bad reputation when we open our mouths to make snap judgments before we know the facts? General Motors, Ford or Laird could be a good idea. They might not. We do not know. We should wait and see. Some people in Leyland Bus believe that, in the event of privatisation, Leyland Bus, being bigger than Laird, would be interested in taking that company over rather than the reverse. Is this just a simple expedient to rid the Government of the problems of Leyland Bus when there is such a decline in the United Kingdom market? Leyland Bus is the largest exporter of public service vehicles and has 90 years' experience. It has made a great contribution to the world's commercial vehicles. There is also the possibility of another offer. Has there been any consultation with Leyland Bus about its view of restructuring for the United Kingdom bus manufacturing market?
  Thirdly, British Aerospace, which is the other large employer in my constituency, has been increasingly involved in collaboration and co-operation with the United States and Europe—and successfully. Why is there no possibility of doing the same with another vehicle manufacturer?
  Fourthly, we must ensure continuity of design, research, testing and production and, of course, of jobs, where possible, subject to the need to sell vehicles worldwide at the right price and on time. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his former incarnation as Minister of State for Trade and Industry for his help with the potential bus deal for Thailand, for which we still have high hopes. Bearing in mind Leyland's historic connections with Third world markets, will my right hon. Friend give his personal attention to better export finance support, soft loans and the rest?
  Fifthly, can we be assured about the defence implications of any takeover in regard to vehicles for our armed forces?
  338
  Sixthly, bearing in mind the taxpayers' subvention to BL and our oft-stated commitment to wider share ownership, especially among employees, what steps are being taken to ensure that shares will be offered to the British public and to Leyland workers and that taxpayers' money will not be lost to a foreign company?
  Seventhly, we must, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) said, end the uncertainty as soon as possible. It has been exacerbated by the antics of Opposition Members. My constituents and the potential purchasers of vehicles now do not know what to believe, and rumour and worries are beginning to mount.
  The work force at Leyland Truck and Bus and my constituents are sick and tired of being the butt of second rate comedians and the subject of corny music hall jokes. They are decent hard-working professionals who have experienced a very hard time recently —a decline in world markets, lack of finance and Third world price cutting. Uncertainties caused by the Transport Act 1985 have not helped, although I believe that it will be beneficial in the long run.
  Leyland Vehicles has an excellent product range, is building to high standards, and has increased and improved productivity, its design capability, its marketing strategy and product support. It has raised its share of the truck market from 15·1 per cent. last year to 16·5 per cent. this year. In the assembly plant and the test centre, it has facilities second to none. That is why General Motors wants it: it is a success story, arguably better than Bedford.
  We should examine the facts and not make snap judgments or exaggerate the effects. Above all, I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that those who have the deepest interest in these matters and who have given of their abilities over the years—those who work for Leyland Vehicles—have a future to look forward to, free from the uncertainty of the past few years, making trucks and buses that sell well and of which they can be justly proud.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Norman Atkinson: When, recently, several Conservative Members surged into the Chamber to listen to their ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), I thought that they had come in to support him and to speak against the Atlanticism that is increasingly being identified with the Government. To judge from the warmth of their approval when he said that, if there is a problem in British Leyland, the remedy lies in collaborative agreements with Europe and not with the United States, I thought that the majority of the House supported this proposition.
  The essential difference between General Motors and Ford and the European companies is that the former are European in terms of engineering but American in management. It is important to bear that in mind when considering the future of the British motor industry. It suits our industry to seek collaborative agreements with Europe rather than to have European engineering produced by American companies.
  The Government have suggested that they favour a takeover of BL, not collaborative agreements. Surprisingly enough, they do not favour raising private capital as widely as possible either. The Bell Telephone solution for British Telecom would have been the logical conclusion of the Government's philosophy towards

  339
  manufacturing industry. The Government talk about takeovers for manufacturing industry, but raising public capital for services.
  Conservatives accuse Labour Members of indulging in protectionism. Socialists throughout the world understand that the only muscle available to them when bargaining with multinational companies is that afforded by import controls. The Labour party is about protectionism and import controls, because they provide negotiating muscle.
  The trade unions are aware of the problems implicit in what Ford wants to do. It wants to take Austin Rover into volume production and out of competition with itself.
  The trade unions are as keen as anyone to seek collaborative agreements that secure the future of industries and their members' jobs. I know of no trade union that is opposed to the four-wheel drive sector of Austin Rover contracting with Fiat for its engines to be fitted in Land Rover and other four-wheel drive vehicles.
  It has been stated that the executive directors of Austin Rover are supposedly in agreement about the discussions. A week last Thursday I and some of my colleagues took part in a seminar with those executive directors about the future of the company. They made four announcements confirming that they would he in control of future production methods and were not dependent on agreements or takeovers. If the executive directors invited hon. Members to join in that seminar, and then, through duplicity or otherwise, misinformed them, I can only say that hon. Members will know how to answer any future invitations.
  I must end my speech because of the constraints on time. The trade unions have a great deal more to say about this matter, especially about the effect on jobs. I hope that there will be an opportunity in the near future to make some of those points.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. David Madel: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for what he said about employees and employment in the truck industry in Bedfordshire. I want to deal, first, with the part of the amendment that refers to "satisfactory terms and conditions". Of supreme concern to my constituents are the details of any merger between General Motors and Leyland Trucks —something that will require careful scrutiny.
  The merger talks have been taking place for many months, and I hope that they will soon be concluded. The endless uncertainty and worry about the talks is causing a great deal of concern in my constituency. When people make public statements about merger talks, they should not say anything that they know will merely cause more gloom and worry. As negotiations have not been concluded on the merger talks between General Motors and British Leyland, it is impossible now to guess the final outcome.
  I remember that 11 years ago we went through a similar problem in Dunstable when the Chrysler company swayed on the brink of closure, with the possibility of severe job losses, Management, unions and the then Labour Government did their best to ensure that public statements were based on fact, not rumour. That restraint helped management and unions in the factory —which is now owned by Renault —to set the business back on a reasonable road.
  340
  Bedford Commercial Vehicles has been producing trucks in my constituency for more than 50 years. There has already been mention of what has been supplied for defence. The firm employs 2,400 people at its Dunstable plant, and more than half of what they have produced has been exported. Although the company is foreign-owned, local people believe that Bedford trucks and Vauxhall cars are as British as anything else that has had such long continuity of production in my constituency. Despite the serious slump in world truck business since 1980, the quality of Bedford trucks has been good, industrial relations have been good and there has been an increasing determination by management and unions to work together for the good of the company. That has not only helped the local community, but underpinned many local jobs.
  The British content in Bedford trucks is vastly higher than it is in Vauxhall cars. Some statements this afternoon have not been based on fact. We should not compare the two because the use of British components is entirely different, depending on the product.
  When the Government have the detailed proposals of the merger in front of them, I hope that they will bear in mind two points. First, the Government amendment refers to the need to
  "provide the best prospects for secure long-term employment in the industry."
  That includes Bedfordshire. I say to those who are worried about the outcome of the discussions that it is General Motors' marketing and worldwide sales ability that can be — and I choose my words carefully—of great benefit to Leyland Trucks.
  Secondly, I make the plea that if the nature of the work changes in the commercial vehicle plants, it is vital that the best retraining is undertaken and that the most modern equipment is introduced for changes in the work carried out.
  We have previously had changes of ownership and merger talks in Dunstable. There will be no agreement on a merger unless there is maximum co-operation between management and the unions. The very least that we can do in this House is to lower the temperature. A confrontation and a blazing row, when nothing is yet settled, do absolutely nothing for the good of British industry; it simply causes immense distress and worry to my constituents and to others. We have a duty to those who work in the truck industry to do our best to ensure that there is maximum co-operation on job security.
  Mr. Terry Davis rose—
  Mr. John Mark Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman rising because, sadly, he has not been called?
  Mr. Taylor: With 8,000 Land Rover workers in my constituency, I take it very badly that I have not been called.
  Mr. Speaker: I am terribly sorry. With the best will in the world, it is not possible to call everyone who wishes to speak. I did warn the House about that.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not the fault lie with the Government, who have created a lack of time by putting forward two statements today that everyone knew would lead to lengthy questions?
  Mr. Speaker: That is a contributory factor. However, when the Front-Bench spokesman rises, there is really nothing that I can do other than to call him.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Terry Davis: I shall not stoop to respond to the charges of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about anti-Americanism on the Opposition Benches. No one who knows my education and employment record would dare to suggest that I am anti-American. Nor will I stoop to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) denigrated General Motors, Vauxhall and the Ford Motor Company. The best that can be said about the Secretary of State is that he clearly wrote that part of his speech before he listened to my right hon. and learned Friend.
  One thing I will tell the Secretary of State is that I learnt, both as a student and as an employee of both British and American manufacturers, that the Americans do not respect doormats. That is what the debate is about—it is whether British industry and the British Government are to be doormats for the American multinationals.
  I agree with the Secretary of State on one point—we are debating a central part of British manufacturing industry. It is appalling that we should be debating such an important matter, which affects the livelihood of more than 500,000 people, in less than three hours. I hope that those Conservative Members who are complaining about inadequate time will press for a further debate in Government time.
  We have been trying to debate three sectors of the motor manufacturing industry. I shall deal first and briefly —more briefly than I would wish —with the bus industry. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was as disappointed at not catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, as those Conservative Members who have already protested. We are both concerned about the proposed merger between Metro Cammell Weymann, which is in my constituency, and the Leyland bus division. The bus market is flat. It has been decimated by the Government's policies. Anyone who visits the customers of bus manufacturers will be told that they are not buying buses because of the Government's policies. For the Government to visit the problems of that industry, which they have caused, on the people who work in the industry is a clear indictment of their own policies. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington and I naturally fear that a single merged bus company producing the same number of buses, with overcapacity in the industry, will mean redundancies. They will be in either Birmingham or Workington, and that is why we are concerned about the merger. We need to see the terms and receive clear assurances on that point.
  Another point affects both the bus companies and the passengers of bus companies. It has always been a matter of concern to the people who buy buses in Britain that there should be two sources to give them the opportunity to choose between companies. The Government's proposals, and their pressure on the Laird group and the Leyland bus division, will create a single monopoly source for buses.
  The second sector of concern is the truck market. As we know, the truck market collapsed two or three years ago, but the Leyland trucks division now has a good model range and excellent production facilities as a result of
  342
  public investment. The Leyland trucks division is now poised to take advantage of an upturn in the market. That is why General Motors is interested in it. General Motors took the decision two or three years ago that it would concentrate on the heavy truck market. It picked the Leyland trucks division as an acquisition. I am sure that General Motors came knocking on the door because it recognised the value of the Leyland facilities, which have been built with public money, and from which it wishes to get the profits.
  Again, the question needs to be asked: what will happen to the jobs of those who work not only in Leyland truck division, but also in the factories in Dunstable and elsewhere in General Motors. What will happen to the jobs in Lancashire, Birmingham, Dunstable and Luton? We need to be told.
  The Secretary of State told us on Monday, and repeated today, that he would expect undertakings to be given by General Motors. He said on Monday that General Motors is willing to give undertakings that the majority of products sold by the businesses involved will be manufactured in the United Kingdom. What majority will that be? Will it be the same proportion as are manufactured today, or a smaller or larger proportion? We should be told before we decide whether to approve the takeover.
  The Secretary of State told us that products will continue to have a high local content. Is he saying that about General Motors, which has been criticised by his predecessor for having less than 50 per cent. local content?
  Mr. John Carlisle: That is on cars.
  Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman may not agree with what the previous Secretary of State said, but he said it at the Dispatch Box only four months ago. He criticised General Motors for having the worst record on local content and local manufacture of any of the three big manufacturers. Will we have the same amount of local content if it takes over Leyland truck division? We need answers.
  Mr. Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Davis: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he does not know the answers.
  The Secretary of State then said that there will be a substantial level of exports, but what exports? The same substantial level that we have at the moment—to the same market? That is another crucial point. The allocation of markets will depend on the decisions taken in Pontiac, Michigan, not in the United Kingdom. A subsidiary company of an American manufacturer is not allowed to sell abroad unless it has been given that right. That is a crucial point, on which we shall want much more specific undertakings than the Secretary of State seems to require.
  The Secretary of State told us that he has an undertaking that research and development facilities will be maintained in the United Kingdom. What research and development facilities has General Motors in the United Kingdom at the moment? Our understanding is that it is all done in Germany. For how long would research and development be continued in this country?
  The Secretary of State then told us that General Motors would undertake "appropriate" levels of investment. We have heard that before. We might have different views of what is an appropriate level of investment in the truck business in Britain.

  343
  The Secretary of State has not given us any undertakings from his lords and masters at General Motors about jobs in the United Kingdom. There was nothing in his list on Monday or today about assurances for employment in the United Kingdom nor about assurances that all the factories will continue to exist in the United Kingdom, such as the truck factories at Preston, Dunstable and elsewhere.
  We have been through this before, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) reminded us, with Chrysler. It gave undertakings and assurances, accepted by Conservative as well as Labour Governments. Those assurances were not worth the paper on which they were written. When the crunch came, Chrysler tore up those agreements and ignored them, and the British Government were faced with the alternatives of accepting total closure or capitulating to slightly lesser demands.
  We expect a clear statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the end of these discussions. I accept his assurance today that no decision has been taken, but the Opposition require that there is a proper debate after a full statement by the Government, preferably in a White Paper, so that we can see and test just what undertakings are being given by this multinational company. We expect that debate in Government time.
  Another multinational involved in this debate is Ford. It is not setting its sights on the truck business. On the contrary, it is in the process of selling its truck business and is just selling its plant in the United Kingdom. The plant at Langley, which is manufacturing heavy trucks, will be sold to Iveco. The decision by Ford has been to dominate not the truck market but the car market. It has set its sights on increasing its share of the United Kingdom market from 26 per cent. to 44 per cent. It has decided —I do not criticise its interests—that it wants to be not the market leader but the market dominator. It is entitled to take that decision, but we are equally entitled to say that we shall not aid and abet it.
  The Secretary of State said that the initiative came from Ford. I am concerned about the words that he used. There were no discussions with Ford until the Fiat talks had collapsed. The talks with Fiat collapsed because the Italians and the Americans could not agree about control, and control is at the centre of the debate. After the talks collapsed in November, I do not believe that Ford came knocking on the door. The Secretary of State said not that that had happened, but that he was approached. From the information that I have been given, the fact is that the door was opened already and the company was beckoned inside by the British Government. The Department of Trade and Industry was asking Ford to look at Austin Rover.
  From Ford's point of view, a takeover of Austin Rover does not make sense. A merger between Ford and Fiat might make sense because they have complementary ranges, but Ford and Austin Rover have competitive ranges and competitive products competing in the same markets. It does not make sense for Ford to take over Austin Rover unless it wants to close some production facilities. Ford is buying market share. It will not want extra factories. The president of Ford Europe has told the world that there is over-capacity in motor manufacturing in Europe. The company has four factories in Europe—one each at Cologne, Valencia, Dagenham and Halewood. It is stretching our credulity to the limit to ask us to believe that Ford knocked on the Government's door and said that it wanted to take over two more factories at Longbridge
  344
  and Cowley. I do not believe it. If Ford takes over Austin Rover, there will be both job losses and closures of factories. It will not maintain all four factories in the United Kingdom. It does not need those four factories in the United Kingdom. Where will the jobs go? Will they go at Dagenham, Halewood. Longbridge in Birmingham or Cowley in Oxford? We should be told.
  I am not suggesting that the jobs will be lost before the general election, but after it. We want to know when and where they will be lost before the general election.
  Ford also has a little research and development in Dunton in Essex. Research and development and design should not be shrugged off by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, because they are critical for the retention of manufacturing industry. We are not simply making a nationalistic point. Technology, experience and skills are transferred from industry to industry. Just as the motor industry is applying techniques that were learnt in the aerospace industry, so the same techniques will cross the boundaries between industries into our remaining engineering and manufacturing industries. We want those techniques because otherwise we shall be left with unskilled work, which means opportunities only for an unskilled work force.
  Already the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is complaining about reductions in scientific research. What is the point of increasing scientific research, if we do not have research and development to apply the fruits of that research? And proximity to design is essential for a component manufacturer. If we do not retain the design of motor cars, the future is bleak for Lucas, GKN and all the small component manufacturers. We are considering more than 500,000 jobs at Austin Rover, Ford and in component manufacturing.
  So far, jobs in the dealer network have not been mentioned. What will happen to Austin Rover dealers, and all the small business men who vote Conservative? If Ford took over Austin Rover, it would have two dealers networks selling competitive ranges. Ford would not keep them both. It began the cuts in dealerships in the 1960s, followed by Chrysler, British Leyland and General Motors. Ford let the importers in by freeing the dealers to import French, German and Italian cars. Will they repeat a previous mistake?
  On a similar point, what will happen to the Austin Rover dealers who have been selling Sherpa vans? In too quick a response, the Secretary of State said that Freight Rover would go to General Motors. If it does, from where will Austin Rover dealers get their vans? If the Government tell us that they can get the Sherpa vans from General Motors, who will make them in future, why cannot General Motors get Land Rovers from British Leyland and sell them in that way in the United States?
  We do not need a takeover, an acquisition or a merger to expand and extend British motor manufacturing industry. The heart of the matter is: who will take the decisions about who has the markets? Who will decide where production takes place, and whose cars are sold abroad? American control means that the American parent company, the American multinational motor manufacturer, will take decisions about British subsidiaries. What will happen to the sales of Land Rover abroad? Are we being asked to believe that the American Government win not tell General Motors not to sell Land Rover to Libya? Of course they will. But the point is not whether Land

  345
  Rovers should be sold to Libya or South Africa, but where the decisions should be taken; and they should not be made in Michigan.
  The Ford and Fiat deal fell through because the Italians would not accept American control. That has been openly admitted. Why then will our Government accept American control?
  We are not talking about privatisation, or the links that the Secretary of State mentioned, or collaboration. He twitted my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) by saying that the Labour party advocated collaboration. We do, but this is not collaboration. It is a takeover. This is not a link, but an old-fashioned merger which will give the United States control. That is why we object.
  And what about the effect on Honda? Austin Rover has a collaboration agreement with Honda. Who has talked to Honda about that? I understand that that agreement includes a clause which allows Honda to withdraw from collaboration with Austin Rover, if any talks take place about a merger of Austin Rover with any other motor manufacturer. Who checked that Honda would not cancel its collaboration with British Leyland? Will the new Rover XX be the last of that line?
  Then we come to the real issue. While the British Government were publishing the British Leyland corporate plan six months ago and talking about collaboration with Honda in public, they were talking to American motor manufacturers in private about takeovers. Once again, the second time since Christmas, we have a clear example of the Government pursuing one policy in public and another in private.
  7.25 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Morrison): The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said that he thought the debate would be angry. There have been strong feelings and emotions, but no anger. I understand those strong feelings and emotions, because we are discussing the future of part of the British vehicle industry, which employs tens of thousands of people and affects many others.
  It is surprising that some hon. Members apparently want to stop the world. Would that we could. It would be easier for the Government, but we cannot. I am not a pessimist—that has been imputed to some members of the Government—about the car industry, provided that we look ahead. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) that any delay will be damaging.
  The question that we must address is: can or should BL continue as it is, whether in public or private ownership? I believe that it cannot do so. Even if it could, it should not, because in today's world standing still means dropping backwards. Despite its progress, it is a small company exposed on the world stage. If it continues as it is, there will be a risk that it will slowly but surely expose taxpayers to even greater potential liabilities, with no certainty of success.
  Many customers want to buy British, as they have done with Ford for 75 years, Vauxhall for 83 years and Bedford for 55 years. I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who
  346
  was worried that the profits of General Motors would return to the United States. During the past decade GM has invested more than £1,200 million in the United Kingdom, including trading losses of £370 million. That is the record of a company which is committed to the United Kingdom. Ford has invested more than £1,000 million during the past five years, which is more than £100 million more than the profits generated. Of the profits generated, it has paid £450 million in tax to the United Kingdom. In both cases—five years and 10 years—their record is good.
  GM and Ford employ about 80,000 people —a significant number. The Opposition's remarks were amazing. Whether we like it or not, difficult decisions must now be made. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), who has not been called to speak, feels strongly about these matters. If we miss our chance, we could be throwing away a golden opportunity to build on the foundations that have been laid. If we do not build on those foundations, we may never build.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Morrison: I shall not give way.
  I cannot see what is wrong with a potential foreign partnership and ownership. We make investments in the United States, and I should have thought that we would welcome United States' investments in the United Kingdom, because they secure jobs, bring jobs and create exports.
  There are three separate issues. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) referred to Leyland Buses and to Leyland Trucks. I agree with his comments about the unions. I have seen the unions, and I know that they take a constructive view. My hon. Friend will be aware that the BL board supported the current discussions with the Laird group.
  Mr. John Mark Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Morrison: Last year, Leyland Trucks suffered substantial losses, although the losses were less than in 1984. It has negative cash flows, and market conditions remain difficult. Freight Rover and Land Rover are perceived as being highly profitable, but they are not as profitable as some would have us believe. Leyland Trucks has been going through difficult times. If the divisions are to grow and realise their substantial potential, they must generate sufficient profits to sustain the heavy investment required nowadays to launch new models and remain abreast of the competition.
  Mr. John Mark Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Morrison: I am coming to my hon. Friend's point.
  If General Motors' offer goes ahead, the British companies will have the benefits of financial strength, enormous experience of resources and technical back-up as new products are developed. As some of my colleagues have pointed out, the British companies will have worldwide marketing outlets and a large market in the United States, which has not, to date, been available to them. The potential of the new jobs that could be created at Solihull, if Land Rover and Range Rover can be sold in volume in the United States, is significant. I apologise

  347
  to my hon. Friend the member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) for not giving Way. I knew that I was getting to the point which I think he wanted me to raise.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) pointed out, We are prepared to look at any option with respect to Austin Rover. We are not prepared to hawk Austin Rover around the market place. We have a proposal and options which the Labour party say we should not even explore. I should have thought that, With ARG having a market Share in Europe of only 3·9 percent., and with Ford being a company with one of the most comprehensive sales and distribution networks in Europe, that must be the route to consider.
  The Opposition argue that we should say to Ford, "Go away. We are not interested in finding out the facts or ascertaining whether there will be an industrial and commercial benefit." That simply does not add up. The Labour party will go on regardless, paying taxpayers' money into the company. We now know that the Labour is totally anti-American. At this stage, we should negotiate as best we can.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 324.

  Division No. 61]

  [7.35 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Donald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Deakins, Eric

  Ashton, Joe

  Dewar, Donald

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Dixon, Donald

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dobson, Frank

  Barnett, Guy

  Dormand, Jack

  Barron, Kevin

  Douglas, Dick

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Dubs, Alfred

  Bell, Stuart

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eadie, Alex

  Blair, Anthony

  Eastham, Ken

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

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

  Boyes, Roland

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ewing, Harry

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Faulds, Andrew

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

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

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

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Fisher, Mark

  Buchan, Norman

  Flannery, Martin

  Caborn, Richard

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Forrester, John

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Foster, Derek

  Campbell, Ian

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Garrett, W. E.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  George, Bruce

  Clarke, Thomas

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clay, Robert

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Gould, Bryan

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Gourlay, Harry

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hardy, Peter

  Conlan, Bernard

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Corbett, Robin

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Haynes, Frank

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Craigen, J. M.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Crowther, Stan

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Home Robertson, John

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  348

  Howells, Geraint

  Prescott, John

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  John, Brynmor

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robertson, George

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Rogers, Allan

  Lambie, David

  Rooker, J. W.

  Lamond, James

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Ryman, John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Loyden, Edward

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  McCartney, Hugh

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

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  McGuire, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

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

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Snape, Peter

  McTaggart, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  McWilliam, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Madden, Max

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Marek, Dr John

  Stott, Roger

  Martin, Michael

  Strang, Gavin

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Maxton, John

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Michie, William

  Tinn, James

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Torney, Tom

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wareing, Robert

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Weetch, Ken

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Welsh, Michael

  Nellist, David

  White, James

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wigley, Dafydd

  O'Brien, William

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wilson, Gordon

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Winnick, David

  Park, George

  Woodall, Alec

  Parry, Robert

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Patchett, Terry

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  Pike, Peter

  Mr. Ron Davies.

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Body, Sir Richard

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Alexander, Richard

  Bottomley, Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

  Amess, David

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Ancram, Michael

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Arnold, Tom

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Ashby, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brinton, Tim

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Browne, John

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

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Baldry, Tony

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Batiste, Spencer

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Bellingham, Henry

  Budgen, Nick

  Bendall, Vivian

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic

  Burt, Alistair

  Benyon, William

  Butcher, John

  Best, Keith

  Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Butterfill, John

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Blackburn, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  349

  Cash, William

  Hirst, Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Holt, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howard, Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

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

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Conway, Derek

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Coombs, Simon

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Cope, John

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Corrie, John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Couchman, James

  Irving, Charles

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Crouch, David

  Jessel, Toby

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunn, Robert

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Durant, Tony

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Knowles, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Knox, David

  Evennett, David

  Lamont, Norman

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lang, Ian

  Fallon, Michael

  Latham, Michael

  Favell, Anthony

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Forth, Eric

  Lightbown, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lilley, Peter

  Fox, Marcus

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Franks, Cecil

  Lord, Michael

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Freeman, Roger

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  McCrindle, Robert

  Galley, Roy

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maclean, David John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Gorst, John

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

  Gow, Ian

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Madel, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Major, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Malins, Humfrey

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Malone, Gerald

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Maples, John

  Grist, Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Ground, Patrick

  Marlow, Antony

  Grylls, Michael

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Mates, Michael

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mellor, David

  Hannam, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Harris, David

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Hayes, J.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hayward, Robert

  Moate, Roger

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Henderson, Barry

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hickmet, Richard

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Hicks, Robert

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hill, James

  Murphy, Christopher

  Hind, Kenneth

  Neale, Gerrard

  350

  Nelson, Anthony

  Speller, Tony

  Neubert, Michael

  Spence, John

  Newton, Tony

  Spencer, Derek

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Norris, Steven

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Squire, Robin

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Osborn, Sir John

  Stern, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Stokes, John

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Parris, Matthew

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pollock, Alexander

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Porter, Barry

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Powley, John

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Price, Sir David

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Thurnham, Peter

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Raffan, Keith

  Tracey, Richard

  Rathbone, Tim

  Trippier, David

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Renton, Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Viggers, Peter

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Waddington, David

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Walden, George

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Waller, Gary

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Walters, Dennis

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Ward, John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Warren, Kenneth

  Ryder, Richard

  Watts, John

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Wheeler, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Whitfield, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Whitney, Raymond

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wilkinson, John

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Woodcock, Michael

  Silvester, Fred

  Yeo, Tim

  Sims, Roger

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mr. Carol Mather and

  Speed, Keith

  Mr. Robert Boscawen.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on Amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 211.

  Division No. 62]

  [7.48 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Alexander, Richard

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

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Ancram, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arnold, Tom

  Bendall, Vivian

  Ashby, David

  Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Best, Keith

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  351

  Blackburn, John

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hannam, John

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

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

  Harris, David

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Hayes, J.

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hayward, Robert

  Brinton, Tim

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Henderson, Barry

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hickmet, Richard

  Browne, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hill, James

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Hind, Kenneth

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hirst, Michael

  Budgen, Nick

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Burt, Alistair

  Holt, Richard

  Butcher, John

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

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

  Butterfill, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

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

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Cash, William

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Chope, Christopher

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Churchill, W. S.

  Jessel, Toby

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Coombs, Simon

  Key, Robert

  Cope, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Corrie, John

  Knowles, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Knox, David

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lamont, Norman

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lang, Ian

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Latham, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dunn, Robert

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Durant, Tony

  Lee John (Pendle)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Evennett, David

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lightbown, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Lilley, Peter

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Lord, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Forth, Eric

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Marcus

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Franks, Cecil

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Maclean, David John

  Freeman, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Gale, Roger

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

  Galley, Roy

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Madel, David

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Major, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Malone, Gerald

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Maples, John

  Gorst, John

  Marland, Paul

  Gow, Ian

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mates, Michael

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gregory, Conal

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Grist, Ian

  Mellor, David

  Ground, Patrick

  Merchant, Piers

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  352

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Speed, Keith

  Moate, Roger

  Speller, Tony

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Spence, John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Spencer, Derek

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Squire, Robin

  Murphy, Christopher

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Steen, Anthony

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stern, Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Newton, Tony

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stokes, John

  Norris, Steven

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Parris, Matthew

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Pollock, Alexander

  Thurnham, Peter

  Porter, Barry

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Powley, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Trippier, David

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Raffan, Keith

  Viggers, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waddington, David

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Renton, Tim

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Waller, Gary

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Walters, Dennis

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Ward, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Watts, John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Wheeler, John

  Ryder, Richard

  Whitfield, John

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Whitney, Raymond

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Wilkinson, John

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wood, Timothy

  Scott, Nicholas

  Woodcock, Michael

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Silvester, Fred

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. Carol Mather and

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mr. Robert Boscawen.

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Boyes, Roland

  Alton, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Anderson, Donald

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Ashdown, Paddy

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

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Buchan, Norman

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Caborn, Richard

  Barnett, Guy

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Barron, Kevin

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Ian

  Beith, A. J.

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Bell, Stuart

  Canavan, Dennis

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Blair, Anthony

  Cartwright, John

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  353

  Clarke, Thomas

  Hardy, Peter

  Clay, Robert

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cohen, Harry

  Haynes, Frank

  Coleman, Donald

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Conlan, Bernard

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howells, Geraint

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Craigen, J. M.

  Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

  Crowther, Stan

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Deakins, Eric

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Dewar, Donald

  John, Brynmor

  Dixon, Donald

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dobson, Frank

  Kennedy, Charles

  Dormand, Jack

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Douglas, Dick

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Dubs, Alfred

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lambie, David

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Lamond, James

  Eadie, Alex

  Leighton, Ronald

  Eastham, Ken

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Litherland, Robert

  Ewing, Harry

  Livsey, Richard

  Fatchett, Derek

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Loyden, Edward

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Fisher, Mark

  McGuire, Michael

  Flannery, Martin

  McKelvey, William

  Forrester, John

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Foster, Derek

  Maclennan, Robert

  Foulkes, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  McWilliam, John

  Freud, Clement

  Madden, Max

  Garrett, W. E.

  Marek, Dr John

  George, Bruce

  Martin, Michael

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Maxton, John

  Gourlay, Harry

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Meacher, Michael

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Hancock, Michael

  Michie, William

  354

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

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

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

  Nellist, David

  Snape, Peter

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Soley, Clive

  O'Brien, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Neill, Martin

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Stott, Roger

  Park, George

  Strang, Gavin

  Parry, Robert

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Patchett, Terry

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Pendry, Tom

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Penhaligon, David

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Pike, Peter

  Tinn, James

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Torney, Tom

  Prescott, John

  Wainwright, R.

  Radice, Giles

  Wallace, James

  Randall, Stuart

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Redmond, Martin

  Wareing, Robert

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Weetch, Ken

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Welsh, Michael

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  White, James

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Robertson, George

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Wilson, Gordon

  Rogers, Allan

  Winnick, David

  Rooker, J. W.

  Woodall, Alec

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Ryman, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Allen McKay, and

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Mr. Ron Davies

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes with approval the Government's continuing determination to work towards a viable and internationally competitive automotive industry located in the United Kingdom; and endorses the view that, subject to satisfactory terms and conditions, the merger of the commercial vehicle activities of Land Rover, Leyland and Bedford would contribute to that objective and provide the best prospects for secure long-term employment in the industry.

  Women (Cancer Screening)
  8 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the lamentable failure of the Government to make sure that every woman at risk of cervical cancer is covered by a computerised call and recall screening system with adequate laboratory back-up, as recommended in 1981 by the Committee on Gynaecological Cytology, because this failure has led to thousands of deaths which would have been avoided had successive Ministers shown a real commitment and provided the necessary resources in good time; and calls upon the Government to commit itself now to implement fully and swiftly any recommendations on breast cancer screening it receives from the expert working group established in July last year.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Since this debate is starting very late, may I again appeal for short speeches, from both the Front Benches and the Back Benches?
  Mr. Dobson: The Government's failure has led to the deaths of thousands of women which could have been avoided if successive Tory Health Ministers had shown a real commitment and provided the necessary resources in good time. Much of our general criticism of the Government's health record springs from the fact that we have different health policies. The Opposition are committed to the National Health Service. The Government are committed to promoting commercial medicine. But in the case of cervical cancer there is no political difference. Everybody is agreed that we need a comprehensive screening system in this country that covers all women at risk. We have not got such a system, and it is the Government's fault that we have not got it. They stand condemned on every ground. They have been shifty, complacent and negligent. They have failed to heed their expert advisers.
  In 1981 the committee on gynaecological cytology recommended the abandonment of the outdated national recall scheme and the establishment of computerised systems in every part of the country, not just to recall those women who had previously had smear tests but to call for the first time those who had never had a smear. This recommendation got off to a bad start because when the committee's proposals were reported to the House on 20 November 1981 by the then junior Health Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg); he did not even mention the introduction of a call system, even to reject it.
  The Department of Health and Social Security consultative documents and circulars then went to absolutely ludicrous lengths to avoid mentioning the crucial recommendation about the initial call. In the event, the Government advised health authorities to set up local recall schemes. However, the Government took so little interest in the subject after 1981 that they do not have the faintest idea of how many authorities have introduced even the limited recall schemes that they recommended.
  In May 1984 the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) asserted that the outdated national scheme was replaced
  "last year with local recall schemes."
  This was not true. A survey carried out on my behalf and published less than a year ago showed that of the 201 health authorities in England and Wales, only seven had
  356
  call and recall schemes, while 77 had no scheme at all. The rest were somewhere in between. The Government never disputed that survey. They could not do so because it was accurate. And in any case they could not challenge the figures because they had none of their own.
  On 18 March 1985 the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said that it was not true that the Government had not got the information. He said that they had got it through direct contact with health authorities and that the Government were preparing a systematic questionnaire which would soon be issued so that they could compare the standards achieved by every health authority. By 19 December 1985, this was revealed by the new Minister to be not so systematic, after all. It was not designed, he said, for summary and publication. The only alternative explanations are that it was so sloppily drafted as to be useless or that the results were so embarrassing that he dared not disclose them.
  On Monday of this week the Minister finally admitted that according to the last check by the DHSS only 13 health authorities were operating computerised call and recall schemes and that he did not intend to make a further check on progress until June of this year.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I accept entirely my hon. Friend's proposition, but will he take it from me that the Government do not need to wait until there is a countrywide system in place? There are group practices —for example, the group practice in my constituency of which I am a patient — which have computerised services for exactly this purpose. That ought to be encouraged.
  Mr. Dobson: But the Government, as my hon. and medically learned Friend knows, are not giving any such encouragement. It is not just that the Government have not set up call and recall schemes. After the smears have been taken they need to be processed in the pathology laboratories to establish whether there are signs of pre-cancer. There are massive delays in the laboratories of all three countries.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That is not true.
  Mr. Dobson: On 29 April 1985 the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said that the Government intended to improve the effectiveness of laboratory facilities for processing smears and that he would be discussing with the professions and the health authorities how best to achieve that aim. He made that promise on behalf of the right hon. and hon. Members who are now sitting on the Treasury Bench, so it would be a good idea if they listened to this.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that in our pathology laboratories the smears are processed within four days. People are notified about whether they are negative or positive within four days.
  Mr. Donald Coleman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We cannot have intervention upon intervention. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to reply to one intervention at a time.
  Mr. Dobson: All I can say to the hon. Lady, who represents a constituency in Lancashire—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: It is the county town.
  Mr. Dobson: I thought Preston was the county town of Lancashire.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: That is another error that the hon. Gentleman has made.
  Mr. Dobson: Then all I can say is that the hon. Lady and the women in her constituency are unusually fortunate.
  Mr. Coleman: Does my hon. Friend recollect that earlier today he appeared on a television news programme during which we were shown a pathology laboratory in this country that contained stacks and stacks of unexamined slides? Were we not told in that programme by the pathologist that this was the experience in all parts of the country?
  Mr. Dobson: I cannot confirm what was shown on that programme, because my only contribution to it was my interview. I did not see the rest of the programme. However, if the programme was accurate, it would have been able to show film that indicated that there are enormous delays all over the country.
  Mr. Robert Litherland: I spoke today to Dr. Yule of the cytology department at the Christie hospital. He told me that there is a seven weeks' delay, that 35,000 women are waiting for smear results, that this is causing grave anxiety and that over 100 of the tests could be positive. I was also told that the hospital's funding is the same now as it was in 1976.
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend has stolen a bit of my thunder. I shall deal later with some of the Manchester details. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said that the Government intended to improve the effectiveness of laboratory facilities and that they would be discussing with the professions and the health authorities how best to achieve it. However, on 18 December 1985 the present Minister for Health told me that specific discussions with health authorities on that issue were not proposed. He had previously told me that he did not know what was the average time taken to process a smear and that he could not list those authorities that had asked clinics or doctors to suspend taking smears because of backlogs in laboratories. He even told me that he did not expect health authorities to express concern to him about delays in processing cervical smears. Clearly he shares the Prime Minister's Orwellian view that ignorance is strength.
  What is the position? In the absence of a detailed and comprehensive survey by his officials, I shall give the Minister a few examples. I confirm the information given by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) that at the Christie hospital, which supplies a service for most of the north west, there is a backlog of 35,000 smears, about seven weeks' work; the backlog used to be two weeks. At Sutton Coldfield, which the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services purports to represent, there is a three-month backlog. In Plymouth there is a two-month backlog. In Nottingham the backlog is two to three months. In Kent a person has to wait four months for the result. There is a three-month backlog in Norfolk and Norwich where I understand that slides have had to be stored in an empty garage. When a smear shows signs of pre-cancer a delay of even a few months can be vital. Unnecessary delays are occurring. In
  358
  many districts doctors have been asked from time to time to reduce the number of smears taken because the laboratories cannot cope.
  As in England and Wales, the position in Scotland shows enormous variations. Lothian health board has delays of 10 to 12 weeks. It can no longer do laboratory work that it used to carry out for the Fife health board. Greater Glasgow health board returns its results to doctors within seven days. It almost goes without saying that Tory Ministers constantly chide Greater Glasgow for what they call overspending and inefficiency while praising what they refer to as the efficiency and frugality of the Lothian board. Only fools and accountants see it in that way.
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is not giving all the facts. Not only is there not a Scottish Minister present, but there is not even one Conservative Member from Scotland here for the debate although the figures for Scotland are probably worse than those for the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Dobson: In view of the relative lack of Tory Members from Scotland, anyway, if one was present they would probably be over-represented when we see the throng on the Tory Benches.
  The Government should have anticipated the problem in the laboratories and should have got to work in 1981 to make sure that enough laboratory staff were being trained to meet the demand. It takes from one to three years to train a laboratory scientist. The Government did not act in time. So all of us are faced with a crisis. The position is now so bad that the Institute of Medical Laboratory Sciences has organised a meeting for this weekend to discuss the subject "Cytology—From Crisis to Crisis".
  To meet the crisis, some health authorities have been forced to farm the work out to commercial laboratories. I advise them to take care. Quality control tests on one commercial laboratory showed that it picked up one positive smear in five, while another commercial laboratory actually lost some of the slides that it was supposed to be looking after. If even the best placed authorities can scarcely cope with the current demand for laboratory facilities, what will happen as call and recall schemes come into operation? The chairman of the British Society for Clinical Cytology recently wrote to me to say that that would be the last straw unless adequate staff were appointed and trained.
  In the face of all that, the Minister appeared on a "Newsnight" programme on 18 December, offering great sympathy to those who had developed cancer because his predecessors had failed to act. Sympathy is not enough. Action to put things right in future is wanted. The Government should use their powers to oblige health authorities to set up comprehensive schemes covering all women at risk. They should take immediate steps to ensure that enough laboratory staff are recruited and trained. They should provide the necessary extra funding and earmark those funds for the purpose. Nothing less will do.
  Much more needs to be done in the long term. The present screening system is often described as preventive. It is not; it is a surveillance system intended to pick up signs of cervical cancer before it does its damage.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that if

  359
  administrative staff are cut by as much as 30 per cent. throughout the hospital service there will be no one to operate a recall system of any kind?
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, because Ministers have confessed in answer to questions that administrative staff play an important part in providing direct services for patients. This is one of the services they provide.
  In the longer term there should be an effort to do more research into the causes of cancer so that it can be prevented rather than diagnosed at an early stage. More work needs to be done to find out whether there is more than a statistical link between smoking and cervical cancer. More needs to be done to verify or disprove the suggestion that barrier types of contraception seem to reduce the chances of cervical cancer. More effort needs to be put into the development of machines which can read smear slides quicker and more accurately than the laboratory scientist with a binocular microscope.
  Dedicated doctors, laboratory scientists, nurses, computing and administrative staff and researchers are eager to take on all those tasks. The only people not showing any commitment are Ministers and officials of the Department of Health and Social Security. The British Medical Association told me yesterday that the DHSS had not consulted the medical profession until a couple of weeks ago, despite the fact that the BMA had been calling for a meeting for almost a year. Ironically, the meeting was arranged for today and had to be cancelled because of the debate. That shows the effort that has been put into the discussions which the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe promised in April.
  Almost everybody concerned wants to do things properly. We should ensure that older women who have not had a smear test get them because most older women who die of cervical cancer have never had tests. Clearly effort needs to be concentrated there. That must not mean that younger women get less attention, particularly as there is evidence that some of them are affected by a more virulent, swift-acting cancer.
  Considerable doubts are developing about the interval between tests being as long as five years. Many people think that it would be safer to shorten the interval to three years. No one supports the preposterous suggestion made by the Minister on "Newsnight" that a 10-year interval might be all right for younger women.
  The Minister might be forgiven for feeling that it is unfair to visit on him the sins of his predecessors, but he cannot shirk responsibility when he is about to ask the House to accept the grotesque complacency of the Government's amendment which invites us to commend
  "the Government for its positive action to ensure that by 1988 all health districts will have computerised call and recall systems and adequate laboratory back up".
  Even if all the schemes were in operation by 1988—a dodgy suggestion anyway—if the Government were to stick to the five-year interval between smears that would mean that the last woman called for screening would get her computer card in 1993, 12 years after the committee for gynaecological cytology first made its recommendations. Even the skills of Saatchi and Saatchi would be stretched to the limit to turn into a triumph a promise to deliver something 12 years late.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has rightly referred in depth to cervical cancer.
  360
  Will he be dealing with screening for breast cancer which is so important given the progress that has been made in Sweden? The Committee that is investigating the Swedish experience must produce its report rapidly so that it can be implemented since 12,000 women a year are dying from that form of cancer.
  Mr. Dobson: The logical structure of my speech must have prompted the hon. Gentleman to raise the point that I am about to make in my next sentence. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) will concentrate particularly on breast cancer.
  That takes us to the Government's welcome, if somewhat belated, decision in July last year to set up an expert working group to advise them on breast cancer screening. Its members and every woman in the United Kingdom will be hoping that when the group comes up with workable recommendations they will be implemented quickly and in full, not half-heartedly, slowly and patchily like the experts' recommendations on cervical cancer. We want the Government to commit themselves tonight to implement quickly and fully whatever the breast cancer experts recommend.
  The Government's record on cervical cancer is a disgrace—a lot of words, little action and less money. What the women of this country demand is the same protection that is available to women in many parts of Scandinavia and North America. That would not just save the lives of at least 1,000 women a year; it would save tens of thousands more from worry and concern. Many more lives and worries would be saved by a comprehensive breast cancer screening programme. Neither will cost much money. We all know what needs to be done. What we want now is for the Government to do it.
  8.21 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'commends the Government for its positive action to ensure that by 1988 all health districts will have computerised call and recall systems and adequate laboratory back up for cervical cancer screening; and welcomes the establishment of an expert working group to examine urgently the available evidence on breast cancer screening and to propose a range of policy options for implementation within the National Health Service.'.
  I regret the absurdly exaggerated and emotive language of the motion moved by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and his speech, but I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss these issues today.
  There is no need to underline the vital importance of the matters which will be covered in this debate, so I want to start by reminding the House of the facts as regards both of these forms of cancer. I then want to say something about the position we have reached in improving the effectiveness of cervical screening, and the plans that we have for advancing it further. I shall also deal with the role of screening in the detection of breast cancer, and what the Government have done to get the best scientific advice on the need and how it should be met.
  Unlike the hon. Gentleman, my world does not begin in 1979. I do remember and have researched much further back. When one looks at the record, only he can explain how he could have had the bare-faced impudence to stand up today and make the criticisms that he did, speaking from the Front Bench for a party with its record in this affair.

  361
  The issue is of great importance. Cervical cancer claims the lives of 2,000 women each year. I am advised that breast cancer claims the lives of 13,000—not 12,000, as referred to by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Together they represent about 5 per cent. of women's deaths in Britain. In neither case does the knowledge exist to prevent those diseases.
  The effectiveness of early detection of cervical cancer by screening is not at issue. Since 1966, when the Labour Goverment introduced a screening programme, that has continued in one form or another. In recent years doubts about its effectiveness have grown. Whereas the previous Labour Government did little, if anything to improve matters, this Government have not only been concerned that the programme has not made the impact on mortality which might have been expected from experience abroad, but have taken action to improve matters. I stress, because of the very party political nature of what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was saying, that the previous Labour Government did nothing.
  The national manual recall system operated by the NHS central register at Southport, established well over a decade ago early in the 1970s, has proved ineffective. Very low rates of recall were being achieved. Following advice from the committee on gynaecological cytology and after consultation with health authorities in 1981, the central scheme was wound up and health authorities asked to introduce local recall systems.
  The health service circular—HC(81)14—issued in December 1981 made it clear that local recall systems were to be introduced by 1 April 1983. Advice was given to health authorities on the elements of a simple recall system which could be operated manually. It was not essential for health authorities to have a computer in order to introduce an effective system.
  In 1984, after looking at the programme again, the Government issued further advice aimed at improving its effectiveness. They were concerned that although the screening programme had been in operation for nearly 20 years, it had had very little demonstrable impact on the number of deaths from cervical cancer. They were also concerned that there had been an observed increase in the number of cases of cervical cancer in women under 35.
  The expert committee on gynaecological cytology had been asked to consider all the available evidence on the desirable age and frequency of screening. The CGC concluded that the women most at risk were still those over age 35, with 94 per cent. of deaths occurring in this age group.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister accept that there has been a dramatic rise in the number of young women who are suffering from carcinoma in situ and it is noticeable that the 60 per cent. rise hides a 117 per cent. rise in that particular age group who are much more at risk? There is now a real epidemic in that age group.
  Mr. Hayhoe: I was reporting the advice of the expert committee, the CGC, in 1984. At that time it observed that the majority of women who developed invasive cervical cancer had never been screened. It concluded that population screening had failed to reduce mortality not because the policy was wrong, but because it had not been
  362
  properly implemented. Those important conclusions were set out clearly for the guidance of the NHS in the Health Service circular, HC(84)17, issued in July 1984.
  That circular gave clear guidance on the priorities for screening, and I think it covers the point made by the hon. Lady. Those were women over 35 and those who had been pregnant on three or more occasions. They were to be screened at age 35 and every five years thereafter until age 65. Those under 35 who were or had been sexually active were also to be screened at regular five-yearly intervals.
  The circular also gave clear advice to authorities to determine how local resources could be used most effectively. They were invited to consider the use of health education campaigns and the way the service might be provided so as to encourage the women at greatest risk to use it.
  Further emphasis was given to the need to have recall systems. Such recall systems were clearly the best way of ensuring that all the women in the priority group who had come forward for screening were recalled at the appropriate time. The response of health authorities to this advice remained a matter of departmental concern. In 1985, therefore, my predecessor as Minister for Health announced yet a further set of initiatives. The catalyst, as the House will recall, for this announcement was the unfortunate and tragic events at Oxford where deaths occurred.
  My right hon. and learned Friend, the Minister for Health, issued further advice to health authorities in April 1985. That had two main aims. First, it gave health authorities a check list against which to review urgently the organisation and effectiveness of their screening programmes.
  Secondly, it asked them to introduce call systems in addition to the recall systems already required. They were asked to make immediate plans to introduce those computerised systems under arrangements made with family practitioner committees. That had become a practical and viable approach. Standard computer software had, with DHSS support, been developed by the Exeter family practioner services computer unit. It was stressed that the use of those systems had to be co-ordinated with the availability of laboratory services. My right hon. and learned Friend also announced that discussions with the professions and health authorities would be held on other measures for improving the effectiveness of the existing policy.
  The particular points that my right hon. and learned Friend had in mind were to see in what other ways women most at risk could be reached; how the effectiveness of laboratory services for processing smears could be improved; and to explore ways of ensuring that there is always effective follow-up of abnormal results. The latter point arose directly from the problems experienced at Oxford.
  Since April 1985 we have had feedback from authorities following the review that we asked them to conduct. This is the point that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras mentioned about questionaires. It became clear that many authorities were not proposing to proceed fast enough with the introduction of computerised call and recall systems.
  As regards the effectiveness of laboratories, it also became apparent from discussions my right hon. and learned Friend had with British Society for Clinical Cytology that in many parts of the country there were

  363
  unacceptable backlogs in laboratory treatment of smears. Health authorities had not attached and were not attaching sufficient priority to the cervical screening programme and its needs.
  As the House knows, each year Ministers review service priorities and then notify health authorities of any changes. The same circular gives regional authorities their resource assumptions. The 1986 circular has recently been issued. Item 6 is headed "Service priorities",. Item 6a, headed "Cervical cancer screening" states:
  "Ministers require Authorities to give priority to improving cervical cancer screening programmes (HC(84)17 and DA(85)8 refer). This should include ensuring that laboratories can meet demand and avoid backlogs (which should not regularly exceed one month's work) and arrangements are made with FPCs to implement computerised call and recall systems, no later than 1987–88. Details of action to be taken to complete achievement of these goals should be included in regional short term programmes due in the Department on 31 December 1986; and short term programme outturn reports due with the Department on 30 June 1986 and subsequently should record progress towards full implementation."
  Thus, not only is cervical screening a national priority, but the whole apparatus for monitoring NHS performance is to be called upon to ensure that that priority is reflected in plans and action on the ground.
  Comments have been made about resources. The full implementation of computerised call and recall systems will not require major new resources. I am advised that the health authorities will require about £4 million to install the necessary systems.
  Similarly, if every health authority needed to employ another person in their laboratories it would cost about the same amount. This must be set in the context of the resources already being devoted to the cervical cancer screening programme, which are estimated at between £20 million and £30 million. The steps now taken will target this expenditure much more effectively.
  The overall cost must be put in the context of the extra £650 million which will be spent next year on the hospital and community health services, and the further increases of £470 million and £450 million outlined in the public expenditure White Paper, planned for the following two years.
  Mr. Litherland: Is the Minister aware that smears have been sent to private laboratories and even to other countries, such as Sweden and Holland? Where is the money coming from? If moneys can be afforded for that, why can they not be afforded for facilities in this country?
  Mr. Hayhoe: Getting the appropriate tests carried out in the most cost-effective and efficient way must be a matter for local decision. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman seeks to ensure the most cost-effective use of resources or whether he has some other consideration in mind. The most cost-effective use of resources, directed towards the needs of potential patients, must be the guide.
  In addition to the extra £650 million that I have mentioned for the next financial year, 1986–87, that will go to the hospital and community health services, authorities also have the benefit of their growing cost improvement programmes, which achieved £100 million worth of resources for extra deployment in 1984–85 and £150 million planned in 1985–86, and I expect them to achieve significantly better results in 1986–87.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to the "Newsnight" programme on 18 December. It shows the paucity of the material available to him that he has
  364
  sought to quote and exploit the highly selective extracts that were used from a 20-minute interview that I gave to the BBC. About three minutes were carefully sliced out — out of sequence — and portrayed in conditions that sometimes, I fear, one comes to expect from our television programmes. They tend not always to present matters in a wholly fair and impartial fashion. It was interesting, because the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that he gave an interview and he commented on the programme, even though he had not seen it. I said that I was available to be in the studio.
  Mr. Dobson: The programme in which I took part was today.
  Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman saw that programme, but the point I am making still stands. I was available to be interviewed live, but that offer was refused because they preferred to take a long film interview and slice it up. The hon. Gentleman sought to make his point. I have put it into context to show its worth.
  Much has been made by the hon. Gentleman about the fact that DHSS headquarters does not know the details of where and when laboratory backlogs occur. Such details are not collected centrally. We do not believe it right to use resources to seek information of that type.
  Ministers set health authorities clear priorities. I have pointed out the clear priority that has been given to cervical cancer screening in the coming year. Those priorities are reflected in the short-term programmes of district health authorities and, through the regional health authorities, they are monitored through a system of outturn reports every year. The introduction of general management and its development within the service will make better use of those resources and avoid some problems that have been referred to in the past, which flow from bad management and inadequate planning. I am as worried as others about the backlogs that are occurring in too many places. Health authorities have been told that they are expected to provide a service which regularly achieves an outturn of results within a month. The existing systematic accountability arrangements will give us the tools to ensure that those results are achieved.
  The hon. Gentleman dredged up the fact that I had postponed a meeting with the British Medical Association as clear evidence of my culpability and that of the Government. I must tell him that I meet the general medical services committee of the BMA from time to time. I understand from a letter, and I confirmed with the committee today, that it wished to tell me that the cervical cytology screening programme should be extended to include women aged over 20 at three-yearly intervals. That is not a new point. The expert committee on gynaecological cytology recommended five-yearly screening, but that advice will be reviewed at its meeting in April. It has been advised of the BMA's representations, and I am sure that they will be taken into account. Therefore, the points that the committee wished to put are already being considered.
  It is absurd and ludicrous to suggest that that committee was unwilling to put its views in written representation and advice that would be considered by officials and experts at the DHSS and that the meeting with me was crucial. Its views are being taken into account by the expert committees, and their reports will come to me.
  Reference has also been made to breast cancer. To date. cervical cancer is the only form of female cancer for which

  365
  mass screening is of proven value, but the prospects for the early detection of breast cancer are promising. Extensive trials on the effectiveness of different methods of breast cancer screening, funded by the Government, are in hand. The trials, which began in 1979 and are expected to report in 1988, cost about £750,000 a year and involve 250,000 women. They are part of a Government-funded research programme that also covers the economic, social and psychological aspects of mass screening.
  My officials and advisers keep in touch with the findings of overseas studies. Last year's report of the study conducted in Sweden appeared to remove many of the doubts previously attached to breast cancer screening by mammography.
  The fairest and most sensible comment made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was his tribute to the speedy action taken by my predecessor who, on behalf of other United Kingdom Health Ministers, established an expert working party under the chairmanship of Professor, now Sir, Patrick Forrest. We have received an interim report from Sir Patrick, copies of which I shall soon place in the Library. The interim report concluded that there is a convincing case on clinical grounds for a change in United Kingdom policy on the provison of mammographic facilities and the screening of symptomless women aged 50 and over. The report also concluded that it would not be sensible to introduce such screening on a United Kingdom basis without ensuring that the necessary back-up services were available.
  That is a preliminary view only of the group, and it will be considered in detail for its final report. In that report, the group is expected to set out policy options, their costs and benefits and overall implications for the NHS throughout the United Kingdom. The final report is expected later this year and, as with the interim report, copies will be placed in the Library and the Government will respond as quickly as possible.
  The Opposition motion and the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras show that this is nothing more or less than opportunistic politicking. However much criticisms of Government action since May 1979 may be justified—with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to make such points — it does not lie in the mouths of Labour party spokesmen to make those charges. They have nothing to boast about. Their fury shows the measure of their guilt. Apart from initiating cervical screening for women aged over 35 at five-yearly intervals in 1966 — 20 years ago—the Labour Governments of 1966–70 and 1974–79 have a record of complacency and inaction. In contrast, this Government's record is better. We have increased the number of cervical smears taken by 30 per cent. a year. Of course, I shall not be satisfied until the call and recall system that I have described is fully operational.
  Perhaps the debate will persuade more women —especially those who do not come forward in sufficient numbers, but who have been identified by the experts as a target group that one must persuade—to ask for tests. Indeed, we must persuade all women who meet the conditions to which I referred to do so. If the debate helps to persuade those women to come forward for testing, it will have been worth while. I hope that the House will
  366
  reject the Opposition motion and support the action that the Government are taking to deal with this important matter.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must echo Mr. Speaker's plea for brief speeches.
  8.47 pm
  Mrs. Renée Short: The Minister has the nerve to attack the Labour party for the shortcomings in this area of medicine. The Conservative Government have had six years in office to do something about it, but the amendment tabled by the Government shows that they do not even propose to introduce a recall system until 1988. It is scandalous. In the meantime, every surgeon to whom one talks and every leader in medical journals attacks the shortage of provision for dealing with cancer of the breast and cervical cancer. The Minister is trying to hide his inefficiency and the Government's refusal to provide the resources that are needed.
  In America, Sweden, Holland and many other countries, trials have been carried out on many thousands of women which have demonstrated conclusively the value of screening for breast cancer, on which I wish to concentrate. There has been a 30 to 40 per cent. reduction in the risk of dying from breast cancer within 10 years of detection, and there is no doubt that women who are involved in screening programmes have a lower mortailty rate from breast cancer than those who do not have that opportunity. It is accepted that the early detection of small tumours makes it possible to avoid removing the breast and may even reduce the need for radiotherapy. Early detection is the key to success.
  The Government so far have not been willing to introduce a proper screening programme for all women at risk in that age group. They claimed that the cost was prohibitive. In America, the cost of screening has been put at $12 for each patient and $2,000 for each cancer detected. The Canadian trial cost $25 for both mammography screening and clinical examinations. Here in Britain, the current estimate for mammography is £10 a patient. The Minister might want to comment on that figure later. To that figure must be added the cost of nurse and medical counselling to assist those women found to be positive. When one takes into account the savings in treatment of advanced cancer which would be avoided by early cure, clearly it is good value for money to introduce a screening programme.
  Screening requires very competent technical and clinical techniques. It therefore ought to be provided on the National Health Service where we can be confident that doctors, nurses and technicians will provide a high standard of service. I hope that the Minister will not be tempted to say that screening could also be provided in the private sector. Screening is not an area for private profit. There are skilled breast cancer teams here which are desperately frustrated at being unable to offer that service to women and they are very angry at the lack of resources to treat patients.
  The Minister told the House that he intends to set up, in conjunction with breast cancer treatment teams, mammographic screening units with their own computerised call and recall systems. A start ought to be made in NHS areas that have a good computerised family

  367
  practitioner committee report system and a breast cancer register. A start should be made immediately where the preparation has already been done.
  Our services are utterly inadequate. They will first have to be improved before a national breast cancer screening programme can be introduced. There should be a considerable increase in the number of consultant radiologists and radiographers. The Minister did not say anything about that. If we extend a screening programme, who will read the X-rays and who will operate on the patients who are found to be positive?
  At present, consultant radiologists are being appointed who have no experience in mammography. What are they supposed to do? Training facilities will be needed, particularly in high quality techniques, and mobile units could in due course provide screening for more women. Why is the Minister not proposing to have more mobile units where women can be screened quickly? Why is not the Minister proposing to set up such units in shopping centres, as many other counries do, where screening can be rapidly carried out?
  There is no doubt that screening for breast cancer can save lives. We need a screening service of high standards and more information to encourage informed public debate. Above all, we need to provide facilities that can treat and call women rapidly into the hospital service if they are found to be positive. Perhaps the Minister who is to reply will say what the Government intend to do to provide that resource. It is not enough just to screen; there must be follow-up and action.
  8.55 pm
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am certain that every woman in the land was shocked and horrified by the case to which my right hon. Friend the Minister referred in his opening remarks of the unfortunate Oxford woman who died after having her tests duly taken and who was not told of the outcome.
  To have a system of smears without a proper follow-up and notification is, in many ways, worse than having no smear programme at all. Women who have had the test and who then hear nothing are lulled into a false sense of security. I therefore welcome the great effort made by my right hon. and learned Friend the former Minister of Health to extend full facilities to the whole of the country. The programme outlined tonight reveals the positive actions which have been taken by the Government in picking up the broken and even non-existent pieces left by the Labour Government. The programme announced in April 1985 was intended to improve the standard of care in all districts to that of the best.
  I am fortunate, as I mentioned earlier, in coming from a district health authority which has always taken its responsibilities very seriously indeed. For the past 15 years, long before it became fashionable we have had a very tight recall system and we shall soon have a completely computerised family practitioner committee service. We are also fortunate in the speed with which tests are undertaken and results obtained. We have at Lancaster Moor hospital not only a top cytologist, Dr. Morris, but also an internationally known microbiologist, Dr. Telford.
  We hold cytology clinics whenever they are required. As soon as 20 people want a test—approximately every four days—a clinic is held. No one need wait more than four or five days. The clinics are held at a wide variety of places— baby clinics, gynaecology clinics and family
  368
  planning clinics. Local GPs pounce on the women who come into their surgeries for other reasons and whom they then persuade to have a smear test immediately. Nobody slips through the net. Results from our clinics are known within four days. All women seen at the clinics are informed of the results within four days.
  For historical reasons, some tests from my area are still sent to Christies where it is true that the waiting time is longer. I very much hope, as I have family connections with that hospital, that that problem will be overcome in the not too distant future. The coverage of women in our district is rising every year. It is essential that these high standards should be available to women wherever they live.
  A recent study was carried out in Manchester to discover why women who had developed invasive cancer of the cervix had not been detected at a pre-invasive stage by screening. By far the most common reason was that they had simply never been screened. That applied to two thirds of the total sample and four fifths of the women over 40 who were particularly at risk. Failure to follow up abnormal cytology results accounted for a horrifying 15 per cent. of deaths. That latter figure makes my blood boil. Actually to have the test and not be properly followed up is totally inexcusable.
  Health authorities have a responsibility to the whole of the population they serve. A five-yearly programme which reaches a high proportion of women, including older women, and which ensures action on those found positive, is clearly preferable in my view to repeated smears on a small number of women. I know that some younger women are developing very fast growing cancers. Even annual screening would not pick up all those as they are so fast growing. However, to get massive cover of the whole country is the first essential. That is why I welcome the initiative by my right hon. and learned Friend the former Minister of Health which is backed by the current Minister. I welcome the urgency with which the Government are following the initiative and monitoring progress by the various local health authorities.
  9 pm
  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: It is easy always to castigate the Government for not responding to every health need. Sometimes, but not often, I have a little sympathy for Ministers because the health sphere is one in which it is easiest to point out failings, as it is impossible for resources to match expectations.
  With cervical cancer, the results are conclusive. The Government purport to give priority to prevention but it is astonishing that they do not follow their words with better action. The evidence is conclusive. We have varying standards within the United Kingdom. Some health areas and districts perform better than others, screen more women and go beyond the guidelines to obtain better results.
  The evidence from abroad on screening is far more conclusive. In Scandinavia. where there is a more homogeneous population, the conclusions can be demonstrated. A national scheme was started in Iceland in 1960. Within 10 years it had reached 90 per cent. of women aged between 25 and 70. The aim was to screen them at two to three-yearly intervals. In 1978, the incidence of cervical cancer had decreased to 30 per cent. of the 1965 figure. Similarly, in Finland, screening reaches 90 per cent. of women aged between 30 and 59,

  369
  with a five-year recall interval. The incidence has been halved. Sweden offers four-yearly screening to women aged between 30 and 49. The incidence is down to 60 per cent. of its previous level. The crucial point is that in Norway where there is no national screening organisation incidence has increased. It is now 15 per cent. above the 1965 level.
  With such conclusive evidence, it is astonishing that the Government do not respond by extending screening. Evidence from this country suggests that where the payment to general practitioners operates according to the guide lines, and where the screening is within the intervals and age groups set out, the incidence of cervical cancer in those age groups is declining slowly. Presumably, there are some benefits from screening.
  As has been mentioned, the incidence of cervical cancer in younger women is increasing. Why do the Government not respond to the statistics by improving and increasing the screening of younger women?
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) mentioned breast cancer and the encouraging results in Sweden. If the results of the trials are as conclusive as they are for cervical cancer, and if there is clear evidence that there would be benefits from screening for breast cancer, will the Government undertake to introduce a scheme similar to that recommended for cervical cancer?
  Cost has been mentioned. I know that we did not have much notice of the debate, but within the time constraint I endeavoured to find whether there was any comparison of the cost of screening compared to the expensive intervention required later. I do not suggest that the cost is the most important factor. The human factor is far the most important. I could not find any evidence to suggest that there was no cost benefit from screening and prevention compared with the massive cost of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery. It is strange that the Government do not save money by increasing and improving screening.
  The importance placed on cost is shown by the fact that on 20 January the Leeds west district health authority minuted that it was looking for economies and that
  "cervical cytology must be kept within budget".
  If health authorities are so strapped for cash that they have to pass a minute which is looking for economies, it shows the desperate position in which they are. That is despite the fact that the number of deaths of cervical cancer in Leeds is above the national average.
  Recall is crucial. In Leeds, it is still done manually. Despite the fact that it has been agreed to base computerisation on the family practitioner committee records, we still have no date when that will be achieved. The position in Leeds seems to be a shambles, but not the same shambles as there is in Liverpool, where the records of 100,000 women were wiped off the computer in one fell swoop. Efforts are now being made to reconstitute the records.
  Pressure for the changes and improvements needed will come from the women's movements. I hope that the pressure to introduce well-woman clinics will gain momentum. I hope that the bid for a well-woman clinic in Leeds which is to be put into the 1986–87 urban programme application will succeed.
  370
  I wonder whether the position of cervical cancer screening would be different if it were a male problem. I wonder whether any Government would be able to respond in the way this Government have—slowly and partially — if 20,000 men were diagnosed as suffering from a male cancer and 2,000 were dying from it each year.
  The prevention of cervical cancer is crucial. The evidence and the facts are available. It is reprehensible that the Government do not progress faster and more comprehensively with what is needed.
  9.4 pm
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: My qualification, such as it is, for speaking in this debate—apart from the fact that I am one of the few Members who have been able to have a cervical cancer test—is that several years ago I had some experience in this matter when I was involved with the Central Birmingham health authority.
  The West Midlands regional health authority had a cervical smear campaign and came to us and said that it wished to do a lot more smears and wished to expand its campaign. It was not entirely clear why it wished to do so, but we co-operated with the campaign. We co-operated with great enthusiasm with many adverts, leaflets and posters. Twenty thousand more tests were done over a few weeks and we were all pleased with ourselves because it was all concerned with preventive medicine.
  When I attended the next meeting of the district management team of my authority I had a rude awakening. The chairman of the medical executive committee, a clinical chemist, who was the consultant member of the team was apoplectic with rage. He asked me if I had realised what our smear campaign had done. I was rather nonplussed by that and asked what he meant. He told me that we had jammed up every laboratory in the entire west midlands with the smear slides, which were stacked up everywhere. The laboratory girls were bleary-eyed having to look down microscopes and were having to work overtime every night. There was a backlog of enormous proportions and every other type of laboratory work which they had been trying to do had ground to a halt. He said that we had not saved a single life and asked us to put a stop to the campaign.
  I turned to the specialist in community medicine, who usually backed the schemes that I got up to, Dr. Rod Griffiths — I spoke to him this afternoon and he confirmed my recollections of this meeting—and asked if it was true. He confirmed that it was and that the same women were coming forward in the campaign, mainly low risk women, the vast majority of whom had already been tested but who were now coming forward yet again. The high risk women in whom we should have had more interest were not reached by the campaign. I venture to suggest that many of the resources that we were tying up in those laboratory tests were costing lives elsewhere in other campaigns which we all hold dear, such as perinatal mortality.
  This is the experience all over the country and it is a classic case of what happens all the time in the National Health Service when we chuck resources at problems—in fact we pride ourselves on how we chuck resources at problems. Opposition Members demand that we chuck more resources at problems, but it does not solve the problems. We are spending over £30 million a year on cervical screening and over 3 million tests a year are done.

  371
  However, the death rate in England and Wales is dropping by only 1 per cent. a year, but it was dropping at the same rate before 1965 when there was no screening system. We still have over 2,000 deaths a year.
  We have a test which is efficient and which will identify the illness. It has a high rate of success in predicting the cancer. It is an illness that will kill and which, if not treated, is not likely to get better of its own accord. There are excellent chances of recovery if the cancer is treated and especially if it is treated early. In other words, we have all the tools of success and we have plenty of resources. There is no lack of resources; the Government have been immensely generous and they are to be congratulated. The programme, however, cannot be regarded by any means as a raving success.
  Two recent matters have been mentioned. The first was the scandal at Oxford when a positive test was not communicated to the patient, who subsequently died. That is not a matter of resources. The bulk of resources are needed in the laboratory and that work was done. The piece of paper was sent back and was put into the lady's file, but nobody got round to telling her. That was due to sheer bloody incompetence. Chucking more resources at that health authority will not help the authority.
  I share the view of many hon. Members that it is scandalous for women to wait for those answers. The pattern in the country is highly erratic. In my health authority, South Derbyshire health authority, women wait about four to six weeks, which is acceptable. Next door in Nottingham there is a waiting time of six months and that is not acceptable by anybody's standards. A recent survey showed that 59 per cent. of the women in Nottingham with positive tests were never followed up. Somebody in Nottingham needs shooting, and I would happily volunteer to do it. That record is an absolute disgrace, and there are other health authorities where the same is true.
  A more virulent strain affecting especially young people has emerged recently. Getting at those young people might require a different type of campaign. If it means doing tests in schools and colleges, let us do it. It is simple. It does not take long or much in the way of equipment. Only a wooden spatula is needed. There is no need for people to go to clinics. If it means that we have to run a campaign in the New Musical Express rather than in Woman's Own, let us do that.
  Although it is true that the death rate for the under-35s has doubled in 10 years—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Trebled.
  Mrs. Currie: Has doubled in 10 years.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Trebled.
  Mrs. Currie: I can quote the hon. Lady the figures if she wants.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: If they came from the Minister's Department I should have doubts about them.
  Mrs. Currie: They came from the British Medical Journal, if the hon. Lady wants to know. The death rate among the under-35s has doubled in 10 years. However, the death rate among young women is still one-twentieth of that among older women such as the hon. Lady, with respect to her, and 94 per cent of all deaths as a result of cervical cancer are among the over-35s. The advice being given to my right hon. and hon. Friends is quite right.
  372
  The fact is that 80 per cent. of those aged over 40 who die have never had a test, so bumping up the number of smears merely wastes resources. All we do is re-test those who have already been tested. The same is true for the recall programme. All it does is enable us to re-test people and therefore add to the number of negative tests. The task is to get at the older women who do not know how to ask, who do not know what we are talking about, especially those who think that the campaign does not mean them. Older women feel that the publicity aimed at younger women, especially sexually active women, seems not to apply to them, especially if they have ceased to be sexually active. The problem is—how?
  I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are aware of the British Medical Journal issue of 6 October 1984, which went into this matter in great detail. One of the articles considered a general practitioner system and showed that they can be highly effective — a 96 per cent. uptake was reported in that study. In all honesty, we do not need vast complex computer systems. If I am considered a heretic, I can only say that that is what the research shows. Pushing buttons is not the answer; knocking on doors is.
  Mortality has fallen sharply in Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland. However, exactly the same has happened in Norway as in England. Norway put a lot more resources into the screening programme, but the mortality rate has not dropped more than it would have done if the screening programme had not been in place. Why? I asked Professor George Knox, the professor of social medicine at Birmingham university, who used to advise me in days gone by. He said that the countries that had succeeded had "put somebody in charge." They put a named person in charge of the programme. They did not in Norway and we have not. He said that we can choose to provide a laboratory service for clinicians—that is what the BMA will ask for—or we can choose to provide orders for the computer industry. That is a good thing if it is what we want. We could, however, choose to start reducing mortality, which is an entirely different objective. The way to do that is to designate one person, perhaps in each health authority, monitor his—or her—performance, not for input or for resources, but for results and to get him —or her—to cut across all the muddle.
  Right hon. and hon. Members know that I share their concern. I think that it is possible to spend only half of what we now allocate to the service and to save nearly all the 2,000 lives that are being lost, by allocating the money to a named person in each health authority, telling it to get on with it and perhaps asking it to stop testing and retesting an infinite number of times fit 25-year-olds, but to get moving on their mothers.
  The hon. Member for Holborn, and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) clearly thinks that he is God's gift to women. He is up the creek on this issue. My experience warns me that we should not make this issue a bandwagon. It is preventive medicine, but that does not automatically make it worth while. Universal screening is neither desirable nor necessary. Large-scale screening by traditional means will miss most of the potential victims. Meanwhile, I fear that the tie-up of large funds and scarce resources may cost lives and diminish welfare elsewhere, and may make progress on other forms of health care more difficult. I therefore counsel caution, and I look forward to cheaper and more effective real progress.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) will forgive me if I do not follow her. I usually speak on rehabilitation, but my wife has asked me to speak on this issue tonight as she had a masectomy 14 years ago. It is a dreadful time for any family to live through. My wife was diagnosed as having cancer, but she has lived for 14 years. I can assure the hon. Lady that my wife is at risk, and she goes for tests at regular intervals. That is absolutely as it should be. In no way is any part of that effort wasted.
  The effect of such a health problem on the family is quite devastating. I certainly could not cope well with it, and I do not know how my wife managed. We relied on the support and help of medical practitioners at the Maelor hospital in Wrexham. I am pleased to say that my wife enjoys good health, and handles the garden more effectively than I can. I am sure that her good health is due to the care, attention and continuous screening from which she benefits. When my wife returns from her screening and says, "It is OK today," my first response is, "Thank God," and a great sense of relief goes through the whole family. It is an incredible and unbelievable feeling. The next thing that she says is, "Why don't other people have this screening as well?"
  The Minister said that more women should go for screening, and that is true. But they need to be invited for screening. The figures show that 90 per cent. of those invited for screening for either cancer of the breast or a cervical smear attend.
  One group of people that I call in support of my point are the paramedical professionals and the nurses. I do so because the radiographers, physiotherapists and nurses are mainly women — and, sometimes, women know a lot more about the needs of women than do men. I speak only as a client in a position that is unique for me. I assure the House that the professional organisations that I represent in Parliament, both collectively and as individuals—and many of them are my close friends—urge that greater resources should be made available.
  I intend to be brief so that as many hon. Members as possible may have an opportunity to speak. Certain costs are immeasurable. I refer to the cost to the family of the loss of loved ones. The numbers are substantial. It is not easy for a man to bring up a child without a mother. Those are the real social costs. As an economist, I believe that if we did our sums properly, if we did a real cost-benefit analysis taking both sides of the balance sheet, we would quickly recognise that the costs of treating and healing often more than outweigh the costs of screening and monitoring.
  There must be a sense of urgency. Human beings are strange in that they are the only animals who laugh or cry and who realise the difference between things as they are and things as they should be. We know how things should be. We know that there should be continuous screening for breast and cervical cancer so that we can reduce the suffering for the family and the patients, and reduce the total costs.
  When I speak about rehabilitation in the House I use an expression that people have heard repeatedly. The things about which we are talking are technically possible. They are certainly economically viable and morally right. The
  374
  Government must show a sense of priority and, with the support of the Opposition, introduce a massive campaign to eradicate this disease from our country.
  9.21 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I get very angry when I hear the sort of speeches that we have heard tonight from the Government Back Benches. We are facing an epidemic of cervical cancer, and the complacency shown today makes it difficult to defend the attitude of any Member of Parliament who could seriously make the comments that we have heard tonight.
  There has been a dramatic increase in the number of women with cervical pre-cancer in the United Kingdom in the past 15 years — an increase that has gone much faster in the past two years. The general 60 per cent. increase over the time covers a staggering 117 per cent. rise in the 25 to 34-year-old age group. The death rate from cancers that could have been avoided if the pre-cancers were treated has trebled in the past 10 years. In comparison, the Canadians and the Finns have halved their death rate, and, by two-year testing, increasing numbers in the 20 to 45-year-old group have been saved. The figure of 2,000 deaths could be halved if we were to follow sensible precautionary measures.
  There has been talk about the amount of money involved. I must remind the Government of the simple fact that it costs £500,000 per life saved to build a motorway crash barrier. We know how keen the Government are on improving motorways. It would cost £25,000 per life saved if we were to provide proper screening services for all those at risk. Let us not be in any doubt. The NHS has had its money cut to such an extent that an increase of cervical screening of the kind being demanded would put an unacceptable burden on all the clinics concerned.
  Less than a year ago, the Minister made a speech in which he said that the important thing was to screen those over 35, as they were most at risk and had to be considered first. There was a media campaign, and many more women went to clinics of their own volition to get the screening done. In many instances, district health authorities were unable to deal with the influx of numbers. Not only do they not have the staff, but the cuts in clerical and administrative staff, quite apart from medical facilities, have made it virtually impossible for them to set on foot even the basic follow-up provisions that are essential to the efficient running of such a system.
  It is clear that all this should have been computerised a long time ago, but the investment in hardware and input is considerable. It cannot be found from within existing budgets. I know of one particular clinic which has had a 108 per cent. increase in the past year in the number of people that it is seeing, and a 124 per cent. increase in the numbers of new patients in that time. No hospital service can expand at that rate without a specific campaign by the Government to earmark more new money for it. The existing equations, by which the Government say that such clinics can have the money, provided that it is found from within the existing budget, is not what is needed. We need more new money for a campaign. If it is not forthcoming, we shall know that the Government's weasel words tonight can be simply explained.
  If there were more women Members of Parliament, including Conservative Members, who were prepared not to waffle about how sufficient people are already being

  375
  tested — in reality it is only that more patients are returning to be re-tested—the subject would be debated seriously.
  In reality, Ministers have not been prepared to consider this as a matter of great urgency, and women are dying every day because of that incompetence and intolerance of true priorities. I am ashamed to be a Member of a House of Commons which is prepared to allow Ministers to speak as the Minister did this evening.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: I am the first Scottish Member to take part in this United Kingdom debate. It is worthy of comment that throughout the debate no Scottish Back-Bench Tory Member or Scottish Minister responsible for the National Health Service in Scotland has attended for a minute. That is absolutely disgraceful behaviour, and irresponsible contempt of the House.
  The Minister made great play of the cost effectiveness of the expenditure on the service. In an article in The Times during July 1985, Dr. Robert Yule, the director of Britain's biggest screening laboratory at the Christie hospital in Manchester, said about the cost:
  "It is a tremendous bargain. It guarantees a cure if cancer of the cervix is detected early enough. There is nothing to compare with it."
  We have repeatedly made that point to the House. When we consider the programme's cost effectiveness, the Government should say, "The sky is the limit," because the ultimate saving far outweighs the financial cost. The article continues:
  "Yet the screening programme was described only last March as 'a shambles' and is seen by the medical profession as a relative failure."
  The Minister, reeking with complacency, talked about the vast amount of additional cash that the Government were investing in the service, but declined to say that it was less than the rate of inflation. Hospital authorities are saying that that will mean reductions in the standards of service, not least in this area. The Minister spoke of an additional £3 million or £4 million, but on what pay assumptions is that made? There must be pay assumptions, unless the Government are saying that people performing such valuable work in the Health Service will not receive pay increases.
  In 1980 a Royal Commission report on inequality in health was published, and then buried by the Government because its recommendations were too radical and expensive ever to be seriously considered by a Conservative Government. The Government were to preoccupied in undermining the basic concept of the Health Service, and encouraging the growth of private profiteering. That report was invaluable in underlining what was commonly believed but never before so thoroughly researched, which was that the poorer classes who desperately needed the Health Service were, generally speaking, the least well provided for. That is described as the "inverse care law": the availability of good medical care tends to vary in inverse proportion to the need of the population served. The report pointed out that women in classes 4 and 5—the poorer sections of the community—did not get that service. The mortality rate among those women was the highest.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) rightly cited the Scottish figures because the position is much worse there than in the United Kingdom generally. In July 1985, a group practice in Fife
  376
  referred in its letter to me to the cytology service in Fife which was normally provided by the Lothian health board. The board wrote to the doctors saying:
  "You are probably aware that the Cervical Cytology Laboratory has an accumulation of 10,000 smears waiting to be read. This is an increase of almost 6,000 since January 1985. The delay in reporting which this represents is now unacceptable and the Board has also had to take into consideration the sheer practical difficulty of attempting to manage a service which is overstretched to such a degree."
  An expert Committee has been consulted and has advised the Board on developments which are needed to meet the present level of demand. This will entail taking on new staff who will require several months' training. In the meantime, to deal with the backlog of work and to avoid dislocation of the service, it is necessary to impose a severe restriction in its use, for at least three to four months".
  That means that services in Fife were set back because of inadequate provision in the Lothian area. Fife does not have a service of that kind, although I understand that progress is being made.
  On all counts — health, social, economic and cost effectiveness grounds—it behoves the Government to take a long and hard look at this problem and to give women, who are dying in epidemic proportions, the great priority that we think they deserve.
  9.32 pm
  Ms. Jo Richardson: I am extremely sorry that the Minister for Health did not give more of his attention to this debate but spent so much time outside the Chamber. A number of interesting speeches to which he should have listened were made. We listened to his speech with disgust—that is all I can say for it.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) was unbelievable. I thought that we were talking about the encouragement we should be giving women to return regularly for testing. The hon. Lady was saying that we should not be re-testing them.
  Mrs. Currie: The hon. Lady knows that I share her interest in all the issues that affect women. I am interested in saving lives, not just in providing more and more resources to do exactly what we are doing now and seeing the death rate barely affected.
  Ms. Richardson: We can save lives by constant screening. I point out to the hon. Lady a remark in The Lancet of 30 March 1985. Dr. Gillian Gau, consultant cytopathologist at Queen Charlotte's hospital, said:
  "At the moment the middle class get the smears and the working class get the cancer."
  That is true. I agree with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South on one point: we need to campaign in different ways. However, that costs money and involves thought and planning. We are not doing what is needed. The Government's record on cervical screening offers practically no encouragement and hope to women that there will be a significant reduction in the number of women who can expect to die from breast cancer—one in 30 women—even though everyone knows that about 3,000 lives could be saved from breast cancer each year and a further 1,000 saved from cervical cancer if a properly resourced national screening programme were established now.
  The Minister talked about the Government spending £650 million on the National Health Service over the next year. I wish that he had talked about billions rather than millions—[Interruption.] I say that in all seriousness.

  377
  There is a need to spend much more and I hope that it will be recognised and acted upon. The Minister is virtually saying that we must choose our own priorities within the expenditure of £650 million. Instead, he should be setting the direction of priorities for the district health authorities.
  Throughout their term of office the Tory Government have cynically exploited the complexities of Health Service finance with a view to misleading the public. They have hidden behind a barrage of distorted statistics and half-truths and have launched an unprecedented attack on every sector of the NHS. Anyone outside this place will say the same. Their attack on the Health Service has had far-reaching implications for women. There has been a reduction in services, and I read the other day of the threatened sale of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital, the closure of the South London hospital for women and children — the Minister's predecessor refused to intervene to do anything about that—and the threat to the Soho hospital for women. These examples are indicative of the Government's refusal to respond to women's special circumstances and preferences in health care.
  We are talking of increasing resources for the provision of high-technology equipment, which is crucial, and we must concern ourselves also with the type of services which women require and the way in which they are made available. That is an equally important factor.
  Women are still expected to take the major responsibility of caring for the health of their families. With the emphasis that is now being placed on caring for the elderly, the infirm and the disabled within the community, women are shouldering increasingly heavy responsibilities, possibly with serious implications for their own health. They combine their domestic and caring commitments with paid employment, and many more families would be in dire poverty if they did not do so. However, very few people take sufficient account of the lack of time that is available to women to stop and think about their own health and to put their own needs first for a change. Far too few general practice surgeries or hospitals take women's multiple commitments into account when, as in most instances, men are planning the management of the services.
  About 2·5 million women are screened each year for cervical cancer. That accounts for only 15 per cent. of the 16 million women between the ages of 20 and 65 years who should be using cancer screening services regularly. If the Government would for once listen to women, significant improvements could be made.
  I am surprised that the Minister did not refer to the survey which was carried out by the Women's National Commission, the results of which were published in November 1985. The members of the commission are appointed principally by the Government and the commission is situated in the Cabinet Office. Its report confirmed yet again the consistent demands made by women, women's organisations, women's health groups and women in the trade union and Labour movement which they have been making for years. Of the 6,000 women who were surveyed, 70 per cent. expressed that they saw a need for doctors to hold at least one surgery a week in the evening. That need was expressed by nearly 85 per cent. of women who were working full time. More than half the women surveyed expressed the need for
  378
  surgeries other than for emergencies only to be held on a Saturday morning, with more consultation time made available for each individual patient session, which means time to talk and to be heard.
  The women surveyed expressed a preference—one which has been expressed for many years and of which no one has taken any notice—for the choice of treatment to be provided by women doctors and women staff. That preference was confirmed by the commission's survey. Of the 6,000, 72 per cent. supported the view that women should be offered the choice of consulting a woman doctor. When conditions specific to women only were involved, such as breast and cervical screening, the figure rose to 95 per cent. Only three health authorities of those which replied to the survey said that they could offer such a choice.
  Those are avenues which the Government should be exploring to try to solve the problem. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that more than 85 per cent. of the women said that they would use a well-woman clinic if one were provided in their area. That figure rose to more than 90 per cent. in the 25 to 44-year age group.
  I should like to ask the Minister a specific question. The Women's National Commission is a Government-appointed body which is situated in the Cabinet Office and presumably the Department of Health and Social Security looks at its reports. Therefore, when it recommended that the Government should draw up a
  "code of practice for workplace health care",
  including cervical and breast screening facilities as a guide for employers, why have the Government done nothing about it? The report goes on to say that the Government should set an example
  "by extending the occupational health care of its own employees along these lines … building upon the Health Education Council discussion paper 'Health Education in the Workplace' and the Trades Union Congress paper 'Women's Health at Risk'."
  It is extremely important that the Government should adopt those and other proposals and set an example for other employers.
  It is true that in response to trade union pressure many workplaces have already established on-site screening programmes. About 10 trade unions are involved in that, but to save time I will not list them. However, one in particular, SOGAT '82, which has recently been in the news, bought its own caravan two years ago to help with mobile screening. That has been extremely useful in its negotiations with employers.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Will my hon. Friend also include family planning clinics in the list of organisations where a cervical test is done on everyone who goes to them?
  Ms. Richardson: I am grateful to my hon. and, as has been said, medically learned Friend for reminding me of that.
  Perhaps not many people will know it, but women from two of the trade unions in the Palace of Westminster have been trying for well over a year, to my knowledge, and with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), to establish on-site screening in the Palace of Westminster. About 1,800 women work here at any one time. They work unsocial hours and they could have their cancer screening done here. Why do not the Government encourage the authorities to provide such a service?

  379
  I believe that it is a disgrace that the Government are not picking up all the initiatives which have been suggested. In fact, they are leaving it largely to a charity organisation, the Women's National Cancer Control Campaign, which carries out fundamental work by taking mobile screening facilities into shopping centres and housing estates as well as into the workplace. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East mentioned taking mobile cancer screening units into shopping centres. That is what we should be doing. That would answer the points which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South made. The campaign has an all-women staff and it examines and screens between 20 to 25 women in each two-and-a-half-hour session at a cost of about £100 each session.
  Those are precisely the services which the Government should be fully funding. I do not mean just giving them a little money to put out a few leaflets; I mean actually funding, encouraging, helping and buying the equipment to enable them to do the job.
  Every trade union that is involved with workplace screening has reported a very high take-up rate. I hope that these examples will give the Government some ideas. However, as we have stressed in the motion, the success of these initiatives is dependent upon laboratory facilities and the technical and back-up staff who deal with the results. We have heard that the situation is scandalous, but the Government have not said that they will do anything that will result in a marked improvement. No comprehensive provision is made for a breast screening service, with a call and recall back-up. The cervical screening service has been allowed to descend into chaos and confusion.
  Women are confronted with confusing and conflicting information and advice about when to start using the service and at what age and about the safe length of time between each examination and smear test. They are faced with an insufficient choice of places and available times and with a lack of women staff and doctors. Last, though by no means least, they face increasing insecurity and lack of confidence because the system is incapable of producing a fail-safe follow-up should their examination or smear indicate that action needs to be taken.
  I invite right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches to remember that half of their constituents are women, some of whom will probably die if the Government do not get on with the job and use the information and evidence already available to them. They should campaign effectively to prevent the death of women who otherwise would be able to live a happy life.
  9.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): First, I wish yet again to make it clear, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health said, that the Government are far from satisfied about the provision for cervical cancer screening. The district health authorities know about our concern. Let me explain why we have concentrated upon using the health authority system to provide this service. The country tried to adopt a national approach but it did not work. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that the national recall system was outdated, outmoded and unsuccessful. We can at least agree about that. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have returned to the Chamber especially to hear the hon. Member.
  Mr. Whitney: I am more than usually honoured, Mr. Speaker.
  The Government decided therefore to use the health authority system. We are very concerned that the response so far has not been satisfactory in all areas. The recall system needs to be improved. Greater efforts must be made to clear the backlog in laboratories. The delays are unacceptable. Our target is an average delay of four weeks.
  Let me outline what the Government have done, what they are doing and what we intend to do. As for resources, when the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) wound up the debate for the Opposition she seemed to be blithely indifferent about whether she was referring to an increase in National Health Service spending next year of £650 million—although is is actually £670 million—or £650 billion. The amount is £670 million. The hon. Lady was happy to say that it should be £650 million. The hon. Lady was not making a joke, so that is a measure of her economic illiteracy. Hon. Members should recognise that increased resources have been made available through the National Health Service.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), among others, suggested that the amount devoted to cervical cancer screening did not reflect the rate of inflation. The answer is precisely the opposite. In the next financial year the resources will increase by no less than £670 million, which represents a significant increase above the projected rate of inflation. The same is true for the following two years. So there can be no doubt that resources are available for the services that we have been discussing. As my right hon. Friend said, we are talking of £4 million for the computerised system and a similar sum for the technicians who will be required.
  Mr. Litherland: The Minister is talking about resources. Would he like to visit the cytology department at Christie hospital in Manchester where he would see the prefabricated huts that the staff have to work in? Perhaps he could convince Dr. Yule that he has enough resouces to cope with the backlog of 35,000 smears. It is a disgrace for the Minister to talk as he is doing.
  Mr. Whitney: I shall be happy to discuss with health authority chairmen, as we discuss with all regional chairmen who in turn have discussions with district chairmen, the high priority which should be given to screening and to laboratory provision.
  In January we published guidelines for health authorities. No authority should be in doubt about the priority we have given to cervical cancer screening. March 1988 is the target for computerised systems to be introduced but I shall be very disappointed if the programme is not complete before then. It is important and obviously must be carried out carefully. Studies have been set in train in Exeter to ensure that the best methods are used. The results of the studies are being implemented by other health authorities.
  Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister think that Bolton health authority is making wise spending by employing outside consultants to second-guess the proposals of the Exeter unit?
  Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman must direct that question to Bolton health authority. The resources given to that authority are adequate to fulfil the demands made upon it in this sphere.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: The Minister has said that he hopes the computerised system will be operative by March 1988. Surely in the meantime he will not delay having smears done even with the inadequate facilities that are available.
  Mr. Whitney: Indeed not. The programme is increasing all the time and we have been assured that progress is being made. Of course, as has been said several times already from the Dispatch Box, we must have faster progress. That is precisely the message that we are communicating to health authorities.
  A point of great interest to many hon. Members is what should be done about breast cancer. Cervical cancer accounts only for the minority of deaths of women from cancer. We are, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, funding a series of extensive trials on the effectiveness of different methods of breast cancer screening and those trials, which began in 1979, are expected to report in, perhaps, two years' time. They are costing £750,000 a year and involve about 250,000 women. Those are part of a Government-funded research programme and also cover the economic and psychological aspects of mass screening.
  But, as has been pointed out, and as we all recognise, progress has now been made in Sweden in particular and some of the doubts about breast screening by mammography appear to have been removed. There again, the Government acted quickly, and as my right hon. Friend pointed out, established the committee under Professor Sir Patrick Forrest. We have now received its interim report. My right hon. Friend advised the House of the details of that interim report and, as he said, we shall seek to respond quickly to that.
  The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) referred to a number of possible ways in which we may respond to the possibilities of breast screening. One of the major elements in the terms of reference of the study group was
  "to suggest a range of policy options and assess the benefits and costs associated with them, and set out the service planning, manpower, financial and other implications of implementing such options."
  The record of the Government and the Conservative party compared with that of the Labour party makes it difficult for the House to understand why the Opposition should call a debate of this nature and produce the sort of speeches that we have heard from the Labour Benches tonight. We recognise that the problem is serious and that what has been done so far is not sufficient. Much more has to be done. Let me remind the House what we have done and what the Labour party in eight or nine years of Government failed to do.
  It is true that in October 1966—[interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but we have to go back 20 years to the last and only action that the Labour party took in this important area. In October 1966 the Labour party asked health authorities to introduce cervical screening for women over 35 years. After that, all the running has been left to Conservative Governments. We have a record in that regard which compares favourably with that of Labour Members.
  For example, in 1971 the then Government announced that a reform would be undertaken of the Health Service
  382
  register at Southport and that started in 1972. In 1973 the Government asked the health authorities to extend the priority group to include women under 35 with three or more pregnancies.
  When the Government came to power in 1980 we reviewed the scheme with the expert committee and it was found that the national recall system was not working satisfactorily. Only 20 per cent. of women recalled responded, whereas it was shown that the response achieved to local schemes was about 60 per cent. That is why we moved to the local authority basis. We consulted in 1981 and thereafter instituted a system of local recall. That system was approved in 1981 and launched in April 1983. However, we have been dissatisfied with the results and there was the sad case of the affair in Oxford. My right hon. and learned Friend the present Paymaster General announced further improvements in April 1985, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health has outlined. The further reviews that we have announced today, the challenge of the computerised health service, and the resources we are devoting to it, show yet again that, instead of words, we offer results.
  Mr. James Hamilton rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 281.

  Division No. 63]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Alton, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Anderson, Donald

  Conlan, Bernard

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Corbett, Robin

  Ashton, Joe

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Barnett, Guy

  Crowther, Stan

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Beith, A. J.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bell, Stuart

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Bermingham, Gerald

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

  Blair, Anthony

  Deakins, Eric

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dewar, Donald

  Boyes, Roland

  Dobson, Frank

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dormand, Jack

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Douglas, Dick

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dubs, Alfred

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

  Duffy, A. E. P.

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

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Eadie, Alex

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Eastham, Ken

  Buchan, Norman

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

  Caborn, Richard

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Ewing, Harry

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell, Ian

  Faulds, Andrew

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Fisher, Mark

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Flannery, Martin

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Thomas

  Forrester, John

  Clay, Robert

  Foster, Derek

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Foulkes, George

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  383

  Freud, Clement

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Garrett, W. E.

  O'Brien, William

  George, Bruce

  O'Neill, Martin

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Park, George

  Gould, Bryan

  Parry, Robert

  Gourlay, Harry

  Patchett, Terry

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hancock, Michael

  Penhaligon, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Pike, Peter

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Prescott, John

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Radice, Giles

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Randall, Stuart

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Redmond, Martin

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Home Robertson, John

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Howells, Geraint

  Robertson, George

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Ryman, John

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Sedgemore, Brian

  John, Brynmor

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Kennedy, Charles

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Lambie, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lamond, James

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

  Leighton, Ronald

  Snape, Peter

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Soley, Clive

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Litherland, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Livsey, Richard

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Stott, Roger

  Loyden, Edward

  Strang, Gavin

  McCartney, Hugh

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  McKelvey, William

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Tinn, James

  Maclennan, Robert

  Torney, Tom

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wallace, James

  McTaggart, Robert

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McWilliam, John

  Wareing, Robert

  Madden, Max

  Weetch, Ken

  Marek, Dr John

  Welsh, Michael

  Martin, Michael

  White, James

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Maxton, John

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Wilson, Gordon

  Meacher, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Woodall, Alec

  Michie, William

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Mr. Don Dixon.

  Nellist, David

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bellingham, Henry

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Alexander, Richard

  Benyon, William

  Amess, David

  Best, Keith

  Ancram, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Ashby, David

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Blackburn, John

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Batiste, Spencer

  Bottomley, Peter

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  384

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

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hicks, Robert

  Brinton, Tim

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hill, James

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hirst, Michael

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Holt, Richard

  Budgen, Nick

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Howard, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

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

  Butcher, John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Butterfill, John

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Jessel, Toby

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Cash, William

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Chope, Christopher

  Key, Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Knowles, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Lamont, Norman

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Latham, Michael

  Cockeram, Eric

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Conway, Derek

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Coombs, Simon

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Cope, John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Cormack, Patrick

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Corrie, John

  Lightbown, David

  Couchman, James

  Lilley, Peter

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lord, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lyell, Nicholas

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  McCrindle, Robert

  Dunn, Robert

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Durant, Tony

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Dykes, Hugh

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Maclean, David John

  Eggar, Tim

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Evennett, David

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

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Fallon, Michael

  Madel, David

  Farr, Sir John

  Major, John

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Malone, Gerald

  Forman, Nigel

  Maples, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Marland, Paul

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Marlow, Antony

  Fox, Marcus

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Franks, Cecil

  Mates, Michael

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Mather, Carol

  Freeman, Roger

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gale, Roger

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Galley, Roy

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mellor, David

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Merchant, Piers

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Gregory, Conal

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Moate, Roger

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Grist, Ian

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Grylls, Michael

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Murphy, Christopher

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hannam, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Newton, Tony

  Harris, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Harvey, Robert

  Norris, Steven

  385

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Silvester, Fred

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Parris, Matthew

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Porter, Barry

  Speed, Keith

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Speller, Tony

  Powley, John

  Spence, John

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Spencer, Derek

  Price, Sir David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Squire, Robin

  Raffan, Keith

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Renton, Tim

  Stern, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Stokes, John

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Rowe, Andrew

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Ryder, Richard

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Thurnham, Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Tracey, Richard

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Trippier, David

  386

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Whitfield, John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Whitney, Raymond

  Viggers, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Waddington, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Wolfson, Mark

  Walden, George

  Wood, Timothy

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Woodcock, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Yeo, Tim

  Ward, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Warren, Kenneth

  Watts, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Mr. Donald Thompson and

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Wheeler, John

  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 commends the Government for its positive action to ensure that by 1988 all health districts will have computerised call and recall systems and adequate laboratory back up for cervical cancer screening; and welcomes the establishment of an expert working group to examine urgently the available evidence on breast cancer screening and to propose a range of policy options for implementation within the National Health Service.

  Coal Industry (State Aids)
  10.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9316/85, and supports the Government's intention to ensure that the new rules governing state aids for the coal industry should continue to take full account of the United Kingdom's objective of achieving a smooth transition to a sound and viable industry.
  The document before us underlines the important link between the Government's priorities for the United Kingdom's coal industry and the vital part played by coal in the European Community's energy strategy.
  Since the European Commission announced its intention to introduce a new regime for state aids, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has taken a firm line. He made it abundantly clear to the Commission last spring that while we had no objection in principle to a well-thought-out regime, it was important that it should be workable within the member states most affected by it —West Germany, France, Belgium, now Spain, and, above all, ourselves.
  The House may be assured that the Government's early and robust line has borne fruit. The United Kingdom has greatly influenced the contents of the proposal, but there is no room for complacency and, as I shall demonstrate, much work remains to be done in Brussels before the United Kingdom can sign up to a final decision.
  The present regime was drawn up to take account of the need to maintain an economic Community coal industry. it was part of a strategy designed to maintain the security of Community energy supplies following the 1973 oil shock. The key objective was to achieve a balance between maintaining Community coal production and the necessary competitive conditions whereby production was rationalised and costs reduced.
  The existing decision covers the following main points: financial support towards grants for operating and social costs paid by member states to their coal industries; grants towards liabilities relating to past closures; forecasts of production and sales of coal; proposals for new development over a five-year period; and the build up and holding of coal stocks.
  Member states are required to seek authorisation under the existing regime before paying grants. In practice, however, the Commission has adopted a pragmatic approach and taken account of the varying circumstances of the member states involved.
  The 10 years which have elapsed since the present decision was introduced have seen major changes in the coal industries of the member states most concerned—France, Belgium, West Germany and the United Kingdom. In recent years, rationalisation has occurred in the industries of all those member states, but with each choosing to approach matters according to their circumstances. Belgium and France have concentrated on the reduction of manpower and capacity. France, for example, is on target to reduce manpower from 70,000 to 30,000 in the years 1983 to 1988 and to reduce production from 17 million tonnes to 10 million tonnes. In the United Kingdom greater emphasis has been placed on improving productivity and operating costs. All four member states
  388
  Will, of course, continue to have an interest in the new state aids regime. We expect, too, that Spain will share this because it will also face similar problems as it settles into its Community membership.
  The draft decision proposes a more limited range of operating aids to member states' coal industries—deficit aid, sales aid for coking coal, investment aids and salary supplements. Of these, only deficit grant is of direct concern to the United Kingdom. In addition, the decision would permit a range of social grants to be made, covering redundancy and pension costs and other historical costs arising from pit closures in the past.
  The main changes which the European Commission now proposes are that aids should be allowable only for improving productivity, for providing new economically viable capacity and for solving social and regional problems. It also means that certain types of aid—for recruitment and coal stocks—should be eliminated.
  The Commission also wishes to alter the dates by which member states are required to submit information and are proposing dates which have no practical meaning in the context of United Kingdom financial years. What is of greatest importance, however, is that the Commission has made it clear that it intends to implement more rigorously than hitherto the letter of the decision. Therefore, although the Government support the principle behind the decision, which is compatible with our domestic objectives for the coal industry, we also regard it as of paramount importance that the new decision should be workable.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: I am a little puzzled by my hon. Friend's remarks now and by his remarks in the explanatory memorandum, in which he said that one of the proposed changes to the existing regime is:
  "Lack of defined criteria by which Commission are to judge acceptability of proposed aids."
  My hon. Friend then says in the memorandum, as he has just said to the House:
  "If the Commission were to exercise without sensitivity their proposed powers to limit state aids … they would jeopardise the achievement of NCB's primary objective which is to break even by 1987–88."
  Is it the Government's view that the Commission is being too tough or too soft?
  Mr. Hunt: We believe that in setting the objectives the Community has got the overall thrust of its policies correct. The Government are determined to achieve at the March Energy Council — I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend has to say if he has an opportunity to develop his points more fully—a system which not only follows through in the direction of the objective which we support but does so in a way which will enable the National Coal Board to achieve the break even point and will enable the regime which is introduced to be workable.
  The Commission, in putting forward the proposals, has sought to increase its control over the granting of aids by member states. Its concern, rightly, is that aids should not cut across the precepts of the Common Market. Member states, on the other hand, especially the United Kingdom and the West Germans, are equally concerned to ensure that Brussels should not impose unacceptable constraints upon us in respect of matters which are essentially for us to determine. We have been making our views very clear and shall continue to do so as negotiations continue.
  The general objective of the draft decision marks the greatest difference from the existing regime, and I have

  389
  already referred to that in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). The existing regime was based largely on the notion that the Community's coal industry still had to face a major reduction in capacity and that Government support would be justified throughout such a period. The new decision sounds a more positive note, which the Government can entirely endorse. It looks forward to a more competitive coal industry able to open up new economically viable reserves. This will provide an appropriate framework for the Government's continued support for the NCB's investment in the industry and with the social costs of restructuring. Much of the NCB's investment goes to improve existing long-life collieries. As hon. Members will be aware, last year the board announced many investment programmes to open new faces, install new machinery and computerise the monitoring of mining operations.
  I hope that hon. Members will get the opportunity this evening to pay tribute to the magnificent efforts of men and management alike in achieving, for the first time in the board's history, deep mined output in excess of 3 tonnes per man shift. That is a tremendous achievement, and I hope that much reference will be made to it in the debate tonight.
  With restructuring and improved productivity performance, the NCB will be on target for break-even in 1987–88 and thereafter able to progress to the establishment of a secure and self-sustaining industry.
  I am sure that many hon. Members have important points to raise this evening, and I do not want to take up the time which is available for discussion. However, perhaps I could just remind hon. Members of the key points which arise from the new state aids proposals.
  First, there is nothing new or sinister about the state aids regime. This proposal will replace a regime that has been in existence in various forms since 1965. Secondly, the proposal does not involve the payment of Community funds to member states. It allows member states to support their own coal industries without infringing the European Coal and Steel Community treaty. It would, of course, be open to us to refuse to sign the new regime, but that would be to no good purpose as it would mean that our payments of operating aids and social grants would be illegal. Thirdly, it is important that the new regime should be workable within the individual member states most concerned, and for as long as necessary. The United Kingdom's clearly expressed objective is to achieve a flexible and workable regime.
  Those objectives are entirely consistent with those of our own coal industry. The regime will enable us to meet our targets.
  The objective of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, when this matter goes to the March Energy Council, will be to ensure that the new regime gives maximum flexibility to member states in the challenging task of creating economically viable Community coal industries which can compete successfully in the world market.
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: We are proud of our miners, we are proud of our industry and we are proud of our efforts to raise productivity. We are also jealous of the technological expertise of our mining engineers.
  390
  Perhaps I might introduce a controversial note to the debate. There is an absence in it. Previously, we have always had briefs from the National Coal Board setting out its approach, but the silence from Hobart house on this is deafening. Have any of my hon. Friends received a comment from the NCB?
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I have.
  Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman is very fortunate. None of my hon. Friends has received any comments. That is sad, because it is our industry. When our industry is affected, the NCB has a duty, as a publicly-owned industry, to make its attitude known.
  Mr. Fallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Eadie: No. I want to be brief. We are fully aware of the background to these proposals. Current Community provision for the industry expired on 31 December 1985. The Minister explained why there had to be a new proposition. The House must be made aware of the fact that this is an attempt by the Commission to get control of member countries' coal industries. Apart from the usual stranglehold of a bureaucratic structure it has not made a very good job of it. I call in aid the Minister who had some reservations about the outline of the document.
  The Commission has not made a good job of the draft directive, because its analysis is faulty on so many points. It merits the criticism that has been heaped on it by some member states. My information is that this is the fourth or fifth draft of the proposals. We could not have a better portrayal of uncertainty than that.
  A report in the Financial Times on 25 September 1985 stated:
  "The United Kingdom Energy Secretary has made it clear that because there is virtually no intra-Community trade in coal there is no case for Brussels control."
  To some extent, the Minister expressed that same sentiment in his speech tonight.
  It would not be unfair if I expanded what the Secretary of State expressed through the Financial Times. The EEC countries produce coal for their local markets. British coal does not compete for the German market, and vice versa. Therefore, it is hard to understand why Brussels should intervene.
  I had a word with the Secretary of State before the debate. He assured me that when the matter comes before the Energy Ministers Council on 3 March, he will stand by what he expressed in the Financial Times and will not accept control by Brussels of the United Kingdom coal industry. On that basis, and because we are considering only a take-note motion, the Opposition will not divide the House. That is reasonable.
  The House should be aware of the turmoil caused by an earlier draft of Commissioner Mosers' proposals. It resulted in a political dressing down for him from the Federal Republic of Germany, which threatened to use its veto. The draft report would have resulted in 500,000 Europeans landing on the scrap heap by the 1990s. The argument was that it would have resulted in a saving of £2 billion a year in state subsidies for coal. But that would have to be set against a £2·4 billion a year increase in social costs. That is lunatic economics. The net result would have been a drain of almost £ million on European treasuries each year.
  In Germany, the loss of one third of mining jobs would have added 20 per cent. to the Federal Government's

  391
  borrowing requirement. In Belgium, the closure of the industry would have increased the Government's budget deficit by 30 per cent. It was a false belief that Europeans would be freed from the web of state subsidies.
  The Coalfield Communities Campaign sent me a good paper, which shows how low is the United Kingdom subsidy per tonne compared with other countries. The subsidy in Belgium is £15·47 per tonne; in France, £19·19; West Germany, £12·06; while in the United Kingdom it is £8·41 per tonne.
  The Coalfield Communities Campaign posed a good question. It asked me whether this money would be saved by devastating coal field communities. The fallacy of the Commission paper was that miners who became unemployed would be absorbed into an expanding EEC economy. That contradicts the Commission's report of 1984–85, which said that a rate of growth above the present short-term trend of 2·5 per cent. would be necessary to improve substantially the unemployment situation in the EEC.
  Some hon. Members will be aware of the fact that at the moment the EEC unemployment level is 15 million. Current Commission predictions of Community economic growth to the end of the 1990s of 2·6 per cent. are hardly sufficient to reduce current levels of unemployment never mind absorb another 500,000 if such coal plans are implemented.
  So much for the argument that the social costs of unemployment are only short term. It is a patent nonsense. Any number of coalfield local authorities are still suffering from unemployment and the social, environmental and general economic effects of closures —I can name a few, such as Durham county, the south Wales valleys, Scotland, or west Barnsley in Yorkshire. The coal communities have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. I am advised that the Coalfield Communities Campaign has produced a figure of nearly 2 million unemployed.
  I suppose that we shall want to test the framework of the qualified continuation of state aids suggested in the proposals. We must question and challenge whether it could remove some of the genuine concerns expressed throughout the community vis-a-vis the originally proposed regulations. As the Minister hinted, we need to amend the way that we test such proposals.
  We should welcome the late conversion of the Commission to the theory that state aid is indispensable, especially for producing the volume of coal required in the Community to maintain the impetus for a reduction of import dependency. However, we must criticise the absence of state aids for the extension of the market for coal, both in industry and in electricity utilities.
  Tonight, the House will want to express further concern that the document and arrangements for state aid relate to two basic assumptions that are challengeable. First, when it refers to competitively produced coal and pricing levels, there is an assumption that the accountancy methods of each of the coal industries are comparable and that the final selling price of coal is based on the same component parts of the accounts. Normal depreciation and normal rates of interest may vary considerably between industries, as does accountancy for tax, subsidence costs and so on. It is illogical that a major part of the EC budget, where there is comparative cost accountancy, is devoted to the common agricultural policy. But that principle does not seem to be relevant to our industries.
  392
  The Commission, in a reference to state aids and other proposals on energy requirements, assumes that all coal imports in the Community are fairly priced for production and transportation costs, although it has agreed to examine import prices. Tonight it must be reinforced that more than 50 per cent. of coal imports to the Community are categorically unfairly priced. According to the Commission's statistics, during the first six months of 1985, 31 per cent. of imported coal came from South Africa and 14 per cent. from Poland. Polish coal is subsidised so that Poland earns foreign currency. The apartheid system in South Africa ensures low wage costs, which, together with coal for oil swaps, means that South African coal is unfairly priced.
  The present deliveries of Colombian coal do not provide the Colombian Government with royalties. Because of a generous system of tax concessions Exxon can sell Colombian coal as a loss leader to secure a future market. Foreign coal is being dumped on European markets. The European Commission usually takes strong retaliatory anti-dumping measures when other products are being dumped, for example Japanese typewriters or Brazilian shovels. This dumped artificially cheap foreign coal is being used to denigrate the European coal industry. When foreign coal is dumped below cost, it is being subsidised.
  We often hear the phrase "security of supplies". The Commission knows that it strikes a chord of anxiety after the events of the 1970s when the oil price quadrupled. For coal it originally meant marginal coal imports to supplement domestic production. The Commission embellished that, and redefined it to mean the availability of cheap coal from external sources. While domestic producers and trade unions argued for the necessary support measures, the Commission, in a piece of skulduggery, was involved in negotiations about contractual supplies with Colombia, Australia, the United States of America and Canada.
  I said that I intended to speak briefly, and I shall fulfil that promise. The House could give a guarded welcome to the continuation of state aids, and the Minister's assurance that Brussels will not dictate to our indigenous coal industry. But we must express anxiety about the lack of detail regarding application.
  10.44 pm
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: I should like to endorse the sense of pride expressed by hon. Members at the remarkable efforts of the coal industry in the past few months in achieving a considerable expansion in productivity. This shows the prizes that are available for the industry if we follow sensible policies that secure the industry's future on a sound and profitable basis. It is especially important that we have the power to decide the shape of that future in Britain.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman explain that point a little further? Might it not also be the case that the reason for the major increase in output per man is the massive job losses in the past two years?
  Mr. Batiste: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to develop that point. I do not believe that that is true. There is a new sense of realism in the coal industry.

  393
  Those who work in the industry know that their future depends on the industry being profitable. They are cooperating and working towards that end.
  It is important that we maintain the progress that has been made and that the fundamental decisions about the industry's shape are made in Britain. In so far as the European regime enables us to continue along the lines that we wish to follow, so be it—I see no objection to endorsing a European regime. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been very robust in fighting for British interests. I would happily accept their assurances.
  There is, however, one matter on which I seek special assurance. Under the proposed changes, in category (a) aids will be allowable for solving social and regional problems but in category (b) aids will be eliminated in relation to recruitment. Only a few weeks ago, in the Upper Waiting Hall, NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. put on a remarkable display showing the success it has had in creating jobs in mining areas. The company's job creation record is one of the most successful I can recall. About 500 new jobs a month have been created at a lower cost than initially any other scheme.
  Mr. Alec Woodall: Where?
  Mr. Batiste: If the hon. Gentlman had attended the exhibition and looked at the records, he would have seen a full list showing where jobs have been created. I am sure that the House would like to know that there were scarcely any Labour Members present at that exhibition while virtually all Conservative Members with mining constituencies were present. Perhaps the affairs of the mining industry would improve a great deal if the Opposition talked a little less about unemployment and more about job creation and took practical measures that are needed to help their regional problems.
  A number of my colleagues and I are taking active steps in our constituencies to ensure that local industry and commerce are made fully aware of what NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. can offer. This weekend, I shall hold a seminar in my constituency on that subject. I seek the clearest of assurances from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that the new regime in Europe will in no way interfere with the undertaking he gave last year in Committee on the Coal Industry Bill. I asked him whether NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. would have all the money that it could usefully use to create jobs in mining areas. My hon. Friend readily gave that assurance. I hope that, before we vote, he will repeat it and assure us that the proposed regime will in no way change that.
  10.49 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: The Minister has spoken of the overall aim of the British coal industry and of the industries throughout the EEC. I hope that he will be more specific and tell us of the likely effect on our coal industry of the minor changes that have been made to the cyclical and strategic stocks of coal and to recruitment. What effect are these changes likely to have on the industry over the next few years?
  I assume that the Minister is in contact with the Secretary of State for Energy by some means, and, although the Minister responded to the written question by
  394
  my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), I should like to know exactly what was meant by the following:
  "The proposed new Community energy objectives have been discussed twice by the Council of Energy Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has argued that the new objectives should be seen as markers, not as prescriptive targets." — [Official Report, 3 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 11.]
  If there were any major problems in the British industry, would the industry ignore what the Council of Energy Ministers has been saying in Brussels?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) referred to the meetings that have taken place in Europe in connection with the document that is before us. What was discussed in April 1985 which resulted in leaks to the effect that our industry was to lose about 50 per cent. of state aid along with other mining industries in the EEC? What was on the table and how did we arrive at the present position?
  If we are to discuss the coal mining industry logically, we must understand how our European colleagues were sizing it up and how they regarded its future. It is clear that it will be dominated by the British coalfield for many years to come.
  Under the heading "General Objectives", article 2 states:
  "Aids granted to the coal industry may be considered compatible with the Common market provided that they contribute to—
  improving the competitivity of the coal industry by optimising the productive capacity in order to adapt production to the conditions prevailing on the energy market;
  opening new economically viable capacities".
  The opening of a coalfield takes place within a massive time scale that extends into five, 10 or even 15 years, depending on where the field is situated. How can world markets be assessed to determine whether we should opt for new capacity? There is a surplus of world energy because of a lengthy recession. Against that background, I should like to know how we can assess what will be economically viable five years hence, or even further into the future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian talked about the dumping of coal and directed his remarks to Colombia and America, which are dumping coal into the European market. That is being encouraged, in a way, by the reduction in shipping costs. The cost of shipping fuel to Britain from America is one third of what it was in 1980. We know what is happening in South Africa and we are aware of the political turbulence in that country. The United Nations and the Commonwealth — we are members of both organisations—have condemned the vicious way in which coal is extracted from the South African mines. The mine operators use contract labour from neighbouring countries and those who mine the coal are kept in compounds during their 12 or 18-month contracts before they return to their homelands and families.
  When discussing economic viability, we must recognise that the European coalfields generally do not always reflect the standards and living conditions of those in other countries whose industries are sending their coal to Europe. It is nonsense to talk about planning economic viability for the European coal industry in the present circumstances.
  Article 4, under the heading "Sales side", states:

  395
  "Aids for supplying coal to specific markets may be considered compatible with the Common market, provided that they do not exceed, for each individual coal region or undertaking, the difference between forseeable average costs per tonne of coal produced and the comparable price of coal from non-member countries."
  That is directed to supplying specific markets with British coal. For years, all the British coal industry unions have been arguing for the expansion of production of anthracite coal in south Wales. The present chairman of the NCB has said that in his opinion the Margam project, if it were seen through, would lead to the production of anthracite and would, to use his description, be a gold mine. We are still waiting to see whether Margam and south Wales anthracite will be produced in the quantities needed. Instead, we are sneaking anthracite into this country through the iron curtain from Poland. I invite the Minister to tell us by how much anthracite coal is being subsidised in Poland before it is brought on to the European market, especially as south Wales miners have been wanting the Margam project to go ahead for so long.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Is my hon. Friend aware that the then director of the south Wales coalfield, Mr. Philip Weekes, and Mr. Ian MacGregor met a group of Welsh Members during the coal strike and gave a complete commitment to the development of the Margam new mine and then used it as a form of publicity to weaken the morale of south Wales miners during the coal strike? They were and are still lies. The director and Ian MacGregor have reneged on their statements since the end of the strike.
  Mr. Barron: It can certainly be said that the morale of the south Wales miners is low at present because of broken promises in relation to Margam. I hope that in his brief winding-up the Minister will say exactly when the Margam project will begin and when anthracite will come out of south Wales on to the market. I have used anthracite for many years, but I have heard that people who buy coal-fired boilers for domestic use are now being dissuaded from using anthracite. We want to know why we are not using anthracite when it can be mined in European coalfields.
  In article 8 of the document we have the question of inhibited liabilities. The Minister will know that, sadly, last week the Horden colliery appeal was turned down under the terms of the new machinery which has been set up since the end of the coal strike. That is a great pity. I do not know all the details of the Horden colliery appeal, but I know that it suffers greatly, as does any colliery close to it, because it is on the north-east coast. It suffers from the cost of keeping it pumped free of water when it is closed. I wonder whether the National Coal Board looked at that question during the appeal. I wonder whether the NCB recognised those liabilities and the fact that, even when producing, it could be given permission to give aid to coalfields that needed it.
  I would particularly like the Minister to spend some time on article 9, which states:
  "All Member States which intend to grant aid to coal undertakings in 1986 shall, by September 1986, provide the Commission with:

  (i) a statement of intentions and objectives for the industry for the period 1987–1990".

  In his opening speech the Minister said that he would like us to congratulate British miners on the record levels of output in recent months. I shall certainly do that. I was
  396
  lucky to work in a good coal mine. There was a good investment in the mine, which has been a major precursor to profitable pits. As a consequence, it was always in a position to achieve targets of over 3 tonnes per man shift. I, and I am sure all hon. Members, thank the British coal miners for their achievements, although that is not unusual. Given the right conditions and investment, they have done that for many generations—certainly while my family has been involved.
  Does the Minister intend to tell the trade unions about the Government's objectives for the coal industry between 1987 and 1990? They will be bleak years. The redundancy payments scheme has been extended, but it will end in 1986–87. Nobody who works in the coal industry knows what the future holds for the collieries. They can make guesses, but they will not know, even next year, what is to happen to their collieries because there has been so much confusion in the industry since the ending of the strike. This information will be sent to Europe, so we ought to be debating it and those who work in the industry ought to know about it as well.
  Article 9 contains many details. I should like the Minister to comment on (2)(f). That refers to the available information on proposed closures of pits and to the reemployment of redundant mine workers on regional development programmes. The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) referred to National Coal Board (Enterprise) Ltd. and said that it is creating 500 jobs a month. If so, it is remarkable. National Coal Board (Enterprise) Ltd. was formed a few months after the strike in 1984. It can be described only as a knee-jerk reaction by this Government. They were embarrassed by the economic arguments that lay behind that strike. They had been told for a very long time that even without the closure of more pits, there was already a very high level of unemployment. That resulted in this knee-jerk reaction. Nobody can say that NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. has been providing 500 jobs a month since July or August 1984. It may have been doing so during the last few months; I do not have the figures. I do not decry NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. I hope that it will go from strength to strength and that the money that it needs will be provided, but it is coming nowhere near to getting rid of the problems that have been created by the loss of jobs in British coalfields in the last two years.
  Article 10 states:
  "In assessing the measures and programmes submitted to it in connection with the closure of particularly loss-making pits the Commission shall take account of the special situation of individual coalfields or Member States."
  What criteria are used in Europe when these assessments are made?
  Hon. Members who represent coal mining constituencies where there is terrible unemployment want to know whether the decisions are taken in this country or in Europe and what criteria are used. The Minister referred to job losses in France and the lack of investment there, but he forgot to mention the massive job losses in British coalfields during the past two years. Over 50,000 miners have left the British coal mining industry in the past two years. It has created massive unemployment in mining constituencies. Job opportunities for young people are lacking. If the Minister is to refer to what is happening in the British coal mining industry, he ought to be prepared to be as open about it as he was about France.
  11.4 pm
  Sir Trevor Skeet: This is to be only a short debate. Therefore, I shall confine my remarks to only a few matters. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) referred to the European subsidies and mentioned that the Belgian subsidy is the highest. He also mentioned the figures for France, West Germany and the United Kingdom. We should get the figures in proportion. Belgium, which has the highest subsidy, has the lowest production, 6·3 million tonnes. In France, where the subsidy is £19·19 per tonne, production in 1985 was 15 million tonnes. The Minister has rightly indicated that it will fall to 10 million tonnes. In Western Germany, where the subsidy is £12·06 per tonne, production last year was 88·4 million tonnes; that is still falling with the closure of uneconomic pits. In the United Kingdom the subsidy is £8·41 per tonne, but production is likely to be 91 million tonnes in 1985. When one is dealing with subsidies, it is important to get the whole thing in the right proportion.
  I accept that subsidies have to be reduced, but now is not the time to do it because the coal industry could not stand it. When we were discussing the Coal Industry Bill in 1981–82, the Government said that viability would be achieved in the coal industry in 1983–84. In 1983–84 we were told that viability would be achieved later now it is in 1987–88. I should like to believe that but I do not accept that it will happen.
  Nobody has yet mentioned one of the greatest factors which may destroy the glorious opportunities for the coal industry—the fact that the price of oil is falling fast. Oil went up from $2 per barrel to $42 per barrel in Libya; then it started falling fast. Many of us indicated only a year ago that the price was on the way down. I have always forecast that it would be well below $20 per barrel. If it falls to $15 per barrel, not only will oil interests be concerned—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I am following the hon. Gentleman. He is stretching the limits of the debate a little far and is turning it more into a debate on oil. I hope he will get back to the subject of coal.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: I shall come back to the subject. When fuel oil becomes competitive with coal there will be difficulties.
  Mr. Allen McKay rose—
  Sir Trevor Skeet: I want to finish quickly because other hon. Members want to speak.
  When the price of oil comes down to $18 per barrel it will be competitive with coal. Some of the coal-fired power stations will be in difficulty because the oil-fired power stations will be viable and will be in operation once again. The coal industry has been unsuccessful only because it has been unlucky over the years.
  Mr. McKay rose—
  Sir Trevor Skeet: I prefer not to give way. This is a short debate and some of my hon. Friends want the opportunity to speak.
  We shall have to watch the oil price carefully to ensure that the coal industry is safe. On that point alone I recommend that the subsidy system in the United Kingdom must be maintained to ensure that we have a viable industry.
  398
  May I compliment the Government on having been successful in bringing to an end the miners' strike? The strike lasted far too long and cost the country over £5 billion which could have been spent on the diversification of industry and other things. On 20 December the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State indicated in a written answer that 23 collieries had closed since the end of the strike. Have any more closed since that date? That was the right course to take to improve the prospects for coal. Coal production costs are now going down and at the same time the output per man shift is going up. Congratulations to all the miners involved. Surely the Government's policy must be right. Develop the Vales of Belvoir, the Selbys and the long-life pits; have more of those and we will gradually become competitive internationally.
  It is extraordinary how the jackals all come in for the kill. I would like to debate the issue at some length, but there is no time. We must have a realistic attitude towards imports. Most European countries inside the Community import coal. Germany has a subsidy system which will be maintained. We have not been importing coal from abroad, even though we have the right to do so. But it is wrong to say that it is subsidised in all countries. There are different forms of mining. It is open-cast in the United States; open-cast in South Africa; open-cast and deep-mined in Australia. They can push it on to the international market, as has been said. The low freight rates can cause difficulties competing.
  I have maintained the utmost brevity, but I say in conclusion that it is for those reasons that we would put in jeopardy the progress made by the United Kingdom if we did not maintain a subsidy system in Western Europe to maintain not merely their coal industry but also ours in Britain.
  11.11 pm
  Mr. Alec Woodall: I apologise for missing the Minister's opening remarks because I want to put a question to him which he may already have answered. Why is it that the consultative document from the EC was signed on 2 October last year and his explanatory memorandum on that document was signed and issued by him on 24 October last year but it has taken us until 5 February 1986 before we start to discuss the documents and their implications? I ask that question rather pointedly because last December I received a letter of one paragraph from the area director of North Yorkshire informing me that he saw no justification whatever for keeping open Kinsley Drift mine.
  The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) has just mentioned Selby, the Vale of Belvoir and all the new capacity. Is he aware that Kinsley Drift mine was commissioned only on 19 August 1979? It is one of the newest pits in Yorkshire and cost £26 million. The area director said only last December that he could see no justification for keeping it open and was therefore recommending its closure. That pit has 12½ million tonnes of reserves of good quality coal, yet it has got to go, along with 350 jobs.
  I want to draw attention to the first two main proposed changes in the explanatory memorandum. They are:
  "(a) Aids to be allowable only for improving productivity, providing new economically viable capacity and for solving social and regional policies.
  (b) Elimination of certain existing types of aid, for recruitment and coal stocks."

  399
  What recruitment? As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has just said, we represent the areas with the highest unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside. Since the strike ended, there has been no recruitment in the coal industry. Pits have been closed right, left and centre. All the young miners with little service who could not benefit from the redundancy payments schemes have been transferred to other mines which are supposed to be more profitable and to have better capacity. There has been no recruitment, so to talk about phasing out the aid for recruitment is nonsense.
  Will the Minister comment on the aid for coal stocks? If all the aid that will be available after 1 July is devoted to improving productivity and providing new, economically viable capacity, productivity will be improved. The hon. Gentleman has paid tribute to the improved output per man shift since the end of the strike. More coal will be produced more quickly and more cheaply. If it cannot be sold, there will be no more aid to help to stock it. In the end, that will mean the closure of more pits, such as Kinsley Drift. That is almost a brand new pit, only six and a half years old, which has to go. The whole thing is nonsense.
  I apologise for using rough language, but if Lord Hailsham, who presides in the other place, were listening to the debate, he would be saying under his breath "Bollocks", because that is what it amounts to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe that on reflection the hon. Member would prefer to withdraw that word. He may choose to substitute another word.
  Mr. Woodall: I offer to withdraw the remark out of deference to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was repeating only what the noble Lord said. It was in the press. He was replying under his breath to the bishops who sit on his right.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member must not comment on what goes on in the other place. In this House we are responsible for our own conduct. The hon. Member has shown his willingness to withdraw. I hope that he will make that clear and will proceed with the rest of his speech.
  Mr. Woodall: I apologised before I referred to what the noble Lord said in the other place. I unreservedly withdraw the remark.
  The comparison between what is stated in the document and what the coal industry needs shows that the industry can have aid to produce coal more cheaply, but the more that is produced, the quicker the pits next door will be closed.
  Mr. David Hunt: It may assist hon. Members, especially the hon. Gentleman, if I remind them that I made clear in my opening remarks that the proposed changes to cyclical stocks and recruitment will have no bearing on practices in the United Kingdom, because we have not previously granted aid in those areas.
  Mr. Woodall: The hon. Gentleman has signed the explanatory memorandum to the consultative document. In relation to ministerial responsibility and policy implications, that shows that he has no other observations and that he accepts the consultative document. As I have explained by referring to paragraphs (a) and (b), aid can be given to improve productivity and capacity, but the
  400
  more coal that is produced and the more stocks that are built up, the quicker other pits which are viable at present will be closed.
  In reply to the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), I should say that no aid has come to my area from NCB (Enterprise) Ltd—not one job has been created by it. The enterprise scheme will help only those who are prepared to invest their own capital. It is not forthcoming in our area. Representatives of the scheme have visited local councillors in my area to explain what they will do for the area, but until now no jobs have been created.
  Mr. Batiste: If the hon. Gentleman tried a little harder to bring projects to the attention of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd., he might have better luck in creating jobs in his constituency.
  Mr. Woodall: How many jobs has the hon. Gentleman created, through NCB (Enterprise) Ltd., in his area? How many have you created? Not one, and you cannot deny it—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that he must address other hon. Members in the third person. References to "you" are, of course, references to me; and I am not involved in this.
  Mr. Woodall: I beg your pardon again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You and I have known each other for a long time, and remembering your track record of naming Members, I have no wish to arouse your anger in any way.
  I put these points seriously to the Minister. It is nonsense to say that this document will help the coal industry. Aid will be provided after 1 July only to improve productivity and capacity, which will mean that much older pits in my area will get the chop. If the board can close six-and-a-half-year-old pits, God help the pits that are more than 100 years old.
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: This debate is not wholly about the state of the United Kingdom coal industry. If it was, no one could have put the case for the industry with greater accuracy or eloquence than my hon. Friends the Members for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and Mid-Bedfordshire (Sir T. Skeet). The debate is also about the Community draft rules.
  The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said that he was surprised not to receive a brief from the National Coal Board. Conservative Members would have been more surprised if he had received the brief and paid any attention to it, because he has not done so during the past year or so. He also said that the document recognised that state aids across the Community are indispensable, I have read the document a couple of times, and I do not see that anywhere. Paragraph 4 of the Community's explanatory memorandum to the document says not that state aids are indispensable, but that rules to enable their continuation and to police them are indispensable. That is an important distinction.
  The hon. Member for Midlothian said that, in view of the contents of the draft rules, the Opposition would not oppose them. I should tell my hon. Friends that, if the Opposition do not oppose the rules, we should at the least be slightly suspicious, because every time that the Opposition have not opposed an instrument or an act of

  401
  Government policy on the coal industry in recent months it has proved to be very expensive for the taxpayer and for my constituents, not to say his.
  I had not intended to speak on this draft Community instrument. It is complex enough for hon. Members on both sides of the House to examine. As I implied in my question to my hon. Friend the Minister, the Government may be trying to have things both ways. There is an element of schizophrenia here. If productivity in the United Kingdom is improving, as he and my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet have seen and which I saw at Wistow colliery before Christmas, and if the NCB is on target for break-even in 1987–88 — in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North cast such doubt—why are we threatened by the new proposals? Why did my hon. Friend the Minister say that the proposals are not new or sinister? Why does he say in his explanatory memorandum:
  "If the Commission were to exercise without sensitivity their proposed powers to limit state aids which includes social measures, they would jeopardise the achievement of the NCB's primary objective which is to break even by 1987–88."
  I hesitate to press my hon. Friend on that point. He is greatly experienced in European Community matters and has great knowledge of the industry. Only an Under-Secretary of State with his expertise and understanding could respond to that point. He is the best person to answer my question. We and the Opposition are joining to welcome the rules which he says worry him because there is a lack of defined criteria on which to police the state aids. However, why do the rules at the same time possibly jeopardise the board's objective of achieving break-even in 1987–88?
  11.26 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister drew attention to the objective set out in the document which was to aim for a viable coal industry in Europe able to produce coal at world market prices. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) mentioned his anxiety about taking an oversimplistic view of the market. It is important that within the EEC regulations and in this country we take account of the fact that when considering the world coal market we are not comparing like with like.
  Despite some of the comments by Conservative Members, the EEC coal industry is subject to competition from coal imported from South Africa, South America and Poland which is produced by methods and at rates of pay that would not be considered acceptable within the EEC.
  We are taking a rather foolish and short-sighted view of the market if we impose regulations on reasonable working conditions within the EEC while being prepared to open our doors to coal which is produced under conditions which we regard as unacceptable, and undermines our market. That is a point that the EEC and the United Kingdom should be in mind.
  The Minister also said that he looked forward to the coal industry breaking even in 1987–88. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who would like to see the coal industry break even in the right circumstances. It depends on how that is achieved. It depends on whether it is achieved by increased output, increased marketing and selling more coal and, as a result, one hopes, creating more employment and investment, or whether it is
  402
  achieved by cutting the industry to the bone, eliminating everything on the margins and ignoring all the social consequences and costs. That is the kind of exercise that we are witnessing in the steel industry, which threatens to have devastating consequences for the economy of Scotland and the fortunes of the Conservative party in Scotland.
  The coal strike has been referred to. I would like to think that the House could look forward rather than back. We have got over the strike and must now find a way in which to advance the industry. The decision whether to keep mines open must be based on slightly wider criteria than have been accepted by the Government. I speak as an economist. To say, within the narrow accounting confines of the NCB, that a pit is uneconomic and should be closed is foolish if two consideration are not borne in mind. The first is whether there is alternative employment which gives people a viable living and takes them off the public purse. The second is whether the uneconomic nature of the pit is due to long or short-term factors.
  The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) touched on the question of the oil price. If, as some people fear, the oil price collapses in the next few months, it would present considerable difficulties for the coal industry. We would be faced with a difficult problem—whether that was a short or long-term development. It is conceivable that the price of oil could fall by $3, $4 or $10, a barrel. It is also conceivable that it might recover, depending on whether OPEC disintegrates or regroups. All of these things are uncertain.
  It would be foolhardy to say that we have an uneconomic coal industry because the price of oil, which is sustained by a cartel, has fallen and that we shall close pits wholesale without taking account of the long-term implications. That is why we need a coherent and flexible energy policy. The absence of such a policy has been my consistent and major criticism of the Government. We must determine the parameters within which we want to operate, for coal, oil, gas and electricity. It is not good enough for the Government to sit back and say that they will allow the market to determine price, that they accept no resposibility for the market, irrespective of whether it is manipulated by cartels, multinationals or what I would call slave labour in Third world countries. We have a right and a duty to take account of such factors.
  The document does not preclude our taking note of such factors. It says that solving social and regional problems will remain matters in which Government intervention is allowed. I have identified the areas in which there should be intervention. The Government should do more in that respect. I hope that our taking note of the document will not be used as an excuse to reduce such activity.
  The hon. Member for Midlothian said that he had not had a brief from the National Coal Board. I agree that none of us has had a brief, but I tried to get some information today and, at the end of the afternoon, got a telephone call to the effect that there is nothing significant in the document, so the NCB does not have a view. It was not terribly anxious to elaborate. That is not very helpful. I should have thought that a Member of Parliament seeking information might have been given a rather more full explanation. I was genuinely grateful for the Minister's opening speech, as I needed some guidance about the background. I realise that we are taking note of a developing policy, within which we can sensibly operate.

  403
  I strongly believe that the House should start to look forward. We should try to find common ground and recognise some of the wider issues. This sterile confrontation cannot continue. The Minister is committed to that objective, I know. To the extent that he acts accordingly, I shall support him. I reserve the right, however, to take issue with him when I think that he falls short of that objective.
  11.35 pm
  Mr. David Ashby: I regret that I have only a minute or two to say what I want to say.
  I take the point made by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). I come from an area where there has been a considerable rundown of mining capacity. Miners in my area remember that most of the mines were closed when the Labour party was in power. Those miners received neither redundancy money nor, in many cases, concessionary coal.
  The current rundown of mines has led to problems in my area. However, at least there are now substantial redundancy payments. We also have NCB (Enterprise) Limited. People in my area, with the help of NCB (Enterprise) Limited, have gone out and sold the area. We have achieved a number of additional jobs for those miners who had lost their jobs.
  I exhort each hon. Member to go out and sell his area and to get hold of NCB (Enterprise) Limited. They should try to organise a seminar and explain to those in need of jobs when mines close that there are great opportunities for them. I have said time and time again that the important thing is to think positively, not negatively.
  11.36 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The Secretary of State said this week that he had been staggered by the success of the industry. We have not been staggered—we have been telling him for months that the consequence of the closure of high-cost capacity would be a substantial economic improvement—but achieved at very high cost both to the community and in loss of reserves. The Government must respond to that success by insisting upon substantial progress with the expansion of coal into the industrial market. However, it is to the European market that I wish to address my remarks.
  The NCB has almost a 50 per cent. stake in the shareholding of the British Fuel Company. I hope that the Minister is listening. That company has a 46 per cent. holding in Inter Continental Fuels. In turn, that has a 15 per cent. shareholding in the Coal Trading Corporation Group. That group is actually controlled by two French public companies — Charbonnages de France and Association Technique de l'Importation Charbonniere—[Interruption.] The point is serious, although the title may be amusing.
  The point to which the Minister must address himself is that those two companies are part of the French public sector, now increasingly engaged in the importation of South African coal and trading it in France and the Mediterranean. I accept that President Mitterrand is of the same political persuasion as me. He maintains that he is leading the fight against apartheid. The Minister must go to Europe and insist that our successful coal industry obtains the share to which it is entitled inside the Common Market. If that means an assault on President Mitterrand
  404
  to ensure that he fulfills his promise to lead the fight against apartheid, so be it. The Minister knows that the Government, with a firm attitude, can secure a larger share of the European market. The success of the industry during the past six months demonstrates the case.
  It is about time that the NCB once again returned to a rather higher priority for training and recruitment, which have not received the attention that they deserve. Perhaps the Minister will think on that.
  11.38 pm
  Mr. Eadie: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief. The contribution of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) was a good example of why the Government are in trouble. He either cannot hear or he cannot read. How could he suggest that there is something clandestine about an Opposition spokesman saying that he had spoken to the Secretary of State for Energy who had confirmed that he would uphold the United Kingdom's position at the Energy Ministers' Council and that a British Parliament would be able to decide on the future of the coal industry? If there is anything clandestine or suspicious about that, there is little hope for us. We shall have Yahoo politics.
  The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) said that he was in favour of maintaining coal subsidies. I hope that we shall not be frightened off by the changing oil situation. It could be said that the coal industry is lucky and that the oil prices are coming down, but that will have consequences not for the coal industry but for the oil industry. It means that the marginal oil fields will no longer be developed, and that the off-shore oil industry will be devastated.
  The House has given the Minister a fair wind and told him what he should do at Brussels. We welcome what he said earlier. He has an easy job in responding to the debate. We want to make sure that the United Kingdom decisions are taken in the British Parliament and not decided by Brussels bureaucrats.
  11.42 pm
  Mr. David Hunt: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate has been comprehensive and has covered a range of issues. Hon. Members' points have been of great value in preparing for the detailed negotiations that stretch ahead of us in Brussels before we can sign the final decision. I hope that the hon. Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall), for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and my hon. Friends the Members for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) will excuse me if I do not reply to all of the questions that have been posed, in view of the time restraint. I want to get in as many contributions as possible, so I shall write to all concerned if I am not able to cover their points.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) for dealing with these issues in his characteristically committed way, as he so ably stewarded much of the operation of the existing state aids regime in its early days. No one knows better than he the way with which these matters have to be dealt. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington must take account of the fact that the direction

  405
  about which we are talking covers not only deficit but social grants. He will find the answer to his question among the social costs.
  The hon. Member for Midlothian, and others, said how proud they were of the achievements of those who work in the coal industry, and there are many reasons why the future of our coal industry has every prospect of being the brightest in Europe. We have the greatest coal reserves in Europe, the best and finest mining engineers, the benefit of world-class British mining equipment and manufacturers, and, with new productivity records being set from Scotland to Kent and from south Wales to the midlands, British miners are demonstrating beyond all reasonable doubt that they are the best in the world. What a transformation we have seen. Output per man shift under the Labour Government, sadly, moved down from 2·29 tonnes in 1974–75 to 2·24 tonnes in 1978–79. The latest available figure is 3·02 tonnes. That means that all the improvement in productivity over the past 12 years has taken place since this Government came to power, and the figure is still rising.
  Hon. Members should be in no doubt that at the Energy Council on 20 March, the United Kingdom will continue to resist any inappropriate intervention by Brussels in our coal industry, because the objective for the NCB is to develop an outstanding and economically viable industry that can compete in the world energy market. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North was right to point to the uncertainties that lie ahead, but the board is on target to reach its objective by 1987–88. To achieve that, aids will continue to be necessary. Therefore, it is essential that a realistic and sympathetic system of support should emerge from our negotiation in Brussels to allow progress to continue without any fear of violation of our treaty commitments. We shall continue to press for this. I commend the motion to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9316/85, and supports the Government's intention to ensure that the new rules governing state aids for the coal industry should continue to take full account of the United Kingdom's objective of achieving a smooth transition to a sound and viable industry.

  West Glamorgan (Economic Situation)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
  11.44 pm
  Mr. Donald Coleman: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of the House and of the Government to the worsening economic situation in west Glamorgan. It is giving increasing anxiety both to those who live in the county and to those who represent it nationally and locally. I hope to put on record some of the worries being expressed about the west Glamorgan economy. Having done so, I hope that the Government will be galvanised into action to produce solutions to our problems.
  I remind the House of the industrial importance of west Glamorgan which is underlined by the companies and corporations identified with it. They include the British Steel Corporation, the National Coal Board, British Petroleum Oil, British Petroleum Chemicals, British Aluminium, the Metal Box Company, the Ford Motor Company, and Cam Gears, all of which have national and international reputations. In 1979, when the Prime Minister formed her first Administration, they employed thousands of people in the county. Today, the position of those industrial giants is dramatically different. They have drastically cut their work forces. Instead of employing thousands, in most cases they employ only hundreds while some have closed altogether.
  Before 1979 my parliamentary colleagues in west Glamorgan and I could take consolation from the fact that there was security of employment for our people with those employers, while redundancies were taking place in less substantial industrial undertakings and unemployment was rising. The fear of massive unemployment that exists in the county today did not enter into our thinking then. Unfortunately, today we do not have such a comforting position. All too often we hear of cuts and closures resulting in redundancies and miseries.
  To set our fears and anxieties in perspective, I shall quote from a letter written to the county's Members of Parliament on behalf of the county council by Mr. Rush, the clerk of the council, and dated 14 January 1986. He writes:
  "Without mentioning any confidential information and looking only at press reports, local industry is shown to be under great pressure with difficulty to keep employment levels static.
  Since the beginning of October 1985 there have been reports of short time at Ford Motor Co., Metal Box (300 laid off until'86) and B.S.C. Port Talbot's two weeks break at Christmas. Redundancies have been announced at Morganite, INCO, Unit-Inspection, Roadline, and Lucas Electrical at Ystradgynlais. N.C.B. have closed their Aberpergwm mine (following N.C.B. Treforgan in July) and Addis have announced the closure of their Fforestfach factory. Also, the major redundancies of 750 at B.P. Llandarcy announced earlier in the year have still to take effect."
  That letter shows clearly the gale of unemployment which is blowing through west Glamorgan. Those difficulties show that not one of the parliamentary constituencies is unaffected.
  The county clerk also quoted the figures for benefit claimants for December 1985, issued by the Department of Employment. Male unemployment stood at 17,782 and female unemployment at 7,212, giving a total of 24,994. The recently published figures for January 1986 show that

  407
  the position has become worse, not better, with 19,418 male benefit claimants and 7,212 females, giving a total of 27,282.
  In fairness, I should say that there have been some welcome developments, such as the further expansion of Slima Wales, which will employ 130 more people at its Ystalyfera factory in my constituency, and the rapid take-up of space at the factories of the Welsh Development Agency on the Baglan industrial park. There is also the useful work of the Neath development partnership and the west Glamorgan enterprise trust. Unfortunately, those successes will not go far towards balancing recent losses, and they are mostly projections of additional jobs over a three-year period.
  As if to emphasise this "having to run to keep up with ourselves" in west Glamorgan, within days of our receiving the letter from the county council to which I referred there came the shattering announcement from the Metal Box Company that a huge cut in employment was to take place at the company's Neath factory, with some redundancies coming as early as April this year and the remainder occuring in the spring of 1987. The result will be that the factory which employed some 2,000 people in 1979 will be providing work for only some 500 people when this announced redundancy is completed. We are told that this redundancy is because of changes in technology, foreign competition and the fluctuations in the value of sterling. Nowhere is there any complaint about the behaviour of the work force. In fact, the company has always expressed itself happy at the co-operation that it has received in these difficult times from the workers at the factory.
  I turn to an aspect of these redundancies and plant closures to which not enough attention is paid, especially by the Government—the loss of revenue to the local authorities when that action takes place. I believe that the Government should take greater account of the effect of factory closures on the local economies, especially in the case of west Glamorgan. I shall give a few examples of the loss of revenue to local authorities which show up their position.
  The Lliw Valley borough council tells me that the number of non-domestic properties in the borough with a void rating was listed in September 1981 as 36,700. By 30 September 1985, there had been a dramatic increase to 162,000. Neath borough council has told me that in March 1985 at BP Llandarcy the rateable value was reduced from £622,850 to £531,300. The rundown in the refinery will mean a significant loss in rateable value which could fall to some £400,000 by 1 April 1986. The rateable value of Metal Box, which is at present £125,500, is likely to fall to £75,000 as a result of the company's contraction of its operations in Neath. There are other examples in Neath, but time does not allow me to quote them.
  I ask the Under-Secretary of State to take on board this effect on the county's economy. We hear all too often from Conservative Members how rates deter investment, but what I have just said shows that closures seriously affect the revenues of local authorities. There is, therefore, a much closer identity of interest between local authorities and industry than the Conservative party cares to recognise.
  I turn to a consideration of the Swansea enterprise zone and its effect on the economy of west Glamorgan. The enterprise zone is sited on a location that was once the metallurgical centre of the world, giving employment to
  408
  thousands of people. It is to the credit of Swansea city council that it took the initiative to clear the dereliction of a past industrial era and convert it into a place of employment for today. That was the intention but, unfortunately, instead of becoming a new centre for manufacturing, it seems to be becoming a place where retail outlets and warehouses are established, neither of which gives any significant employment.
  The effect of this is being felt by businesses in the Swansea city centre, the other local shopping centres in the city and the shopping centres in the surrounding boroughs. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has confirmed to me that the enterprise zone is having an adverse effect on local shopping centres in his constituency. He has told me of the difficulties of businesses in Morriston. I have received complaints about the adverse effects of the zone upon businesses in Pontardawe and Neath.
  It seems that the Government grants which are forthcoming for the enterprise zone are not producing the jobs that their huge investment should be bringing about. It comes as something of a surprise to find a hotel and a public house being built in an enterprise zone, but that is what is happening.
  I ask the Minister to examine more closely what is happening in the enterprise zone. I ask him also to insist that real manufacturing jobs must be created in it and that the zone does not become the means of destroying the city and town centres in the county. thereby creating even more unemployment and economic problems. I shall digress for a moment to say that one thing that I can see flowing from the Government's Sunday trading Bill, if it becomes law, is the huge retail outlets in the enterprise zone becoming very rich while the town and city centre businesses close down, causing more and more unmployment.
  What is demanded to put things right in west Glamorgan? There is general agreement in west Glamorgan that the entire county should be designated as a special development area so that we may have the grants and inducements that will bring the investment that is needed. The Government must understand that their legislation which created west Glamorgan brought together as a county localities which have always been dependent upon one another for employment.
  Ministers have had it urged upon them time and time again by the Members who represent the county and by those in local government that west Glamorgan must have special development areas designation. I urge the Minister to understand that we see no other way in which we can revive the county's prosperity. West Glamorgan had thousands more jobs when inducements were available before 1979 than it has today under present policies. Clearly that is the proof of our case.
  Communications are essential to any economy, and it is a vital factor to the communities of west Glamorgan. Perhaps the Minister will be able to help me by responding to my questions on three road schemes. First, can he tell me what progress has been made on the replacement of the stretch of the A365 trunk road between Glynneath and Aberdulais? We have waited a long time for the completion of this vital link between west Glamorgan and the midlands. Can the Minister say something about the stretch of the M4 from Baglan to Lon Las? What is the up-to-date position of the Swansea valley road between Pontardawe and Clydach?

  409
  There are rumours circulating that British Rail intends stopping the 125 Inter-city service at Cardiff and running feeder trains to the west. Such a proposition would be a disaster to west Glamorgan and I hope that the Minister will make it clear to British Rail that that is not acceptable. In any event, British Rail can be assured of the strongest resistance to such a proposal both inside and outside the House.
  The economy of west Glamorgan is taking a severe shaking. It is the Government's duty to recognise that and to change their policy. They must put aside any pride about giving up failed policies. The people of west Glamorgan look for a change and they have a right to do so. I have put the case tonight as others have previously, and I hope on this occasion the Minister has listened and will act.
  11.59 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) has highlighted the specific economic problems of west Glamorgan. I am glad of this opportunity to describe how the Government are tackling them.
  I shall deal first with the recent announcement by Metal Box. Of course, like the hon. Gentleman, I know that the 421 redundancies to take place over the next 15 months will obviously be a blow to the area. At the end of the day those decisions are for the commercial judgement of the company, since it is only the company which is in a position to determine the future of the plant in the light of all the circumstances facing it. However, I can say that officials of our Industry Department have been and will remain in close touch with the company to help in any way they reasonably can; and the Manpower Services Commission will, of course, be standing by to offer its full range of services. I know that Metal Box is considering what it can do to help redundant workers and will be offering counselling and advice. I hope that the company will follow the excellent example set by British Petroleum which accepted its responsibilities to an area which had served it well in the past.
  We are also here tonight to discuss the more general economic position of west Glamorgan. It is always easy to say that more should be spent and more should be done than is the case already. But the hon. Gentleman must also be aware that the Government have always seen their task as being to give assistance to attract real new jobs that offer each area a sustained and long-term future, to invest in worthwhile training programmes which help to meet industry's needs and at the same time to contain inflation as well as encourage investment and profitability. We must therefore look at west Glamorgan in relation to what we are doing on some of those points.
  Let us look first at the assistance available to industry. As a result of the Government's comprehensive review of regional industrial policy in 1984, the whole of the county of west Glamorgan remains eligible for support. The area of greatest need within the county—the Neath and Port Talbot travel-to-work area — is a development area which has the maximum priority for regional assistance. The Swansea travel-to-work area has intermediate area status and is eligible for regional selective assistance; the whole area also enjoys the advantages of access provided
  410
  by the M4 and benefits from the activities of the Welsh Development Agency, the Wales Tourist Board and the Manpower Services Commission.
  I know that the county council and the hon. Member for Neath are pressing that the whole of the west Glamorgan area be given development area status. A key element in the new system is that it is comprehensive and coherent—that is to say, a change in one area cannot be made without repercussions for others. Any change in west Glamorgan could, therefore, have knock-on effects elsewhere in Great Britain which could seriously undermine the balance and effectiveness of the policy as a whole. It is still too early to judge precisely how well the new system is working, but we shall consider carefully the possible need for any future changes which may appear necessary.
  Projects currently being undertaken by companies in the county and for which offers of regional selective assistance have been accepted since 1 January 1984, forecast the creation of nearly 1,800 new jobs and safeguard 2,271 existing jobs. The projects involved include those being undertaken by Corgi Toys, Diversified Products, Spontex, Manoradd and by the Slimma Group mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman may also be aware of the new investment being undertaken by Borg-Warner Ltd. and David S. Smith Ltd. which will strengthen their respective undertakings in the county. In addition, during last year in the hon. Member's own constituency, new style regional development grants totalling some £485,000 and providing 169 jobs have been offered.
  The WDA has been making its own contribution to the area. Since May 1979 85 advance factories have been completed in the county providing 608,000 sq ft of floorspace. Last year 22 agency factories were allocated to companies expecting to create over 600 new jobs. During 1985 there was considerable interest in the Baglan Industrial Park, as the hon. Gentleman said, and six advance factories were allocated to companies expecting to create 245 new jobs. The WDA's annual property review last autumn identified a need for further development at Baglan and the agency's plan for additional factory building in 1986–87 will be announced at the same time as its budget is published in the Supply Estimates. The agency has also made a tremendous contribution to the reclamation of derelict land in the area. It is also encouraging new and high technology. It is collaborating with University College, Swansea, in the development of the innovation centre on the Singleton campus. This initiative has the potential to do much to help generate high technology development in the area.
  The Government are often attacked on the ground that they do not give adequate weight to worth while capital schemes and public sector investment. This is not so. In Wales, since 1979, there have been high levels of investment in factory building. Over £300 million has been spent by the various agencies — through hospital construction, worth £250 million since 1979; to road building, worth over £600 million since the same year. This argument can carry no weight in west Glamorgan, either. With local authority expenditure, the combined capital spending by the four districts and west Glamorgan county council is budgeted in 1985–86 at about £62 million, about £16 million more than in 1984–85 and £28 million more than in 1981–82. Capital spending since 1981–82 has therefore comfortably outstripped the rise in

  411
  inflation and the average increase for Wales as a whole, In the same period the position in Neath is that gross capital spending is forecast for this financial year to be 154 per cent. greater than the amount spent in 1981–82.
  For the forthcoming year capital allocations to local authorities in Wales were increased by £60 million, 23 per cent. more than authorities received for the current year. Within this increase west Glamorgan's share of the total resources has also risen. The capital allocation for housing in the area has risen by 24 per cent. while overall allocations have increased by 25 per cent.
  I would also like to mention the effect of next year's rate support grant settlement on the authorities in the county area. The settlement is a good one for Wales, and particularly good for west Glamorgan. Overall increases in provision and grant exceed the forecast rate of inflation. If west Glamorgan county council increases its spending by 5 per cent. next year, which is in line with the settlement, then its rate precept need go up only by 2·1 per cent.—less than half the projected rate of inflation. In Neath the situation is even better. Rates could fall by as much as 8 per cent. I hope that both authorities will continue to budget as responsibly next year as they have done recently. They know the considerable benefits to industry and business that come in the wake of realistic rates.
  There is often some misunderstanding over the effect of factory closures on loss of rates. Rate support grant is an equalisation grant. Broadly speaking, this means that losses in rateable value are compensated for by increases in block grant, so if a factory closes the authority should in normal circumstances, receive an increase in block grant as a result.
  Within west Glamorgan, as the hon. Gentleman readily acknowledged, the importance of good road communications in assisting efforts to promote economic activity and improve job prospects is fully recognised and £25 million has been spent on improving the motorways and trunk roads in the county since 1979. The virtual completion of the M4 between the Severn bridge and Pont Abraham gives west Glamorgan direct access to the national motorway network. But we are keen to press ahead with two major road improvement schemes in west Glamorgan. Preparation work on the A465 Glyn Neath-Aberdulais improvement is already well in hand; subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures and engineering design, we expect to have this £26 million scheme ready to start between 1988 and 1990. The other major scheme provisionally planned to start in this period is the Baglan-Lon Las section of the M4. If opportunity presents itself, some work on this £90 million project could be put in hand before 1988.
  I must also draw attention to the importance of west Glamorgan county council's own road improvement programme. It already has £13 million worth of major projects under way, comprising the A483 north dock interchange in Swansea, the A484 Loughor bridge replacement and the A4067 Ynsforgan to Glais improvement. My Department has been glad to support these schemes by meeting 50 per cent. of their cost through transport supplementary grant. Moreover, we have also accepted for transport supplementary grant purposes a further two schemes with a combined cost of £12 million
  412
  which are due to start in 1986–87. First, there is the section of the A4067 improvement between Glais and Pontardawe. Second, there is the Neath urban inner city bypass which forms an integral part of the Neath redevelopment scheme. Our commitment to the trunk road programme and our support for the county road programme should leave no one in doubt as to the importance we attach to providing a road infrastructure appropriate to the needs of west Glamorgan.
  A further significant contribution to the employment opportunities in the county has been the successful development of the Swansea enterprise zone. The latest progress report indicates that between designation and June last year 137 firms have taken premises on the zone, bringing with them over 1,600 jobs, of which 750 were new ones. A further 154 jobs are expected to result from firm commitments to the zone. Although just over the border from the hon. Member's constituency, I have no doubt that many of his constituents have benefited from our contribution to the zone, which to date includes £7·5 million from urban programme and special capital allocations, plus a further £5·4 million as compensation for the rate revenue forgone from premises within the zone.
  The hon. Gentleman and others have criticised the amount of retailing that is allowed in the zone. After listening to the arguments we agreed that the limit on the requirement for retail developments to seek planning consent should be reduced from 45,000 to 25,000 sq ft. The new limit was introduced only in April 1985 and the city council is currently assessing its effectiveness. We shall, of course, be prepared to consider evidence from the council on the adequacy of the present limit.
  Assistance aimed specifically at preparing young people for work and supporting those looking for work is particularly important and is being directed through the various schemes run by the Manpower Services Commission. In that context I must mention the package of measures which is aimed directly at the problems facing long-term unemployed people, because the hon. Member's constituency has a special part to play in this.
  The measures were announced in November and as part of them in pilot areas — which include the Neath and Port Talbot travel-to-work area—people who have been unemployed for more than one year can receive a "job-start" payment of £20 per week for six months if they accept a job at under £80 per week. This arrangement is backed by a programme of counselling interviews which could lead to the offer of a job, a place on the community programme, entry to the enterprise allowance scheme, a place on a relevant MSC training course or membership of a local job club. Although it is still early days, the first signs of the pilot study are encouraging.
  Our contribution either to firms which want assistance to move to the area or to protect the jobs they have already created, or to individuals who are seeking work, can be successful only if there is a matching contribution from local communities, local authorities and from the private sector. In west Glamorgan, this contribution has been demonstrated by the energy of the local enterprise agency movement, by the success of the enterprise zone at Swansea, by urban programme schemes and by the partnership with the private sector through urban development grant projects.

  413
  The Government attach considerable importance to the promotion of small businesses and are now doing much to encourage their expansion as part of our overall policy of expanding economic growth. We believe—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued
  414
  for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Naturalisation
  Naturalisation
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Asylum
  Asylum
  Mr. Simon Garoeb
  Mr. Simon Garoeb
  Police (Injuries)
  Police (Injuries)
  Motoring Convictions
  Motoring Convictions
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Police (Entry Requirements)
  Police (Entry Requirements)
  Animal Experiments
  Animal Experiments
  Drug Addicts
  Drug Addicts
  Holloway Prison
  Holloway Prison
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
WALES
  Land Reclamation
  Land Reclamation
  Health Visitors
  Health Visitors
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Housing Co-operatives
  Housing Co-operatives
  Town and Parish Councils
  Town and Parish Councils
  Dog Licences
  Dog Licences
  County of Cleveland (Abolition)
  County of Cleveland (Abolition)
  Contracts (Non-commercial Clauses)
  Contracts (Non-commercial Clauses)
  Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981
  Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981
  Direct Labour Organisations
  Direct Labour Organisations
  Dennis-Wild Houses
  Dennis-Wild Houses
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potato Marketing Board
  Potato Marketing Board
  EC Measures
  EC Measures
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Law Charges
  Law Charges
PRIME MINISTER
  Courts (Servicing Costs)
  Courts (Servicing Costs)
  Telephone Calls (Tape Recording)
  Telephone Calls (Tape Recording)
  Urban Renewal (Bradford)
  Urban Renewal (Bradford)
  Ministerial Responsibility
  Ministerial Responsibility
TRANSPORT
  Voluntary Bodies
  Voluntary Bodies
  Fishing Vessels (Loss at Sea)
  Fishing Vessels (Loss at Sea)
  Fishermen (Safety)
  Fishermen (Safety)
  Addingham Bypass
  Addingham Bypass
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Tampons
  Tampons
  Microelectronics
  Microelectronics
  Audio Tapes
  Audio Tapes
  New Technology
  New Technology
  London Borough of Ealing
  London Borough of Ealing
  Kleinwort, Benson Ltd.
  Kleinwort, Benson Ltd.
  Takeovers (Shareholders' Funds)
  Takeovers (Shareholders' Funds)
ENERGY
  Kleinwort, Benson Ltd.
  Kleinwort, Benson Ltd.
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Sub-Saharan Africa
SCOTLAND
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Voluntary Bodies
  Voluntary Bodies
  Parking Fines
  Parking Fines
  Projects (Liquidation)
  Projects (Liquidation)
  Examinations (Markers)
  Examinations (Markers)
  Health Boards (Rates)
  Health Boards (Rates)
  NHS (Expenditure)
  NHS (Expenditure)
  AIDS
  AIDS
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Terrorism (Syria)
  Terrorism (Syria)
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Central America
  Central America
  USSR
  USSR
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Terrorism (Arab Hit Squads)
  Terrorism (Arab Hit Squads)
  European Community Reform
  European Community Reform
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Treaty of Rome
  Treaty of Rome
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Israel
  Israel
  Iran
  Iran
  BBC (External Services)
  BBC (External Services)
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Iran-Iraq War
  Iran-Iraq War
  Nigeria (British Prisoners)
  Nigeria (British Prisoners)
  Libya
  Libya
  Australia
  Australia
  Mr. Oscar Mpetha
  Mr. Oscar Mpetha
  Anglo-Soviet Relations
  Anglo-Soviet Relations
  Disarmament
  Disarmament
  African National Congress
  African National Congress
  Pakistan
  Pakistan
  Turkish Peace Association
  Turkish Peace Association
  Irish Republic (Terrorism Convention)
  Irish Republic (Terrorism Convention)
  EC Council of Ministers (Veto)
  EC Council of Ministers (Veto)
  Turkey
  Turkey
  EC (Policy Development)
  EC (Policy Development)
  EC (Co-ordination and Co-operation)
  EC (Co-ordination and Co-operation)
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  European Act
  European Act
  Uganda
  Uganda
  EC (Treaty Reform)
  EC (Treaty Reform)
  Gulf War
  Gulf War
  East-West Relations
  East-West Relations
  Luxembourg Agreement (Denmark)
  Luxembourg Agreement (Denmark)
  Israeli-Jordan Relations
  Israeli-Jordan Relations
  EC (Foreign Policy)
  EC (Foreign Policy)
  Nepal (Royal Visit)
  Nepal (Royal Visit)
  Ascension Island
  Ascension Island
  Lesotho
  Lesotho
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
  Polish Nationals (Visas)
  Polish Nationals (Visas)
DEFENCE
  Nuclear Deterrent
  Nuclear Deterrent
  Cammell Laird
  Cammell Laird
  Fleet
  Fleet
  VAT
  VAT
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Financial Guarantees
  Financial Guarantees
  Income Tax (Self Assessment)
  Income Tax (Self Assessment)
  Charities (Donations)
  Charities (Donations)
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Westland plc
  Westland plc
  Kleinwort, Benson Ltd
  Kleinwort, Benson Ltd
  Lodging Allowances
  Lodging Allowances
  European Court Budget
  European Court Budget
NORTHERN IRELAND
  School Building
  School Building
  Russian Language Teaching
  Russian Language Teaching
  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
SOCIAL. SERVICES
  Income Support
  Income Support
  Food and Chemical Allergies
  Food and Chemical Allergies
  Slough
  Slough
  Health Education
  Health Education
  Ambulance Drivers (Training)
  Ambulance Drivers (Training)
  Guardian's Allowance
  Guardian's Allowance
  Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979
  Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979
  Health Authorities (Rates)
  Health Authorities (Rates)
  NHS (Expenditure)
  NHS (Expenditure)
  Unit General Managers
  Unit General Managers
  Mrs. Myra Mabel Fairclough
  Mrs. Myra Mabel Fairclough
  Mr. Kenneth Harris
  Mr. Kenneth Harris
  Mr. D. H. Briggs
  Mr. D. H. Briggs
  Hospitals (Hampshire)
  Hospitals (Hampshire)
  Children in Care (Hampshire)
  Children in Care (Hampshire)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Health and Personal Social Services (Statistics)
  Health and Personal Social Services (Statistics)
  Primary Health Care (Expenditure)
  Primary Health Care (Expenditure)

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

Lord Ackner
The Right Honourable Sir Desmond James Conrad Ackner, Knight, a Lord Justice of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and thereby created a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Ackner, of Sutton in the County of West Sussex—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Wilberforce and the Lord Templeman.

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton
The Right Honourable Sir Peter Raymond Oliver, Knight, a Lord Justice of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and thereby created a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Oliver of Aylmerton, of Aylmerton in the County of Norfolk—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Campbell of Alloway and the Lord Silkin of Dulwich.
Viscount Hardinge—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Costs Taxation Acts: Consolidation
2.43 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, on behalf of and at the request of my noble friend Lord Molson, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will undertake the consolidation of the Parliamentary Costs Act 1865, the Parliamentary Costs Act 1871, the House of Commons Costs Taxation Act 1847, the House of Lords Costs Taxation Act 1849 and the House of Commons Taxation Act 1879; and any clauses of other Acts relevant to this matter.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, the Law Commission is chiefly responsible for work concerning the consolidation of statute law. I understand that it has at present no plans to consolidate the particular enactments to which my noble friend refers in the Question. The commission is, however, always prepared to listen to proposals in this respect, and I will see that my noble friend's Question and this Answer are brought to its attention.
Lord Renton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I thank my noble and learned friend for that largely encouraging reply.
Baroness White: My Lords, may I support the request submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on behalf of his noble friend? The present state of the law is extremely inconvenient, particularly for some local voluntary organisations which take part in inquiries. I hope that in the process the Act of 1867 and the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945, which was called in aid in discussions on the Okehampton bypass, will be included in any consultation that might be considered appropriate.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question refers to consolidation and not to amendment. I do not see—perhaps I have it wrong—any Act of 1867 in the Question; neither is the Act of 1945, which is the one that applies to the Okehampton bypass. However, if the noble Baroness will write to me with any particulars which she has I shall be very glad to look into the matter.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am most grateful for that reply, but the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will appreciate that at the conclusion of his Question the noble Lord, Lord Molson, states:
"and any clauses of other Acts relevant to this matter".

Public Expenditure
2.46 p.m.
Lord Molloy: 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 has been the level of public spending as a percentage of the gross national product from 1978 to the end of financial year 1985.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, public expenditure is normally calculated as a percentage of national income by using gross domestic product as the denominator. With permission, I will circulate the full figures in the Official Report. The figures show that the percentage has been declining steadily since 1982–83. In that year it stood at 46½ per cent. In 1985–86 it is estimated to be 44½ per cent.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that reply, which will seem to obscure more than it reveals until we see what appears in his written reply. Would it be fair to say that, by and large, public expenditure has over the past five years increased annually?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords, it would not be true to say that. Public expenditure has been decreasing annually since 1982–83.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord very kindly give us figures for public investment—which is a major component of public spending—calculated as a percentage of the gross domestic product, as he requests, for the periods that my noble friend Lord Molloy refers to?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I can certainly produce those figures but, alas, not at this moment since it is another question. But I must tell your Lordships that it is not public investment that is important but the total of investment. Last year fixed capital investment stood, I believe, at £60 billion and next year it will be up at £64 billion. Both figures are records.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to return to the Dispatch Box, but perhaps I can help the noble Lord. Public investment on the national accounts basis percentage of gross domestic product in 1979 was 6.5 per cent. In 1985 it is estimated to be 4.7 per cent. In real terms, public investment is estimated to decline by nearly 20 per cent. Will the noble Lord please accept, for once, that the cuts in investment have bitten deepest in public investment where the national need is greatest?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords, not in the slightest. For one thing, a Question on public spending is a long way indeed from public investment; and, secondly, I could contest the noble Lord's contention.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if the noble Lord says, as he did, that it has been declining since 1982–83, why cannot he answer the Question and give us the percentage? How does he know that what he is saying is correct?
Lord Young of Graffham: Because, my Lords, the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, was about the percentage of the gross national product from 1978 to the end of the financial year. It had nothing whatever to do with investment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that in order to obtain a true picture of the amount of public spending in terms of resources devoted to public purposes as a percentage of the gross national product, one needs to exclude transfer payments? Will the noble Lord's table, when printed in the Official Report, also give public spending net of transfer payments as a percentage of the GNP?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I can of course gladly supply that information, and I shall.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in his Answer the noble Lord was kind enough to give the figures from 1982 onwards. Will the noble Lord reply verbally to the Question on the Order Paper, which mentioned 1978? Will the noble Lord also state what the percentage is now and the percentage as it was in 1978–79?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Question actually asked was about each year from 1978 until the end of the financial year 1985, and as I have offered I shall provide all the figures in the Official Report. If the noble Lord wishes me to waste the time of your Lordships' House by reading out the full table of figures, of course I shall do so.
The figure for 1978–79 was in fact 43 per cent.; for 1979–80 it was 43½ per cent.; it was 46 per cent. for 1980–81; 46½ per cent. for 1981–82; 46½ per cent. For
1134
1982–83; 46 per cent. for 1983–84; 45½ per cent. for 1984–85; 44½ per cent. for 1985–86; and as a gratuitous piece of information it was 48½ per cent. for 1975–76.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, since the questions put to the Minister by the noble Lord opposite seemed confidently to imply that he knew the answers already, can we be told what was the point of putting down the Question in the first place?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I occasionally have difficulty in discerning it myself.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I now reveal the purpose of the Question, which the general public are entitled to know since they were told that the Government would steadily decrease the percentage of public spending? Will the noble Lord now explain why the Government said that they would decrease public spending, when in point of fact it has increased?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in the first year the present Government were not in office—that was 1978–79—but as regards succeeding years it is true that for the next two years the percentage did increase. There were slightly exceptional circumstances, and in each year since then the percentage has either remained the same or has decreased.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, after all this discussion may we take it that the noble Lord subscribes to the proposition that there are lies, damned lies and statistics?
Following are the figures referred to above:

GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE* AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT

1978–79

1979–80

1980–81

1981–82

1982–83

1983–84

1984–85

1985–86

estimated

outturn

outturn

outturn

outturn

outturn

outturn

outturn

outturn

Total general government expenditure

43

43½

46

46½

46½

46

45½

441½

Spending on goods and services

22½

22½

24

23½

23½

23½

23½

23

*General government expenditure, the measure of public expenditure used in calculating this percentage, covers spending by central and local government. It differs from the public expenditure planning total, for example, by excluding part of public corporations spending and including debt interest payments. Further details are in table 2.19 of Volume II of the public expenditure White Paper (Cmnd. 9702) and in an article in Economic Trends, August 1985.

Public Buildings: Energy Conservation
2.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: 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 action they are taking to conserve energy by encouraging or arranging the reduction of overheating in public buildings.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, one of the aims of the Government during Energy Efficiency Year 1986 is to bring about improved energy efficiency in public buildings. Energy managers are being appointed throughout the Government estate and the rest of the public sector, and their task is to keep energy consumption within standards appropriate to the buildings for which they are responsible. They will pay attention to heating control systems, and—like everyone else—will be governed by the provisions of the Fuel and Electricity (Heating) (Control) (Amendment) Order 1980.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that satisfactory reply. Will the Government do all that may be necessary to dispel any idea that an apparent surplus of crude oil internationally, and now a reduction in world prices of crude oil, make any conservation of this kind less necessary?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are indeed doing our best through Energy Efficiency Year to make that point as clear as possible, and my noble friend may have seen the estimates that some £7 billion a year could be saved in energy consumption.
Lord Somers: My Lords, in view of the weather forecast, is this not rather an inappropriate time to have asked this Question? Would the noble Lord agree that sometimes the temperature in your Lordships' Chamber falls a little below what is desirable?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that this building is the responsibility of the Property Services Agency. There is in fact an energy efficiency officer (I think that is the designation) with responsibility for the building, and I must sympathise with him because I cannot believe that he can have an easy job to do in this building.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, further to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will my noble friend, perhaps, when his attention can be spared from loftier concerns, give some consideration to the temperature of the writing room of this House? Can something be done about that so as to alleviate the distresss and discomfort involved and possibly even increase the efficiency of those under-privileged Members of this House who have no personal accommodation of their own?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think the best that I can say to my noble friend is that I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of the appropriate authority.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that this is a really serious and difficult problem, in that people's heating needs in fact differ and the ideal is that heating arrangements should be adequate, comfortable and, indeed, controlled? I very much agree with what the noble Lord said in his reply to his noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, but can he say whether the Government policy of restricting local government expenditure, and indeed central government expenditure, is preventing the installation of modern heating systems with up-to-date, efficient, control systems?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords, so far as energy conservation is concerned, local authorities obtain considerable assistance from the department. I believe that the amount of money that could be saved by local authorities is estimated to be in the region of £135 million a year as calculated by the Audit Commission. Through the Audit Commission we have helped local authorities to develop guidelines and train their auditors in energy value-for-money audit. We have designed a special monitoring and targeting programme for them, and by the end of this year virtually all local authorities in England and Wales will have their energy use assessed against proper yardsticks.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I really do thank the noble Lord for that answer. Will he pay some attention to the fact that many local authorities seem to be under the impression that if they use capital resources in improving heating they will have to reduce capital expenditure on other services? There seems to be that point of view in local authorities.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have an answer to that particular question at the moment, but I shall look into it and perhaps write to the noble Lord.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether the Government are taking steps to prevent people from getting overheated in another place?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think that is a question for me to answer in this Chamber.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, unwittingly, some recent questions of mine seem to be leading to improvements in the comfort of your Lordships? Does my noble friend agree that an oppressively overheated room or hall in a building owned or administered by central government is not only a waste of energy but a very bad example to others?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I certainly agree with everything that my noble friend has said.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, does my noble friend also agree that it tends towards making quite a few of us catch bad colds? While I do not have one at the moment, that certainly is one result.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend may well be right, but I am not a doctor.

Satellite Television: BBC Study
2.57 p.m.
Lord Gridley: 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 the British Broadcasting Corporation plans to operate a satellite television World Service, and if so when is the earliest date of transmission proposed.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, the BBC has established a working party to study the cost, contractual feasibility, and potential market for an external broadcasting service in vision. I understand that they will be reporting shortly. We shall consider carefully any proposals which they may put to us.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, may I ask her whether the people who are concerned in this matter have considered whether, in the event of a television World Service, it would affect the reputation for impartiality gained by overseas radio broadcasts, which is much appreciated throughout various areas of the world?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am glad to agree with what my noble friend has said in his tribute to the BBC external broadcasts. His original point, of course, is one of the matters which no doubt will be looked at in consideration of the report that has recently been received.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Government have announced that this service presents a formidable funding and technical problem. Can the noble Baroness give the House some idea of the magnitude of the cost?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think it would be very difficult to answer the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, because it is too early to say how any proposal which might be made for a television service could be funded.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the British telecommunications industry is technically right out in front in the techniques associated with DBS broadcasting? Although I agree that there are all these problems of funding, does she accept that if anything can be done to accelerate matters it would be of immense advantage to the telecommunications industry in this country?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I note very much what my noble friend has to say about the importance of the telecommunications industry and the fact that it is in the forefront of development. I assure him that the proposals made by the BBC will be studied carefully, bearing in mind the point that he has made. The IBA has recently presented a report to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on possible options for a United Kingdom DBS service, and those are currently being studied by the relevant departments, too.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, can we take it that in order to secure maximum economy there will be complete collaboration with the independent broadcasting organisations with a view to their sharing the satellite facility?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says. I am sure that that is one of the matters that needs to be considered carefully.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say at this stage whether the BBC's plans
1138
anticipate its independent use of a satellite, or whether it intends to rent part of the services of an existing satellite? That will have a most profound bearing on the eventual capital cost of the operation.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I take the point that the noble Lord has made, which is an important one. I have no doubt that that is one of the matters that will be considered by the working party that is looking at the future possible service.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, may I echo what I think the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, said in his supplementary question: may we have an assurance from the Government that the expenditure will in no way impair the amount of money spent on sound broadcasting, which reaches far more people in the third world than television broadcasting ever could, and which is already under-funded?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am glad to confirm to the noble Lord the importance that we attach to the BBC External Services. We recognise their value throughout the world.
As he will be aware, the external services have a grant-in-aid of £92 million for 1985–86. That is a sum which has been fixed for the next two years. But, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, it is too early to say anything about funding for any satellite television service proposals.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Elton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the privatisation of water authorities. That will be followed by my noble friend Lord Long, who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on the privatisation of the Welsh Water Authority.

Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Scottish Legal Aid Fund; to make new provision in connection with the availability of criminal legal aid in Scotland; to repeal and re-enact with modifications certain enactments relating to legal aid and to advice and assistance in Scotland; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Education: Avoidance of Politicisation
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to call attention to the case for avoiding the politicisation of education, including the use of public funds for partisan political purposes, and

1139
the violation of the principle of freedom of speech, in universities, colleges and schools; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise this afternoon to draw attention to a matter of great concern for the future of our country. That future lies in the hands of the next generation and is to a considerable extent shaped by its education. Those who wish to bring about radical or revolutionary change may try to use education for their ends. I must stress at the outset that this is not happening everywhere. I should also like at the outset to pay great tribute to the countless dedicated and conscientious people in education who are fulfilling their responsibilities magnificently, often in difficult circumstances.
I must also stress that I am not complacent about the serious problems that beset our society, but those problems do not justify what is happening in many of our universities, polytechnics, secondary schools and even primary schools, where there is a violation of education as it is understood in a free society. I refer to deliberate attempts to undermine and to destroy our cultural heritage, our traditional beliefs and values and our democratic freedoms.
To illustrate the nature of my concern let me give your Lordships some examples. The first concerns freedom of speech. That freedom is a touchstone of a free society and is essential for the pursuit of truth and knowledge which lies at the heart of education as we know it. It should be enshrined in our academies, by which I mean our universities, polytechnics and colleges. If it is denied there, there is indeed something rotten in the state of Britain.
It is therefore disturbing that in recent years we have seen numerous instances of censorship of various kinds. For example, there have been many instances when visiting speakers, sometimes Ministers of State, have been prevented from speaking by physical and verbal attacks. Recent cases include the appalling treatment of Mr David Waddington at Manchester University and the denial of platforms to both academic and political speakers at Southampton University.
Such violations of the principle of the freedom of speech are deeply disturbing, but perhaps even more worrying is the recent paper by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals which concedes that censorship might be allowed on occasions in the interests of security. That seems to me totally unacceptable. If our academies condone censorship, we are on a road that once led to Nazi Germany and now leads to totalitarianism such as that found behind the Iron Curtain. I hope that the guardians of our academies will make freedom of speech their overriding commitment, however unpalatable the views of the speakers may be to them or to their militant students.
If disruptions occur, those responsible for them should be disciplined. I realise that the situation may be complicated. The universities do not have their own police and some troublemakers may be outsiders. But these are not insuperable problems and a commitment to protect freedom of speech must override pragmatic concessions to mob hooliganism. A particularly
1140
degrading concession occurred at the Polytechnic of North London when students had been disrupting the college and preventing teaching during the notorious Harrington affair. Your Lordships may remember seeing the scenes of violence on your television screens. Staff were ordered by the High Court to identify the students, but some refused to do so. They incurred legal costs of about £30,000, and the court of governors agreed that those costs should be paid out of public money.
Censorship on campuses has also taken other forms. The youth branch of Peace through NATO has been prohibited from exhibiting its publications. At Loughborough University the students' union refused permission on the grounds that student union policy is unilateral in nature; while at Southampton University permission was refused because the students' union happens to be a nuclear free zone.
Also, on a disturbing number of campuses Conservative students have been intimidated, harassed and even physically assaulted. The fact that they are Conservative students is irrelevant. No students engaged in lawful activities should be treated as they have been. Their stalls at Freshers' fairs have been attacked. Individuals have been physically hurt, abused and spat at. Attempts to hold meetings have been prevented sometimes by violence and sometimes by the authorities on the grounds that they are a security risk. A recent report lists 32 universities and polytechnics where such unacceptable incidents have occurred in the past few months, from Strathclyde University in the north to Sussex in the south, from Gwent College of Higher Education in Wales to the Universities of Essex and East Anglia. I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister what steps the Government are taking to honour their commitment in last year's Green Paper to maintain freedom of speech under the law in our universities and polytechnics.
I turn now to the use of money for political purposes by some students unions. As the money entrusted to them is public money, the use to which it is put is of public interest. Most people do not begrudge contributing to the cost of students' education. But they would be very angry if they knew that their money was being used for purposes such as coaches to Greenham Common, affiliation to CND or donations to the miners' strike. The Polytechnic of North London students' union has a budget this year of £214,000, not bad in a time of cuts, especially as it only spends about 10 per cent. on student clubs and societies. If ever there was a time for making membership of student unions voluntary and putting an end to such an abuse of public money, it is now.
I return briefly to the important issue of censorship. I refer to the treatment meted out to Mr. Ray Honeyford, former headmaster of Drummond Middle School in Bradford. He was a much respected head, held in great affection by pupils and staff. But he was subjected to a campaign of hatred and ferocious abuse for daring to write about the difficulties of providing good education for all pupils in a school where high proportions of children do not speak English as a first language. For this, he was hounded out of his post having been subjected to serious death threats and, together with his young pupils, having to run a

1141
gauntlet of shouting and jeering crowds on his way into school each day. It is a disturbing portent when an experienced teacher cannot voice legitimate concerns without being dubbed a racist and driven from his job.
That word "racism" introduces my next theme—the politicisation of teaching and curricula. Some local authorities and teachers have adopted specifically political commitments with which they try to permeate the teaching of all subjects or to establish new subjects. Examples include so-called anti-racism, anti-sexism, peace studies and world studies. It is invidious having to criticise subjects with such plausible names. If one criticises peace studies, one feels like a warmonger. If one dares to challenge what is going on in the name of anti-racism, one runs a real risk of being attacked as a racist even though one abhors racism and is deeply concerned about it. But Mr. Honeyford's fate is not unique. Another teacher Mr. Jonathan Savery who had the courage to publish doubts about what is going on in multi-cultural education is now the target of similar attacks.
If your Lordships are wondering why there is concern about what is going on in the name of anti-racism, let me give you some examples from ILEA which is committed to promoting anti-racism throughout the whole curriculum, even developing anti-racist maths. Mr. Singh, one of ILEA's anti-racist team, claims, according to the Sunday Times of 25th November 1984, that,
"It is naive to argue that western mathematics teaching is politically neutral".
Subtraction methods of borrowing and paying back reflect mercantile capitalsim. So anti-racist maths has been developed and is being practised in some schools. At the Dick Sheppard School in Tulse Hill, an anti-racist maths lesson was observed by an experienced teacher who has described how it involved comparing the wages of Sri Lankan tea workers with the prices of tea in western markets. The anti-racism message consisted of observing the exploitation that the figures are supposed to imply. This is, surely, arrant nonsense. The figures by themselves are meaningless and their discussion has nothing to do with the teaching of maths.
But perhaps even more disturbing is some of the material produced specifically on racism such as ILEA's teaching pack called Auschwitz: Yesterday's Racism. Much of that pack illustrates effectively the horrors of Auschwitz. That is unexceptionable. But education becomes political indoctrination when loaded questions and foregone conclusions are slipped in among discussion of the horrors of the death camp. For example, the teachers' guide suggests that children should make links with today by comparing Auschwitz with recent anti-trade union legislation. Note the prefix "anti" as an example of a typical foregone conclusion! The children are also to link Auschwitz with the behaviour of our police on picket lines and with the GCHQ issue. I am not alone in finding this association of ideas and the trivialisation of the horrors of Auschwitz particularly offensive.
I move on now to anti-sexism. Much of the material here is concerned with promoting equal opportunities for girls. I have no quarrel with this; indeed, I welcome it. But much is also essentially anti-heterosexual. For example, the most recent issue of the magazine,
1142
Teaching London Kids, funded by the GLC, focuses on homosexuality with articles on "Introducing Gay Issues into the Curriculum" and "A White Lesbian Teacher's Experiences in a Boys School" in which the teacher claims:
"I want to engage all the students in becoming aware of, and examining, the conditioning process which damages all of us, which conditions us towards accepting heterosexuality as the real world".
Presumably, it is this preoccupation that lies behind the poster seen in a London youth club which proclaims:
"Heterosexuality is a socially transmitted disease".
And, presumably, this preoccupation must also explain events recounted to me by a parent in North London whose daughter had to attend compulsory classes in personal and social education at the expense of having to drop either history or geography. In these classes, 13-year-old girls had to cut out pictures of naked women and fix men's heads to them. It was said that the teacher showed an example of a naked woman with the head of Denis Thatcher. Your Lordships might be thinking that you did not have such fun in your lessons at Eton or at your local grammar school. And, indeed, that example might sound ludicrous. But such practices are surely potentially psychologically disturbing and destabilising for young people especially when their own identities are at a vulnerable stage of development. It is sad indeed when it is in our schools that, in the words of Yeats,
"The ceremony of innocence is drowned".
And, certainly, most parents would not wish their children to be having such lessons at school.
However, some teachers seem to regard parents' values as something to be opposed. According to a parent, the head teacher in a London primary school forbade a little girl to obey her parents' instructions to look after her younger brother because the teacher objected to the parents indoctrinating the girl with ideas of looking after men. These bizarre examples may seem far from the politicisation of education. But there are clear links between anti-sexism and politics. Indeed, those who promote anti-sexism would claim that it is political. And such politics are also consistent with the general revolutionary programme outlined by Lenin and his contemporary followers, part of which is to destabilise society by undermining traditional relationships, especially those of family life.
In other developments the political message is more self-evident—for example, in an anti-police propaganda. Of course the police are not perfect. But the material put out, for example, by the GLC, or the Hackney branch of the National Union of Teachers, is grossly distorted, only showing the police as brutal, racist, and incompetent. There is no adequate account of their merits or of attempts they are making to respond to legitimate criticism. The material—posters, booklets and a video—are indoctrinatory in their gross bias and appear calculated to stir up hatred, conflict and contempt: classic ingredients for revolution. It is also particularly serious in conjunction with policies of keeping police out of the school.
I now turn very briefly to "Peace Studies" and "World Studies". I link them because they are so similar in their political message. Several analyses

1143
have shown how, from university to primary school, the pattern is the same: a consistent anti-Western, anti-NATO, and often stridently anti-American bias, and a consistent lack of any serious discussion of the military and political strategies of the Soviet Union or of the realities of life behind the Iron Curtain.
Much of the material is also educationally inadequate. For example, Exeter Teachers For Peace produced a booklet to encourage teachers to promote peace education across all subjects. It describes how a course on Christian belief might include questions for discussion such as, "Young people, which do you prefer.…atom bombs or charity?" The educational dishonesty of that question as a serious teaching device is, I believe, contemptible. Also contemptible was the behaviour of a teacher who, during the Falklands conflict, told a girl whose father was on active service as a Royal Marine, that he was a "murderer".
In some places there has been explicit refusal even to attempt to teach peace studies in a balanced way. For example, parents at a Manchester school were so worried about bias that they asked the governors to endorse this motion:
"That the governors resolve that whenever peace education is included as part of the curriculum of the school, direct or hidden, as a separate subject or as an integral part of another subject, it be taught in a balanced way, with presentation of both sides of the disarmament question—for and against."
The motion was defeated, and the teachers abstained.
The result of this bias in teaching peace and world studies is that many of our young people are led to believe that there is at best a moral equivalence between the democracies of the West and the closed societies of the Soviet bloc. In more politicised situations, they are inculcated with disaffection or even hatred for our own society and admiration for the triumphs of communism. They are therefore likely to reject the twin premises of defence and deterrence which underpin NATO because they perceive nothing worth defending and nothing which requires deterrence.
I have tended to concentrate mostly on developments at school level, although such subjects as peace studies reach across the borders from university to teacher training to schools. But there are other areas of politicisation which primarily affect adults in subjects such as sociology or in courses of professional training, for example, teachers or social workers. Not all the critics are Right-wing or Tory. One of the most recent critiques of the politicisation of a subject was written by Professor David Marsland, an SDP member, who attacked sociology textbooks for their treatment of war and defence as unacceptably biased and anti-western.
Each of the examples I have given is, I believe, cause for concern in its own right. But taken together—with numerous other examples I could have given—they can be seen as part of the long march through the institutions by those on the far Left who would destroy democracy. May I stress that I would be equally critical if they came from the far Right, but today It is the Left who are fostering a systematic campaign to politicise education. Mr. George Nicholson, when he was given responsibility for political education in ILEA, claimed that his job was,
1144
"like a subversive campaign … I don't believe there is any subject untouched by politics".
And Robin Richardson, now Principal Education Adviser for Brent, wrote 10 commandments for educators. His first commandment is, "Never Forget there's a War on" and he commands teachers to remember, "Your commitment should be to justice, not to truth".
This view of education as part of the revolutionary struggle is reflected in political activities, such as the distribution of a manual to Liverpool school governors giving advice on how to disrupt meetings and undermine the authority of the head. It has since found its way to other cities. It is no wonder that the London Standard recently reported numerous resignations by head teachers from inner city schools under the heading,
"Left blamed as 28 Heads quit early".
It claims that Haringey's Left-wing policies were causing an exodus of head teachers. One of them, Mr. Deverson, who left Down Lane Junior School last Easter claimed that local initiatives on race and sex equality were largely to blame.
He said,
"I am sure we all believe in equality but they have gone the other way … they want to turn the Borough into a feminist state".
Such retreat from the field of battle by experienced teachers, although understandable, will leave the field wide open for further politicisation. One head teacher said to me recently,
"I fear for the future of London's schoolchildren".
The plight of pupils in many London schools and elsewhere is reflected in the despair which leads many parents to make big sacrifices to get their children out of state schools and into independent schools. Many of these parents are not well off but they are so desperate that they sometimes even set up their own schools. One notable example is the John Loughborough School in North London, set up by members of the West Indian community. Dismayed not only by poor academic standards, but also by the lack of moral and spiritual education in local state schools, they set up their own school, with the help of their church. They pay £600 a year for each child, a large sum for families who are not at all well off. I had the privilege of giving the prizes at the last prize-giving and I was deeply impressed. The school clearly gives its pupils an impressive education—academically, morally and spiritually. And I felt a greater spirit of patriotism and appreciation for what is good in our society in that school than I have found in many of our state schools. At John Loughborough School they even sang the National Anthem—something which rarely happens in many of our state schools nowadays.
I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government could do something to help initiatives such as this. After all, it is because we have failed to provide adequate moral, spiritual and academic education that parents have been forced to make such sacrifices and pay for alternative education.
The implications of politicisation of education reach far beyond schools and colleges out into the wider society and into the future. We have touched on the effect of peace studies in undermining the political

1145
will for defence. Other effects include a "drip" effect: a general erosion of appreciation of, and loyalty to, what is good for our country, in our cultural heritage, in our traditional values and in our moral standards. And in adult education, there is in some places a "feeder effect": a deliberate turning out of committed Marxists into key posts, such as teaching, social work, trade unions, the media and local government.
I repeat that I am not complacent about the very real problems in our society. But attempts to think about remedies are very different from commitment to a revolution which would destroy democracy and freedom. If we care about the preservation of a free society, we will do well to take the politicisation of education very seriously.
As I draw to my conclusion, I ask very briefly, what remedies might we consider? First, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Education has just issued a draft circular on guidelines for teaching politically contentious subjects. But as it stands it is very limited and will need considerable strengthening before meeting the concerns I have expressed this afternoon. Secondly, some consideration should be given to the possibility of changes in the law to protect pupils from indoctrination—a difficult but not impossible task.
Thirdly, many people believe the time is ripe for an inquiry into the nature and extent of politicisation in education. The evidence that I have given is only part of that which I could have given; I could have written the same speech many times over, with different examples. But all of these are only part of the picture. At present we have no systematic way of gathering evidence or of putting it into its complete context. Therefore I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he will ask his right honourable friend to set up a searching inquiry into these matters, in ways which protect parents and pupils from intimidation and victimisation.
Finally, I believe that our young generation should have the education which they deserve in the form of education in a free society and education for a free society. Education in a free society should enshrine the principles of freedom of speech, freedom to pursue the truth and freedom to develop views and interests not predetermined by the political commitments of local authorities or of teachers. To deny them this is a betrayal of our birthright. And I also believe that we should educate them for a free society by encouraging them to think critically and rigorously on the basis of all available relevant evidence about the problems which persist in our society as well as its achievements and advantages, especially our precious heritage of freedom. Such education should also enable them to consider critically alternative kinds of society, which means studying not only the problems of the West but also the realities of Marxism-Leninism, the creed which underpins so much politicised education.
Until we appreciate the nature and extent of this politicisation, and resist it when it violates the basic principles of a free society, we run a real risk of allowing our young generation to take their heritage of freedom for granted. Unless they learn that freedom is both precious and precarious they may realise too late that, once lost, it may be impossible to regain. This is why what is happening in parts of our education system is desperately important and why we ignore it
1146
at our peril and at the peril of our children and our children's children. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.32 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, this afternoon my noble friend Lady Cox has provided us with the opportunity to debate an important issue, and in a very powerful and excellent speech she has put some of those concerns before your Lordships. It is fundamental to the health of our society that our children and young people receive an unbiased education, and any threat to this must clearly be regarded with the greatest concern. The Motion before us today refers to all phases of education, but I shall concentrate my remarks on activities in our schools. Other issues raised by my noble friend and noble Lords who will speak later which are more relevant to further and higher education will be answered by my noble friend Lady Hooper when she sums up at the end of the debate.
This debate is particularly opportune because, as my noble friend Lady Cox said in her speech, yesterday my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales initiated consultation on drafts of a circular to local education authorities and of a statement of principles which they believe should inform on the treatment of politically controversial issues in schools and colleges. My noble friend Lady Cox was not aware that this would be the case when she tabled today's Motion, but as matters have turned out this debate is most timely.
My right honourable friends have issued the draft circular and statement of principles because they are aware of disquiet that politically controversial issues may sometimes be tackled in schools and colleges in a manner which amounts to indoctrination. What my noble friend has told us this afternoon is an indication of the degree and nature of the sort of disquiet about which my right honourable friends are concerned. They believe, however, that the education service has a long and honourable tradition of upholding the principles of a free and open society. They are certain that all the partners in the service agree that this tradition must be upheld. Accordingly, it seemed right to them to involve the education service as a whole to agree a set of principles for the treatment of politically controversial issues. Those being consulted about the draft documents include the local authority associations, the school and further education teacher associations, the voluntary bodies and the Society of Education Officers.
The text of the draft statement of principles is short—in fact, it extends to only three paragraphs—and it repays careful study. Copies of the texts of the draft documents, and of the consultation letter issued by my right honourable friends, are in the Library of the House.
The draft documents make it very clear that the Government stand firmly against any attempt to distort or subvert for partisan political purposes the education of our children. There can be no justification for a teacher failing to live up to his professional responsibility to deal with politically controversial issues, when they arise in the classroom,

1147
in a fair and balanced way. Equally, there can be no justification for a local education authority seeking to encourage teaching of a propagandist or politically-biased character in its schools. My right honourable friend set out the Government's views on these and other related matters when he spoke to a one-day conference on peace studies in 1984 which had been organised by the National Council of Women of Great Britain. A copy of his speech is also available in the Library of the House and is well worth studying.
The Government will continue to do all that they can to ensure that the tradition of upholding the principles of a free and fair society is maintained. But how can we ensure that this tradition is maintained and that bias does not enter the teaching programmes in our schools? How do we prevent the indoctrination of our children in their classrooms?
One answer sometimes suggested is that difficult and controversial issues, which might divide society politically, should be kept out of the classroom altogether. I believe that to be misconceived. It ignores the fact that it is impossible to isolate children as they grow up from the important issues of our time, such as human rights, the needs of the third world, and the availability of nuclear weapons. After all, children hear their parents talking about these issues; see them referred to on television or in the newspapers; and many become concerned and will themselves bring their questions and concerns into the classroom. I do not see how schools can avoid dealing with issues such as these, in a way suited to the different age groups which they teach, if they are to help pupils to understand the world in which they live, and the interdependence of individuals, groups and nations.
If schools are to serve our young people they need to play their full part in equipping them with the knowledge and skills which they will require as future citizens. From the age of 18 they will be able to vote. They will be expected to play a role in their local communities. Most will become earners and taxpayers and ratepayers. Many will become parents. To take up effectively these responsibilities they will need to acquire the skills necessary to understand different viewpoints, appreciate conflicting motives and be able to appraise them critically. To quote Better Schools, the curriculum which is offered should develop the potential of every pupil and equip all for the responsibilities of citizenship and the formidable challenge of employment in the world of tommorrow.
This preparation of our children for their responsibilities in the adult world would therefore be incomplete and even distorted if they were to be shut off from discussion of important but perhaps politically sensitive issues. These issues will inevitably arise in the classroom; indeed, pupils may raise them themselves. As pupils get older they need to be encouraged, not discouraged from applying their minds to important issues of the day. If they are not taught to think critically about these things at that stage, there is the real risk of them becoming easy prey to indoctrination and prejudice in adult life.
If it is accepted that our children will need to confront politically difficult issues in the classroom we need next to ask how we might ensure that such issues are dealt with in a way that is balanced and free of bias.
1148
This is essentially a professional matter for teachers. Faced with difficult and politically charged issues, it is important that they approach them as they would any other topic where facts and opinions need to be separated.
A teacher must always strive to ensure that his presentation is as objective as possible. What is offered as fact must be true. Facts need to be selected to ensure that the picture provided for the pupil is neither superficial nor unbalanced. Facts and opinions must be clearly separated.
We must not believe that the teachers' task is an easy one. Offering a picture to pupils which is both balanced and intelligible will often require a very high degree of skill and professional detachment. But a teacher has responsibility to ensure that his pupils are taught how to weigh the evidence and arguments presented to them, so as to arrive at rational judgments of their own. He or she also needs to help pupils to understand that many issues are inherently complicated and not susceptible of a single answer. These can be seen, for example, in the study of history or literature. Part of the value of those subjects, when properly taught, is that they can bring pupils up against just those sorts of questions.
I have discussed so far the role of the teacher as educator in charge of a class. A teacher also has a much more general and special role in relation to his pupils. He is to them in many ways a model and an example a figure of authority whose words and actions have a special place for his pupils. This is particularly so in respect of his younger pupils. He needs therefore to be specially careful both inside and outside the classroom to ensure that when dealing with pupils his presentation is fair and honest. He must avoid allowing his own political views to affect his presentation.
Inevitably, teachers will hold political views of their own. It is more than possible that a teacher will be asked by his pupils for his views. There is no reason why he should not make them clear. In doing so, however, he has a professional obligation also to make it clear that there are other views and that people might well disagree with him. He must encourage his pupils to weigh the evidence presented to them and reach their own conclusions.
The Government believe that society has a right to expect its teachers to act professionally in the ways I have described. It is part of the trust placed in their hands that they strive continually for balance and fairness in their teaching and actions. I must say clearly that I think we are in the main well served by our teachers in this respect. The vast majority of teachers can, I am sure, be relied upon to take their responsibilities entirely seriously.
Nevertheless, although we can rely on most of our teachers to act professionally, it would be wrong to be complacent. It would also be naive to believe that there are not some—albeit a few—who would abuse the trust placed in them. Government Ministers have made clear, and will continue to make clear, that what goes on in schools must always be education and never, never indoctrination.
The Government are concerned to play their part in eliminating any breaches of professionalism in this

1149
respect within the nation's schools. It has, however, to be recognised that there are limits to what they can do. It is local education authorities and schools who are responsible for the appointment and direction of teachers and for the detailed control of the content of the secular curriculum. My right honourable friend has powers to intervene under Sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944 where he is satisfied that a local education authority is in breach of its statutory duty or acts in a way in which no reasonable authority would act. But before he can consider the use of these statutory powers it is necessary for him to have clear and sufficient evidence on which to reach his conclusions.
My noble friend mentioned the Honeyford and Savery affairs. The Secretary of State's powers to intervene in such cases are limited, as I have said. Under the Education Act 1944 he can intervene only when an LEA has acted unreasonably. The courts have laid down that unreasonable conduct is conduct which no sensible authority, acting with due appreciation of its responsibilities, could have decided to adopt. In both cases that my noble friend mentioned, no evidence was offered that the LEA had in fact acted unreasonably in this sense.
It follows that if parents or others are concerned about possible bias or indoctrination they should first raise the matter with the school. If they are still not satisfied they should take up their concerns with the local education authority and if necessary direct with its members. I recognise that some parents may be reluctant to complain, perhaps fearing difficulties for their own child. But unless specific evidence is received there is no action that can be taken.
May I make a practical suggestion. If parents feel inhibited about sending a complaint to one of my right honourable friends, there is nothing to prevent their making a joint approach with other parents who share their concerns, and this may get them round the problem.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, may I ask a question on that? Do the official records, which one hopes they have, confirm or not confirm the evidence and the facts brought by my noble friend in her opening speech?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am not sure to which records my noble friend refers.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, are there any records?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think it depends on the school. Obviously the parents, if they feel that this sort of thing has been going on in their school, are quite entitled to approach my right honourable friends and they will weigh all the evidence that is given. The more supporting evidence the parents can get, obviously the stronger their case. My right honourable friends have made clear that they take very seriously any such complaints they receive.
My noble friend Lady Cox suggested that to get round the problems I have described there should be legislation to outlaw bias and indoctrination in the classroom. I see real practical difficulties about any
1150
such legislation. Definition of bias and indoctrination, and enforcement of the legislation, would be particular problems. Even with clear definitions, the difficulty of identifying actual classroom examples would still remain. These are matters for the professional responsibility of teachers rather than legislation.
Most of what I have said so far relates to teachers. We need also to consider the role of the local education authority. The teacher has a difficult professional task in seeking to provide a balanced education for all pupils at all times. In this task he or she ought to be able to expect the firm support of the local education authority.
In most cases teachers can count on the support they need from their local education authorities being available. I am not convinced, however, that it is always available. Some views and opinions expressed by some local authority members cannot be helpful to their teachers in undertaking their task. An example that my noble friend quoted is the wish of some local education authorities to introduce what they call peace studies into the schools in their area. In a number of cases the motivation of the politicians concerned appears to be to press one particular view of peace and war rather than to ensure a balanced presentation and debate. We made it clear in the White Paper Better Schools that the Government's view is that the issue of war and peace arises naturally from many aspects of the curriculum, and should be treated in the context in which it arises. We believe that to assign a special place in the timetable to courses labelled "peace studies" unbalances the curriculum and oversimplifies the issues involved.
Difficulties have sometimes arisen where both the local education authority and the school governing body are dominated by one political party. The Government have already recognised this problem and it will be dealt with by the proposals included in this Session's education Bill for clarifying the arrangements for school government.
The Government are aware that most local education authorities have, quite legitimately, taken full advantage of their powers under existing legislation to appoint a majority of school governors. Local education authorities could not properly be constrained in whom they chose to appoint, but the Government greatly regret that in a significant number of cases appointments seem to have been made simply on the basis of political allegiance rather than for any particular strength which an individual can contribute to the work of the school. This Session's education Bill will therefore propose major changes in the composition of school governing bodies. These will allow the governing body to become the focus for determining the identity and direction of schools, free of undue political influence.
Under the Government's proposals, the governing bodies of county, controlled and maintained special schools will no longer have a majority of LEA appointed governors. Instead, no single interest will predominate. Parental representation will be increased, and teachers' existing rights of representation will be preserved. In addition, there will be a new category of governor, normally to be co-opted by the rest of the governing body, with the aim of strengthening links with the community served by the school

1151
as well as providing an additional opportunity to associate relevant interests, such as industry and commerce with its work.
At the same time, the powers of governing bodies, and those of the local education authority and head teacher, will be clarified and entrenched in primary legislation so that each is guaranteed a proper role in the collaborative effort of providing better schools for the nation's children.
In conclusion, my Lords, I stress again that the Government share the widely held view that preparation for the responsibilities of citizenship is one of education's principal functions; and that pupils and students therefore need to be introduced, as indeed they are, to those issue of a political character which they will come across in the course of their adult life. This must be done in a responsible and unbiased way.
Our concern is not that young people should be protected from these issues; but that those who teach them should at all times encourage pupils and students to form their own conclusions on the basis of a critical examination of the evidence and of the differing views taken by others. It was to emphasise this that my right honourable friends yesterday issued their draft Statement of principles. That Statement sets out afresh the principles which the partners in the education service have long endorsed in discharging their functions. The Government look to their education partners to endorse the principles, and to work together in applying them within our schools and colleges so that the education pupils receive is free of bias, distortion and indoctrination and is suited, as my noble friend said, to our free and open society.

Water Authorities: Privatisation
3.50 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environ-ment (Lord Elton): My Lords, by your Lordships' leave I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the future of the water authorities in England and Wales.
"On 7th February 1985, the then Minister for Housing and Construction, my honourable friend the Member for Eastbourne, announced that the Government would examine the prospects for privatisation in the water industry. A discussion paper followed in April. In the light of the responses, and of professional advice on the financial issues, the Government have now decided to transfer the 10 water authorities in England and Wales to private ownership; already, 25 per cent. of water is supplied by private sector water companies.
"With my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I have today presented to Parliament a White Paper setting out our proposals. Legislation will be necessary, and we shall put the water authorities on the market as soon as possible thereafter.
1152
"Our privatisation programme already covers a wide range of businesses. But transferring water to the private sector will offer unique opportunities and challenges. The water authorities are not merely suppliers of goods and services. They are managers of natural resources. They safeguard the quality of our rivers. They control water pollution. They have important responsibilities for fisheries, conservation, recreation and navigation. These functions are interdependent and inseparable.
"We will maintain the principle of integrated river basin management and we will maintain existing boundaries. The water authorities will be privatised with all their existing responsibilities but for the one exception of land drainage and flood protection. Financing and co-ordination of that function will remain a public sector responsibility.
"The authorities are largely natural monopolies. The public will, rightly, expect us to set up a firm regulatory framework. We will appoint a director general for water services. He will control the authorities through an operating licence. This will lay down strict conditions on pricing and on service standards. The system of promoting the interests of consumers will take into account a report which I am publishing today from Professor Littlechild of Birmingham University. Under the director general there will also be strong machinery for representing consumer interests and investigating complaints.
"Water authorities are responsible in England and Wales for the implementation of national policy for the water environment. Necessary existing safeguards—including appeals against water authority decisions on discharges and Government controls on the authorities' own discharges—will continue. And we shall strengthen the system of pollution control in two main ways: first, we shall legislate to make their river quality objectives subject to ministerial approval; second, we shall provide for any new requirements to be laid down through a parliamentary procedure. In this way we will use the opportunity of privatisation to improve environmental standards on a continuing basis.
"Mr. Speaker, over the last seven years considerable progress has been made in improving the management efficiency of water authorities. Their operating costs have been reduced in real terms, even while the demand for their services has been growing. Manpower has been reduced by 20 per cent. The number of board appointments has been reduced even more dramatically—from 313 to 123. In 1979 their investment was falling; in real terms it is now above its 1979 level and it is rising. In the last six years we have made the water authorities fit and ready to join the private sector. And, as reported to the Public Accounts Committee, the quality of water services has been improving in almost all regions.
"Privatisation is the next logical step. It will bring benefits to customers, to the industry itself and to the nation as a whole in improved quality, more efficient service, greater commitment of the staff to the work they are doing, and greater awareness of customer preference.

1153
"With the disciplines and freedoms of the private sector I expect the industry to move from strength to strength. I know these proposals will be welcomed."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend. I am sorry to disappoint him on his last sentence. The proposals certainly will not be welcomed on this side of the House; nor, indeed, am I so sure of the welcome they will receive elsewhere in the country. The consultation paper issued in April last year caused many misgivings. I understand that of the 43 responses which have come to the Minister only seven are in favour of the proposals. I am a little puzzled about on what he bases his optimism. They must be seven very powerful representations.
Your Lordships may remember the reaction in this House to a question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. I am sorry he is not in his place today. On an Unstarred Question when the document was first published the reaction in your Lordships' House was almost unanimously against total privatisation. There was one voice in favour of total privatisation; all the others qualified their remarks and many were totally opposed to it. How can the Government justify selling off what is the nation's most fundamental natural resource on which people's lives depend? This is not just an ordinary privatisation. Is nothing sacred? As my honourable friend said earlier this week, is nothing in this country to be left that is not for sale?
Nearly 99 per cent. of households in England and Wales are connected to the water supply and 95 per cent. to the sewerage system. These proposals will create huge monopolies to supply an essential service without even the limited choice that is available when privatisation takes place in the fuel industries. In spite of the remarks made in the Statement, the service is at present showing an urgent need for capital investment on a scale that is unlikely to be found from private sources. It will be interesting to see how much private money is laid on the line for it. I understand that the total value of the holdings is some £27 billion. I do not propose to go into the effect on the market of this flotation. There will be others better qualified than myself to do it.
I understand that metering will now be compulsory. Who will pay for the installation of meters? As we said in response to a Question earlier this week, large families; low paid workers who have dirty jobs to do and the sick, especially those who are dependent on kidney machines, will be the hardest hit by having their water supplies metered. If this is to be in private hands, who will help them when they need it? I understand that some cities will be subject to these experiments on compulsory metering. Which cities are to be the subject of the initial experiment?
What sanction will there be for non-payment of water rates? Are the Government seriously suggesting that water supplies could be cut off in urban areas? It is faintly conceivable that in rural areas people might survive, but think of the possibility of having water supplies cut off in urban areas.
1154
What will happen to the present duty of water authorities to have regard for conservation? I know it is dismissed in a general way in the Statement but I really cannot see how the present duty on water authorities to further the causes of conservation can be carried out without very strict restrictions and I cannot see private water companies taking that on.
What about consumer interests? Again, we have a mention in the Statement that the system of promoting the interests of consumers will take into account a report from Professor Littlechild. Of course we have not seen that report, and we will keep some of our remarks until we have. However, it seems to me that the needs of consumers in the water industry have already suffered a heavy blow by the 1983 legislation. They are very much under-represented on the present water authorities. Can we have some reassurances on what will happen to them now?
The only reason for this, as it seems to us, entirely destructive exercise is to raise money for the Exchequer, not to reinvest in the public good (on which we could perhaps have relied in the past) but to enable promises about tax cuts to be kept. Those are promises, however one may look at it, that were made to those who are not most in need. Those who are paying tax at the moment are not most in need, and it is those most in need who are likely to be hit by what is being proposed today. We believe that water resources are national assets which should be in public ownership and control. I assure your Lordships that a future Labour government will take appropriate action.
4 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, we on these Benches wish to associate ourselves with the appreciation that has been expressed to the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House.
I suppose that a community's primary need is a reliable supply of clean water. Thus the first question we must ask ourselves is: how will the consumer be safeguarded under these proposals? In particular we ask: how is a consumer going to turn to an alternative supplier, if dissatisfied with the present supplier and the terms on which he is being supplied with this primary need? Under these proposals, might not there develop a real conflict between the interests of the new shareholders and the interests of the nation in terms of environment, on subjects such as pollution, conservation and recreation, all these matters which are the natural domain of public policy and public control? How will Members in another place be able to safeguard their constituents' interests, and how will this House be able to safeguard the wider interests of the regions?
What will happen to the pensions of the present employees? How will their future pensions be safeguarded? I am sorry to ask a rather personal question. The Government have obviously been very coy about this, but are we entitled to know how much the Government are expecting to realise? One matter which has been completely omitted from two pages of Statement is the simple answer to the question, "How much?". If, as we are told here, there has been such a vast improvement both in the quality and in the efficiency of these water companies, in the water

1155
supply services which have been conducted under public ownership in the past seven years, I am bound to ask what on earth the reason is for changing that and privatising it. Is it in pursuance of the now well-established policy of Her Majesty's Government of private monopolisation? Or is it simply that the grocery bills are accumulating again?
Lord Elton: My Lords, with at least the same sincerity that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord thanked me for reading the Statement, I thank them for their reception of it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to the consultation and said that there were only seven consultees who were outright in favour of the proposals. I can tell her that there were only 11 who were outright against, and the rest were drawing our attention to particular areas of concern. She pointed out that our lives depend upon water. Indeed they do, and they depend upon a great deal else which can be delivered to us either through the private or through the public sector, such as a health service. It does not follow that because a service is privatised it need not be effective. Indeed, it is our belief that the service will in the end be more effective than it is now and that there will be a better level of service as well as a more efficient way of providing for it.
As to the extent of the investment needs of the industry, that is fully covered in the White Paper, which I appreciate the noble Baroness has not had an opportuntiy to read; but she will be able to avail herself of that.
The noble Baroness went on to the question of metering, and asked whether it would be compulsory. As the Watts Report recommended, we are first asking the water industry to obtain better information on consumption patterns, costs of metering, and the results of charging by measure. Compulsory trials will be legislated for and therefore Parliament will have an opportunity, and the noble Baroness will have an opportunity, to voice an opinion. Some extension of metering is likely to follow. As to where the experiments are to take place, that of course will depend upon the information which the authoritiies are now obtaining and which they will consider for that purpose.
The noble Baroness spoke as if nobody had ever been cut off from their water supply for non-payment in the past and as if this was an entirely new departure. I should not expect a great increase in cut-offs, if only because it is an expensive process. However, I understand that 3,500 people were cut off under the existing system last year, and this is not something that she can pray as an argument against privatisation.
On the question of conservation, the noble Baroness was joined in her concern by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. In regard to the environment, I can tell your Lordships that all the existing safeguards will be maintained by imposing all the existing duties of the water authorities upon their successors. In addition to this, the Secretary of State will have new powers of regulation and river quality objectives will be given a statutory force for the first time. The director general will be able to impose more detailed targets within this framework and enforce them through the licensing
1156
system and if need be through the courts. Furthermore—and this is another point the noble Lord raised—we shall establish separate consumer consultative committees to act as the director general's watchdogs over each authority in their area.
I should add that the local authorities will continue to have the duty which they now have under Section 11 of the Water Act 1973 to ensure that water is sufficient and wholesome within their areas. They will therefore continue to test water supplies and notify the successor authorities, the water supply private limited companies, and they will be under the same constraints as the water authorities are now; and these are ulitimately backed by the Secretary of State. Thus if your Lordships ponder on that, you will see that the whole of the existing panoply of control of quality and service, and more particularly protection to the environment, will be maintained and in fact will be added to and made more secure.
The noble Baroness asked about charges. There will be a provision in the licence to control the level of charge and that no doubt will be a matter for discussion. I have to tell the noble Baroness that I do not think it is normal to reveal what one hopes to make from a flotation (and what an appropriate process that is!) before one actually goes to the market.
Experts may disabuse me of my misunderstanding. I can say that the purpose is not simply to "sell the family silver"—and I think I have heard the reference before. The point is to get the water supply industry out from under the hand of the Treasury where it is competing for capital with completely disparate subjects and bring it into the market. When the noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked me how this can be competitive or how one would be connected with another supply, the competition will be in the market place for capital funds. We already encourage water authorities to publish and compare their performance. They will now have the Stock Market on which to have a true valuation of what they are doing.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, on the question of charges, can my noble friend tell your Lordships whether the new companies will have the same arbitrary discretion that the current water authorities have to decide whether any particular customer shall be charged on meter or on rateable value? Can he also say whether the new companies will inherit the (in my view, most mistaken) title of "authority" which they were given under the previous arrangements? Is my noble friend aware that if you call a body an "authority", its almost inevitable psychological effect is that it becomes authoritarian? As these bodies have always been simply suppliers of a commodity, will the opportunity be taken to get rid of this word "authority"?
Finally, does my noble friend recall that the noble Baroness opposite said that a Labour Government would in this matter take appropriate action. Is my noble friend aware that if that happened it would be the first time in history?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I had better get the name right first. They will not be authorities and therefore I trust that they will not feel constrained to become authoritarian, which is what my noble friend is saying.

1157
They will be water supply private limited companies, which I find much more difficult to say. If I drop back to "water authorities", then my noble friend will know that it is merely for convenience and not to describe them. As to my noble friend's first question, the question of metering, they will feel the normal commercial instinct to charge for their product, and if metering proves cost effective, no doubt they will use it. As to any further detail, that must await the experiment which, as I say, is not yet arranged. As to the appropriateness of the reaction of the party opposite, of course it may not always be appropriate to reality but may be entirely appropriate to the party opposite.
Baroness White: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that his reference to the National Health Service in this context is complete hypocrisy; for not only is there competition between private and public medical attention but even within the National Health Service one is able to change one's doctor if he proves less than satisfactory and we are even now encouraged to go to other national health regions for operations if they cannot be satisfactorily supplied locally. So perhaps I may suggest that he might leave that out of any future speech. We are coming to Wales shortly; and the noble Lord is becoming quite an authority on the Principality. On the financial side it is perfectly true that some of the water authorities, while we are still allowed so to call them, have had constraints imposed upon them by the Treasury. Those constraints, in fact, could be removed if anybody within this Government were prepared to tackle the Treasury. But are the rumours true that the Government are prepared to groom and fatten the authorities for the market by, in some cases, making financial arrangements with them prior to, but because of, the proposed privatisation, which they are not prepared to do while they are public authorities? Some of us would regard that as a publicly immoral action but which might appeal to the present Government.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has taken issue with me about my quotation of the National Health Service as a service where there was now competition and that this had not threatened the lives of the people who depended upon it. That was—
Baroness White: There will be no competition in the proposed authorities. One will not be able to change one's water and sewerage supplier.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I only said that I regretted using the example since it brought a charge of hypocrisy from the noble Baroness which I am sure she did not intend.
Baroness White: My Lords, I did so intend.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in that case, I deeply regret that the noble Baroness believes that I have been hypocritical. The point that I am trying to make is that the fact that you have something from a private source does not make it in any way unreliable. The noble Baroness has picked up an aspect of my argument upon which I had not intended to rely. The noble
1158
Baroness then asked me whether we were conducting certain financial transactions which would not normally be allowed to a body in the public sector and, if we were, that she would regard this as immoral. I am certainly not aware of anything being done in this sector which is in any way immoral. Whether it is unusual or not, I would have to consider. But in my present state of knowledge I should have thought that it was not. The noble Baroness asked me to leave something out of my next speech. I shall leave out as much as I can.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether, so far he knows under the new arrangements, the rights of navigation are affected at all? There is tremendous use, as he well knows, for amenity purposes of the waterways of England over which the old waterways authorites (especially in East Anglia, I believe) had a great deal of control. I wonder whether he can throw any light upon this because it affects a very large number of Her Majesty's subjects.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the companies will be required, through conditions in their operating licence, to maintain generally the existing range and level of facilities and there will be arrangements for consultation on specific changes.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that water is an absolutely prime essential commodity for life and that, secondly, from the point of view of each particular consumer the supply is naturally a monopoly? One cannot imagine that a particular house or home should be "tapped", so to speak, by rival water supply companies' taps from which one could choose. Does it not follow that potentially enormous profits are to be made from the private supply of water if the water supplying companies are allowed to charge what they like because people would pay everything they possibly can (even more than for eating) rather than go without water?
The answer to that, no doubt, as the noble Lord has told us, is that the charges will be controlled. If the charges are effectively controlled and water is supplied at the lowest price, where is the money to be made from selling the assets? Those assets will only command a price in the market if there are large prospective profits to be made from selling water. I do not see how there is any way out of this. Either you sell water at a price which brings you large profits, and then you can sell the assets at a large price, or else you want to protect the consumer and provide water at the lowest possible charges, in which case I cannot see how the Government can make any money from selling the assets from which the noble Lord indicated that the Government hoped to make a very large sum.
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the question of the uniqueness of supply, I entirely agree that you are not likely to have two taps in your basin and choose which one you turn on according to the pricing system. I have tried to show in an earlier answer how the competition works through the financing rather than through the delivery of the service. This does not mean that there is no prospect of a reasonable value being realised from this asset when it is sold, because the same considerations apply broadly as in the case of British

1159
Telecom, and we found that that worked very well. It also had the subsequent benefit that it enormously increased private share ownership, and we hope that this privatisation will have that effect as well. It also increased the identification of the people working in the service with the service that they are delivering, and we hope that that, too, will happen again.
I return to a point which I had omitted from my reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for fear that it would be too long, under the eagle eye of the noble Baroness, Lady White. Twenty-five per cent. of water has been supplied through the private sector in the past and it therefore occurs to me to wonder why, if that was so terrible, it was not nationalised by the party opposite.
Baroness White: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that subject, does he not agree that the private companies work within a system closely regulated by the authorities?
Lord Elton: My Lords, having had some knowledge of what the noble Baroness said in her speech in a recent debate, I did not need to hear the whole question. I think she was saying that these were statutory companies subject to a degree of control on price. That will be true under the new system through the formula in the licensing system, and therefore I think that there is a true comparison.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, there is no doubt that the Statement we have heard today raises major matters of public policy. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, in repeating the Statement to us, said that the Government accepted the maintenance of the principle of integrated river basin management and the maintenance of existing boundaries. I am sure that we would all agree with that. One of the greatest achievements of the British water industry in recent years has been this principle of integration.
It is further said that they would be responsible for the management of major natural resources. Thirdly, the noble Lord has said that a satisfactory regulatory body would be established to safeguard the interests of consumers. I must say that I have a certain sympathy with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, a moment ago, because if all this is to be done; if we maintain the integrated system; if on behalf of the nation we maintain the objective of managing effectively natural resources; and if we have a very strong consumer safeguard organisation, will this in fact result in a saleable proposition?
I think the dilemma that the Government will face is that if they want to protect the consumer, which all of us on these Benches would applaud, to that extent they will weaken the attraction to the shareholders. I believe that this is a dilemma which might best be resolved by leaving things as they are.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's observation, although I am not sure I detect a question that I can answer. I can only say that I fully recognise that there is a delicate balance to be preserved when the pricing formula is established. I believe it will be possible to strike a balance which both provides a saleable asset and protects the interests of the
1160
consumer on the one hand, and of the general public on the other, and there is a very close overlap between the two.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I just want to remove any possible misunderstanding. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did not quite understand my remarks. I should like to say that a future Labour Government will return the water industry to public ownership, and that is an action which most of the people of this country will find entirely appropriate.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Baroness may or may not be right in thinking that most of the public would think it entirely appropriate now. I think that after they have had some experience of the regime we propose to introduce they would regret it very much.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is not the position even more critical than was stated by my noble ally Lord Ezra? What the noble Lord the Minister has told us is that the competition will rest in terms of the appeal to the market. In other words, he is not concerned about the first sale because, as the Statement says, over the past years the Government have been tailoring the accounts and the activities with a view to privatisation—they have said so perfectly openly here—so that there is a marketable proposition. But the noble Lord then goes on to say that of course all these water boards, all these companies, will need capital, enormous amounts of capital, and they will have to get it from the market. They will have to satisfy the Stock Exchange that their shares should stand high so as to ensure new contributions by existing shareholders. They will have to do that by making wide margins of profit in the future. How is that consistent with a wholesome, reliable and cheap supply of water to the consumer?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the regulatory and statutory system which I have sought to outline, but not to describe in detail, will be the environment within which the new water supply private limited companies will have to operate. That will be apparent to the market when the companies are offered for purchase. Another contributory factor, part of that which I have described, is the pricing mechanism. My concern with the noble Lord's statement is that he is seeing something contradictory between, on the one hand, the wish to provide a viable commercial company, and, on the other, to ensure sufficient capital resources for it to be viable.
We believe that the companies will be viable and that this will be apparent to the market. Before we work further through the equations which the noble Lord wishes me to resolve, the noble Lord should have an opportunity to read the White Paper itself so that we can see in detail what we are discussing.

Welsh Water Authority: Privatisation
4.27 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, perhaps we can turn to Wales. With the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by

1161
my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales about the privatisation of the Welsh Water Authority. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the privatisation of the Welsh Water Authority.
"As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has told the House, the Government have decided to transfer the water authorities in England and Wales to private ownership and a White Paper setting out our proposals has been presented to Parliament.
"The House will be aware that the water authorities in England and Wales were established so that a single body controls water and sewerage in the river catchment areas; and that the Welsh Water Authority excludes that part of mid-Wales which drains into the Severn but does cover those parts of England that drain into the Wye and Dee.
"During the consultation that followed the publication of our discussion paper last April the Welsh Water Authority urged that the present integrated river basin management should continue if the industry was privatised. We agree with that recommendation and the authority will therefore be privatised with its existing boundaries and functions intact, with the exception of the co-ordination and financing of flood defence and land drainage.
"The privatised Welsh water company will operate under a licence from the new Director General of Water Services who will lay down strict conditions on pricing and service standards. The director general will appoint a regional consumer committee representing all consumer interests, and in Wales this committee will be assisted by divisional committees.
"The privatisation of the Welsh Water Authority will for the first time enable employees and customers in Wales to have a direct stake in the industry.
"The regulatory regime will provide general powers with regard to the supply of water in bulk between undertakings. The right of appeal will remain when water undertakers are unable to agree terms for such transfers, but this will be to the director general rather than the Secretary of State. In determining appeals, he will apply the same general principles as apply to other aspects of charging policy in that charges should be cost related and should not be discriminatory.
"Considerable progress has been made since the authority was reorganised in 1982. Services and efficiency have been greatly improved and a large investment programme undertaken. I pay tribute to the chairman, board and employees for these achievements. I believe that privatisation will enable them to get on with their job with greater freedom and without the constraints on financing which public ownership imposes. Customers will benefit from the improving service that will result".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend, but we do not welcome it. We deeply regret that another public authority is being dismantled. In his Statement, the Welsh Secretary of State seems to be slavishly following the policy lead proposed by the Department of the Environment. It is a disappointing Statement, and in opposing it one would adopt the whole range of arguments that were advanced by the water experts in your Lordships' House in the debate on 22nd April last; arguments that have been convincingly summarised by my noble friend Lady Nicol.
The Statement pays glowing tribute to the Welsh Water Authority. We say that that authority should be allowed to continue to build on the successes that it has achieved over the past few years, notwithstanding the uncertainties and difficulties of the early years.
Reservoirs in Wales supply water to many consumers in England as well as to the Welsh consumers. The reservoirs and the export of Welsh water have also been the source of major political controversy in the Principality for more than one-quarter of a century. The history of the water industry in Wales has taught Wales of the need not merely for a single authority, which is referred to in the Statement, but also for a single public authority accountable to the Secretary of State and to Parliament. We require that kind of body to assess the needs and to ensure that water developments or developments in water conservation for far away cities are not to the disadvantage of Welsh upland communities, and to ensure also the co-ordination of the wide range of functions that are today entrusted to a water industry. Nowhere in the Statement is there an indication that the Secretary of State is addressing himself to the issues that have been raised in Wales for the past 25 years, or that he is aware of them.
I should like to put a few questions to the noble Viscount on the Minister's Statement. First, we note that the Welsh water company will be answerable henceforth to the new Director-General of Water Services. Will there be a Welsh director general of water services in Wales? If not, will the Welsh water company have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State for Wales against any decision of the new director general? We note that the co-ordination and financing of flood defence and land drainage will not be transferred to the Welsh water company. Which body will undertake those functions in Wales?
The interests of the consumer have already been highlighted this afternoon. Will there be a Welsh consumer council for the water industry in addition to the traditional committees that are mentioned in the Statement? Who will nominate persons for membership of the consumer committees? Will the local authorities have a say in nominating members for those important committees? Bearing in mind that the overall unit costs in many parts of Wales are high, will the progress made to date towards standard tariff arrangements within Wales now be put at risk by privatisation?
Can we have an assurance that no employee who does not wish his services to be transferred to the

1163
Welsh water company will in any way be penalised? Will his entitlement to redundancy pay be fully protected? I shall be grateful if the noble Viscount will clarify the issues that I have raised. I should like to emphasise that whatever replies he may give, they will not modify our basic response to the Statement, which is one of disappointment and regret; regret that another institution that has served Wales well is to be demolished.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in congratulating the noble Viscount on the way that he has presented the Statement. I will adopt for my speech all the matters that the noble Lord has raised with the noble Viscount, because we on these Benches are against the Government's proposals in this respect.
The Statement, so far as I can read it, has no Welsh dimension whatsoever. I join with the noble Viscount the Minister in congratulating the chairman of the Welsh Water Authority, Mr. Elfed Jones, whom I know. I am aware of the wonderful work that he has done in Wales, not only in distributing water for the purposes of Welsh men and Welsh women but also in distributing so much water into England. He has had the greatest difficulty in performing his operations. I ask rhetorically: why is that? It is because so often government forget the problems in Wales.
One of the first questions I should like to ask is this: what do the Government intend to do, and what care will they take, to preserve the research team that Mr. Elfed Jones has built up to deal with important problems in Wales with regard to the distribution there of water? I should like to ask the Minister certain technical questions in relation to the proposals in a Welsh dimension. What is to happen, for instance, to the Welsh water boards' debt, which I understand is of the order of £440 million? What will happen about that debt in relation to privatisation? I may say at once that I am extremely sorry that I did not give the noble Viscount the Minister notice of those questions. The last thing that I want to do, when speaking in a Welsh dimension, is to embarrass the Minister too much on this matter. If he cares to write to me, and perhaps also to the noble Lord, Lord Pry-Davies, then I shall quite understand.
What can the noble Viscount tell the House today about the potential price of water to the consumer in Wales? There are many hundreds of farmers who are struggling—as my ancestors did—to make a living out of very poor soil. The cost of water nowadays is a very significant factor in relation to their livelihoods. Perhaps the noble Viscount can tell us something broadly in relation to the price of water, I do not expect him to give an undertaking that the price will be rapidly reduced as a result of privatisation, although I hope that that might happen.
My third question is very important and is in relation to matters which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, may be concerned with. What are the prospects for re-employment for the present employees? What are the prospects for increasing employment in Wales as a result of privatisation? Or is it merely that privatisation once more will be cast upon us and there will be English conventions or edicts
1164
reducing the number of persons employed in this most important industry in Wales?
I do not want to turn this into a debate. I am asking a few simple questions, and I quite understand that the Government are so often not prepared to answer questions easily and clearly in relation to the Welsh dimension. However, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement on matters to which we are strongly in opposition.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for their observations on this Statement. I have to say that it is a Statement on Wales although the previous Statement was on England and Wales; but I am now talking about Wales.
I shall first answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The director general will be shared between England and Wales. The Secretary of State will be above him to iron out any problems which cannot be solved. Within that—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but which Secretary of State does the noble Viscount mean?
Viscount Long: I am sorry, my Lords; I am speaking of the Secretary of State for Wales. When it is broken up into different bodies the administration within Wales will look after the mechanisms, and so on.
The second point which the noble Lord invited me to answer concerned the Welsh Consumer Council. He asked who will nominate these committees? Again, this matter will be under the director general at a later date. Employment will not be penalised and no existing rights—which the noble Lord was worried about—will be taken away.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, wanted to know about research teams. At this stage they will be remaining. When the break-up of the authority comes about and the different groups are formed no doubt those research workers will remain. They are extremely important and you cannot do away with them, because some of them have been there for many years.
The noble Lord asked about the debt which is to be inherited. This is an historic debt which will come under discussion when the authority takes over. I cannot at this stage tell the noble Lord what will be the price of water. However, if the price of water is increased too much those concerned will find that they cannot sell it so well—
A noble Lord: My Lords, people cannot do without water.
Viscount Long: —so in each way my Lords, they will find it very difficult indeed. Employment will come when the reorganisation takes place. I am not sure whether I have answered all the questions from the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for allowing me to

1165
intervene again before he sits down. I asked about the prospects for re-employment and about unemploy-ment in the area. I do not know whether he replied to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I ought to have said that I have always been brought up to believe that the national drink of Wales is, of course, water coupled occasionally with a little milk—that is, diluted with milk and not the other way round, milk diluted with water. However, the privatisation of water resources in Wales is a serious and important matter.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I could not agree more. The water of Wales is very silky, satiny, soft and beautiful to drink; with other mixtures as well.
Baroness White: My Lords, it is also the most inflammable subject in the Principality. I do not know whether the noble Viscount realises that this Statement, particularly regarding the director general and price fixing, takes away the only attraction for privatisation that there would have been. Without that we would have been free to charge the Midlands and Merseyside an adequate price for the water from Wales on which they rely. If that is taken out of the equation, which I understand is the case, and there is to be no discrimination in charges, there will be no welcome whatever in the Principality for this arrangement.
I was also interested to hear the noble Viscount say that the debt which has been the real millstone round the neck of the Welsh Water Authority, which it inherited and which the new authority will presumably also inherit, will be dealt with after the change and not before. Is the noble Viscount quite sure that that is true? The suggestions in the Principality are that the Government will see to it that that matter is dealt with beforehand in order to make the authority more attractive on the market.
In referring to the selling-off process, there have been suggestions that the Government would not wish to put all 10 authorities on the market at the same time; that that might be a little too much. What arrangements have been made, if they are not to be sold off simultaneously, for the order in which they will be sold? Who is to decide where in the pecking order Welsh water might come?
Finally, can the noble Lord tell us whether, even if the Government get this legislation through before the next general election, they also hope to implement legislation before the next election?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady White. In answer to her first question, the present arrangements under which water authorities negotiate deals with one another for bulk supplies of water, based on an economic price, will continue. Privatisation will not affect the present agreement between the Welsh Water Authority and the Severn-Trent Water Authority for sales of water from the Elan Valley reservoirs.
The noble Baroness took me up on the historical debt. I do not think I have committed the Government or taken any particular line. It is still under consultation because it is a vast debt. As regards selling-off, at this stage it is a question of getting the
1166
priorities right. When we get nearer to the legislation more will then probably be known than I can tell the noble Baroness now. Perhaps the noble Baroness will remind me of her final point.
Baroness White: My Lords, I referred to the general election, which does not affect us in this House but might affect the Government.
Viscount Long: My Lords, we hope all this will be through within the next two years.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, can my noble friend repeat the undertaking which his noble friend Lord Elton gave when answering questions on the previous Statement: namely, that the interests of inland waterway navigators will be safeguarded? Of course, in Wales the problem is minuscule compared with what it is in England. But in one way the degree of minuteness is in inverse ratio to the glorious beauty that lies therein and they should be preserved safely, so that not only the Welsh themselves but all the British people can enjoy them in their recreation time.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. Of course, recreation is a very important part of the authority's endeavours. The companies will be required, through conditions in their operating licences, to maintain generally the existing range and level of facilities and there will be arrangements for consultation on specific changes.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while warmly supporting the tribute paid in the Statement to Mr. John Elfed Jones and the board, would the noble Viscount the Minister confirm that they were in fact strongly opposed to this measure of privatisation? Secondly, as to the new director general, will he make quite plain that this Statement proposes that authority should be moved out of Wales where it now rests with the board and the Secretary of State for Wales, to a director general stationed in England? Thirdly, can the Minister say what measures are being taken to privatise water undertakings in Scotland along the same lines as they are being privatised in England and Wales? Lastly, is the noble Viscount aware that this Statement will be received in Wales with profound disquiet, because it has complex political implications? For that reason, will he please convey to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and to the Prime Minister a strong appeal from me and my colleagues to think again about this question?
Viscount Long: My Lords, in reply to the first question of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I have recently again discussed the Government's case for privatisation with the chairman and he now appreciates the real opportunities that would result from privatisation of Welsh water; that is, removal of the Government's financial controls, the opportunity for wide ownership of shares both among employees and among customers, and the benefit to customers from prospects of higher standards and a charging policy which is designed to pass on efficiency savings and keep down bills.

1167
Furthermore, the chairman of Welsh water would now like the authority to be one of the first to be privatised. This morning I had a personal call which confirmed that they are now in agreement to go in for privatisation. In the beginning they did not want it, but from the call this morning I can assure the noble Lord that they are now in agreement with it.
The noble Lord requested me to make a further appeal so that this transfer would not go through but no doubt my right honourable friend will read about this. He also asked me about Scotland. The director general will be answerable for Wales and for Welsh water. I understand that anything to do with Scotland will come under the Scottish Secretary of State at this stage.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I apologise again to the noble Viscount for interrupting his initial reply, but I really did want to tease out of him the fact that the director general for the Welsh authority will be serving two masters: one the director general in England and one the Secretary of State for Wales. I think it is important to have that on the record.
I wonder whether the noble Viscount can answer a question in relation to Wales which his noble friend did not answer when the question was put by my noble friend the Leader of the Social Democratic Party; that is, what proposals are being made to ensure the security of the pensions of the present employees of the Welsh Water Authority? Your Lordships will remember that we went through this matter in some detail when we were talking about transport and the Government let those employees down very badly. I believe that there is now the opportunity for the Government to make a statement that the pensions of those employees will be entrenched and will be safeguarded, and I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to make that statement today.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. The present arrangements are statutory and complicated and this is an area where a lot of work will have to be done. Like the Water Authority Association, I am concerned that satisfactory arrangements should be made for pensions, but I am not able to give any indication of what they will be at this stage.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I think I heard the noble Viscount say that the question of the residual debt of the Welsh Water Authority would be a matter of negotiation with the new limited company. If that is so, may I ask, how does the noble Viscount expect a company to make an offer for the undertaking if it does not know previously the intentions of the Government as to the residual debt? Secondly, may I ask him for an assurance that the position of the large number of domestic dwellings, smallholdings and farms in the Welsh hills which, up to now, have been drawing water free of charge from natural springs, will not be worsened? Thirdly, what will be the situation in regard to rivers that run over national boundaries? In fact, do we take it that the new authorities will have powers which will cross national boundaries?
Viscount Long: My Lords, the reply to the noble Lord's first question is that the matter will come under
1168
the existing authority at this moment. I am not at all certain about the second question. I think I should like to take it up and write to the noble Lord. I do not think there will be any change in that price, but at this moment I cannot tell him—I am sorry, I have it now: there is no change at this moment. So I was quite right in what I thought.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say why they are leaving Scotland alone, yet punishing Wales?
Viscount Long: My Lords, those were not my words. There is no punishing of Wales. I am defending Wales.
Lord Sefton of Garston: What about the issue of the residual debt, my Lords? Mine was a specific question. Do the Government have any knowledge of what they intend should happen to the residual debt?
Viscount Long: My Lords, it is under consultation at this moment. I cannot answer the noble Lord's question.
Baroness White: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether any offer has been made to the chairman of the Welsh Water Authority on this matter, and whether that is why he changed his mind?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I think that the board has been brought into the matter, but I am not sure at this moment.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, when I receive an answer to my question perhaps I can cease to ask it. The question was quite specific. Can we have a firm assurance from the Government that at no time in the future under the new organisation will those farms and smallholdings and domestic dwellings to which I have referred be adversely affected?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I thought I had answered the question. I am so sorry and I must apologise to the noble Lord if I have not anwered him sufficiently clearly. I can assure the noble Lord that there will be no change in what he wanted. I thought I said that at first.

Education: Avoidance of Politicisation
4.58 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if we may now return to the educational issues, I think it is very important that we be quite precise in the terms that we use and quite precise in the statements that we make on this complex and important issue.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to say without any equivocation that the Labour Party has never been, is not now and never will be in favour of any of the forms that she referred to of intimidation or victimisation of speakers in educational establishments. The Labour Party has never been, is not now and never will be in favour of censorship in schools, universities or colleges. The

1169
Labour Party has never been, is not now and never will be in favour of biased or doctrinaire teaching in our schools, universities and colleges. I was encouraged to hear from the noble Earl that it is the Government's position also that such indoctrination and such biased teaching is practised, in so far as we know about the practice, by a very small minority of teachers in our schools.
We are pleased to have had the opportunity to read the draft principles in the guidelines which were issued by the Secretary of State yesterday. We did not get advance notice and so I cannot make a firm commitment on behalf of my party. But the principles set out by the Secretary of State in his consultation document in which he invites the teaching associations to support him look to me entirely acceptable. I see no reason whatsoever why we on this side of the House should not support them. But that is not the case with the noble Baroness. She said that she would look for the guidelines to be made stronger. She was quoted in the Daily Telegraph on 9th October as calling on Sir Keith Joseph:
"to issue clear guidelines for schools aimed at keeping politics out of the classroom".
That is a very different thing.
If we are talking about keeping politics out of the classroom, it is the noble Baroness who is, I believe, breaking the consensus which exists between Government and Opposition in this House and among teachers, education authorities and the vast bulk of the people in this country. I believe that it will be necessary for me to show that it is the noble Baroness and her allies—people like Roger Scruton and Dr. John Marks—who are out on a limb. The vast bulk of responsible people who are constructively concerned with the education service do not agree with the allegations that she makes, and particularly with her conclusions and her demand that politics should be kept out of the classroom. It is important—
Baroness Cox: My Lords, may I for the record in two seconds say what my argument is? I have always argued that partisan party politics should be kept out of the classroom, but not that the word "politics" should never feature in the classroom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is interesting to have that gloss on what the noble Baroness said. I did not notice her saying that in her speech, nor in what she said to the Daily Telegraph, and it was not the theme of her substantial and, if I may say so, well documented attack on that small minority in the education service.
As I said, it is important to get our definitions right. In her Motion the noble Baroness uses the word "politicisation". So far as one can tell, she appears to mean political indoctrination. But she has strayed in her speech, and previous to that, into thinking that that is the same as political education. The noble Baroness shakes her head. She has denied that once, and I shall gladly give way to her again if she thinks it appropriate.
There is a stream of thought about political education and education for citizenship which goes back a good deal longer than any of us can remember,
1170
which has an honourable history and which deserves to be defended and upheld. Aristotle said:
"The good citizen must possess the knowledge and the capacity requisite for ruling, as well as for being ruled".
I believe that that is the fundamental principle on which we should attack the issue.
Such a requirement could be interpreted as saying that political education in our schools should be neutral, value free and descriptive; there are those who have said that. It is a respectable school of thought. But I do not believe that that has been adequate at any time in the past, and it is particularly not adequate now when the clash of ideology is as strong as it has ever been and when the possibilities through the mass media of misinformation are much stronger than in the past. If we are to fulfil the objectives that Aristotle set out for us, we have to go a good deal further.
In 1977 Her Majesty's inspectors issued a report, a section of which was called "Political Competence". It stated:
"Those who claim that politics should be kept out of"—
whatever it is; education, the classroom the school or the lecture—
"are being ingenuous (or, on occasions, disingenuous and politically skilful) … Wherever there is disagreement, there lies a potential for politics, for aggregating issues, arguing, propagating, settling difficulties.
That is the positive side of politics, and that is why the discussion of political issues in an inquiring and open sense is a valuable, and, indeed, an essential, part of the curriculum in our schools.
Anybody from any side who damages that possibility is doing a disservice to our education system. I say that whether it applies to Marxists who seek to indoctrinate children with one point of view, those on the far Right who might be doing the same thing or those who see themselves in the centre and who seek by looking for neutral, value-free teaching in political matters to emasculate the discussion of political issues in our schools. Those are all dangers. I am not saying that they are equal dangers, but they are all real and present dangers which it is the duty of the education service and the people of this country as users and financers of it to resist.
I do not think that it would be enormously valuable for me to spend a great deal of time discussing the abuses to which the noble Baroness referred. She said, and I believe her, that she could have made 30 speeches with 30 different sets of material on the same subject. I am slightly surprised at that, since so many of the examples that she gave came from an article that she wrote for Reader's Digest in March of last year. Be that as it may, I am even more surprised because some of the examples that she gave are capable of dispute and even, on occasion, of refutation. I think that she did herself an injustice to refer so much to circumstantial evidence on peace studies.
I understand from the previous work of the noble Baroness that she has examined the curricula of 300 peace studies courses. It would have been valuable to have a more rigorous analysis of the work that she did. It may have lent more conviction to the argument that she makes. In particular she talked about peace studies and then referred to Exeter University and comments by Teachers for Peace, as if Teachers for Peace was

1171
responsible for the curriculum of the Exeter University peace studies course. That does not carry a great deal of conviction. It is well known that Teachers for Peace is the teachers' branch of CND. It is not responsible for the curriculum. It does not lend credibility to an attack on the curriculum to have references from that group; nor would it do so if we had comments on peace studies curricula in schools from the schools arm of CND, Schools Against the Bomb.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I never mentioned Exeter University.
Noble Lords: Yes, the noble Baroness did.
Baroness Cox: I am sorry, my Lords, I did not use the word "university". I said Exeter Teachers for Peace.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I am wrong, my Lords, I willingly apologise. I must have misheard the noble Baroness. I still do not have it entirely clear where in Exeter the curriculum is which is so wicked.
The noble Baroness referred to the ILEA material on Auschwitz and after. She has done so in public before. When she did so the last time she was informed in a letter from the education officer to ILEA that the material had not only been prepared in conjunction with the Board of Deputies of British Jews but had been praised by the Daily Telegraph in July of last year as being excellent teaching material. I am not convinced that the argument is as open and shut as she would have us believe.
The noble Baroness referred to my old GLC colleague, George Nicholson, who certainly said some foolish things when he was appointed to look after or to be responsible for political education in schools a number of year ago. She may not know that at a meeting of ILEA this week the question was asked by the Opposition, what had Mr. George Nicholson done. The answer had to be that Mr. George Nicholson had done virtually nothing in the course of the year; the post had atrophied. It is difficult to see what damage could have been done by his activities.
The noble Baroness referred on a number of occasions in a number of contexts to the difficulties of the Polytechnic of North London. We must recognise that there have been substantial difficulties over the year. Her description of the difficulties of those who wanted to let Mr. Patrick Harrington into classes was graphic and, indeed, justified. But she did not refer to the report by Miss Sheila Browne, Professor Ralf Dahrendorf and Mr. Clive Jenkins into the management of the Polytechnic of North London, which makes some rather different points. The report concludes that although there are a number of individuals who tend to see things only in crude political terms—many Members of this House might fall foul of that accusation—there is no evidence of anything abnormal or improper in the management of the Polytechnic of North London.
The noble Baroness referred earlier to the content of the sociology degrees. I understand that she was herself responsible for sending a dossier to the Secretary of State for education at a time when the Council for National Academic Awards was considering a re-
1172
submission from the applied social studies degree course for accreditation, although, again, I understand, she had no formal position in connection with the polytechnic at the time. I am bound to say—
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I had been head of the department of sociology at the polytechnic, and, therefore, I think I know very well what I am speaking about.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the words that I used were that she had no formal position in the polytechnic at that time. I believe that at the time to which I am referring—the 1982 re-submission—the noble Baroness was at Chelsea College and not at the Polytechnic of North London. Her experience was of a previous occasion. In any case, following consideration by the Council for National Academic Awards, and despite the dossier sent by the noble Baroness to the Secretary of State, the Council for National Academic Awards in fact approved the resubmission by the applied social studies department.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I would not question my noble friend's bona fides.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have to pick out the things that one knows about. We have to consider the matter occasionally in detail because the noble Baroness made, very properly, a detailed speech. It is proper that the accusations that she makes should be considered as objectively as possible.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I merely said, while agreeing with the points just made, that I would not question my noble friend's bona fides. That is all I was saying. What arose from it is another matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not think that I questioned the noble Baroness's bona fides. I merely pointed to the position that she held at the time and the result of her interevention.
If we are going to talk about abuses, it is proper and necessary to consider what the remedy should be for those abuses. One part of that we have dealt with already in talking about guidelines. I believe that I am satisfied with the guidelines which the Government are proposing. I am not so convinced that the noble Baroness is satisfied. We must remember that there is an honourable history of guidelines. The National Union of Teachers has guidelines for teaching politically controversial matters. Her Majesty's Inspectorate has had guidelines for many years on teaching these matters. The National Union of Teachers expressed its support to the Government only last October for such guidelines and for the Government to make these matters abundantly clear. If we are not to be satisfied with guidelines, and if we think that guidelines are not always obeyed, what is the alternative? Is the noble Baroness asking that there should be not just a strengthening of guidelines but an actual intervention by the Government in the curriculum?
The position of the Government, I understand, is that the curriculum and the choice of teaching methods is a matter for teachers in individual schools,

1173
and, following the new education Bill, no doubt in greater consultation with the governors, who will represent the parents. But unless the noble Baroness has some other remedy for the abuses that she describes than stronger guidelines or some sort of greater central control over the curriculum, it is difficult to see what positive outcome she expects from a debate of this sort. Of course, there will be many speeches—well-informed speeches—which will describe further abuses. I have no doubt that there are other abuses that the noble Baroness did not have time to uncover. I have no doubt that other noble Lords are adequately briefed on these matters and that they will be able to say so to great effect in your Lordships' House. But, after all, this is not merely the noble Baroness's Motion. It is a Motion agreed by the Association of Conservative Peers. It is the Association of Conservative Peers which has decided that, on one of its rare opportunities to set down its own subject for debate in your Lordships' House, that subject should be this one.
Although the noble Baroness may find allies on her own Benches, she is nevertheless, in terms of the intellectual argument over the years, isolated on this matter—isolated from Her Majesty's inspectors, from the Crowther Report, from the Secretary of State for Education and from the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, which has commented favourably on the Secretary of State's judgment of the matter. She is particularly isolated from the speech made by the noble Earl the Minister earlier this afternoon.
I need not go on. The history of this matter is clear. One has to ask oneself—we all have to ask ourselves—what is the motivation of the Association of Conservative Peers in their putting down this Motion? The answer surely must be that there is a great deal wrong with our educational system. There is a great deal wrong with the financing of our educational system, with the resources available to it and with the spirit of trust that used to exist between the partners in our educational system. Frankly, this Motion is a smokescreen to disguise the Government's apparent and manifest failures in dealing with the education of our nation.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, before embarking upon my speech I wish to make a number of points. I wish first to apologise to your Lordships in that I may not be able to stay until the end of this long and important debate. Secondly, I wish to express appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for introducing this subject, which has attracted so many speakers. I want to express my appreciation of the splendid delivery of her speech, but also to inform her that I am not going to join her crusade. Nor would I recommend the Alliance to do so. I should also like to make a reference to the gentleman who has been mentioned, Mr. Nicholson. I, too, happen to have heard that he has been very inactive as the political officer in charge of political education in the ILEA.
I am a little worried about this word "indoctrination". Before we use it, we should define it. My idea of indoctrination is not merely saying something to
1174
someone but conveying an idea to them repeatedly and covertly. What a child learns from its parents is in a sense indoctrination. It may be very good indoctrination. It is what the child learns without realising that he or she is learning it. I do not believe that this happens very often in schools. As an ex-teacher, I know how little children really listen to what you are saying. If they do listen but do not agree they are quite happy to say so. If you started talking, say, ultra-Left propaganda, I am sure that the child is much more likely to say, "He is an old Leftie. We won't listen to him" than have any other reaction. One can become unnecessarily worried about the sensitivities of children over this matter.
I should like to talk briefly about London schools, and I hope that I shall not repeat anything that the noble Baroness has said. However, I should like to make one or two general observations and draw your Lordships' attention to some abuses, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said no doubt other peers would be doing. I think that the first essential fact to be borne in mind about London schools is the environment within which they are situated. That environment is one of poverty, deprivation, a high rate of unemployment and one-parent families, and, in connection with this, petty crime—"Urban hustling" I believe it is called—on the part of youths particularly, both black and white, and that brings in the police. Then there is also the vast problem of the immigrant population.
The children live with these problems, and when they come to school they are not going to close the door and forget them. They bring their awareness of the environment into the school. The school is part of the community. If there is a riot in Brixton when the children come to school they will talk about it. They will want to know why it has happened. They will then ask their teachers why it has happened, and their teachers will tell them. The children may not necessarily believe them but their teachers will give their view of it. If one is a teacher one cannot be totally objective. One tries to be, no doubt, but one is bound to convey to the people one is teaching, perhaps unconsciously, the way one feels.
To speak, therefore, of keeping politics out of schools entirely, is, as has already been said, an impossibility. I think what we would agree is that politics must enter schools but that they should enter naturally, spontaneously and freely, and not by artificial injection from adults. That is what is not acceptable.
I should like to give two examples of recent events. I was in a school yesterday—an excellent school, a mixed comprehensive—where some top rank teaching was being carried out which I was privileged enough to watch for a time. However, it so happens that one of the pupils in this school is a child of Mrs. Cherry Groce, the lady who was so tragically shot in that accident with the police last year. On the morning of 10th December last year there was a march and a rally in Lambeth to protest about the tragedy. Certain children in the school, including I presume this child—the child of Mrs. Groce—asked for permission to join the rally. One or two teachers were ready to take the children. They arranged that their classes would be covered so that the school should suffer no

1175
disruption. They asked the headmistress if she would give her permission and, in these very particular circumstances, she gave her permission; and I think that she could have done nothing else. I would have supported her.
By contrast, there was another happening on the same day in connection with the same rally. A number of members of the National Union of Teachers wanted to go to the same demonstration and asked permission of their headmaster. I am talking about another school. In view of the enormous disruption to the children's education that has occurred over the last year, the headmaster's reply was that two might go provided they could find adequate cover for their classes. In response to this it seems that no fewer than 24 teachers walked out of the school at 11 o'clock in the morning and joined the rally. As a result, of course, there was a total breakdown of discipline. The headmaster did what he could by getting all the children together in the hall, so that he had hundreds of children together; but in the end he could not control the situation any longer and there was an outbreak of theft, vandalism and even arson. The kitchen staff refused to serve the children, so many of them went hungry. This seems to me to be an inexcusable action on the part of those teachers. It is not indoctrination, but it is a betrayal of their solemn trust of the children of whom they were in charge.
Some of your Lordships may have read of the events at Daneford School in Tower Hamlets. This school is near a Bangladeshi immigrant area. At the top of the school there is apparently an equal mix of white and Asian boys—this is a boys' school—but down at the bottom of the school there is a 90 per cent. element of Asian boys, and it is increasing. This is in an area of National Front activity, so it is hardly surprising that there have been racist incidents, some of which have taken place in the school, and there are some very worried parents.
In October of last year 250 members of the Inner London Teachers' Association lobbied the Inner London Education Authority at County Hall about their inadequate response to racist attacks and their lack of an effective anti-racist policy. I should explain at this point that the Inner London Teachers' Association is the largest of the NUT branches in London. There are a number; and this is the largest. There seems little doubt that a number of them, including the ILTA, is dominated by ultra Left members. There is the Socialist Teachers' Alliance which is a broad coalition of the ultra Left, and it includes the Socialist Workers' Party—of whom more in a moment. It is the Socialist Teachers' Alliance who control the ILTA to the disquiet, I might say, of the ILEA and of the NUT national executive.
However, to return to 16th October, after the official lobby at County Hall there was an unofficial picketing of the ILEA divisional office in Tower Hamlets. During the protest 11 teachers were arrested and there were allegations of police brutality. About this time there came into existence an organisation calling itself the Campaign Against Racism in Schools. This body now called for a mass demonstration by teachers, students and parents, outside Highbury Magistrates' Court on Friday, 22nd November. This was to support
1176
the so-called Daneford 12 whose case came up that morning—that is, those who had been arrested. The number has gone up by one. I do not know why at this moment, but it was subtracted afterwards. I think that there was a confusion about one teacher who had been arrested on a previous occasion and at one moment the support was supposed to be for him as well.
Leaflets were printed about this gathering that was to take place on 22nd November. It will be interesting to know where they were printed. On the morning of the 22nd November at 9 a.m. members of the Socialist Workers' Party were to be found outside the gates of Haverstock School at Chalk Farm, handing the leaflets out to the pupils, some of whom were of course very young. The leaflets urged the children to play truant, to go to the demonstration, and a bus was waiting to convey them.
I have the leaflets here. Here is one headed, "All Out 22nd November". These were being handed to children. There is this one headed, "Campaign against Racism in Schools". And this is quite a juicy one, "Strike against racism". The opening paragraph of that is:
"School students face a future of unemployment or slave wages on YTS. The Tories' plans include forcing teachers to police us while we are in school, and arming the police with CS gas and rubber bullets to deal with any resistance to the rotten deal we're being offered by Thatcher.
The Tories want to divide us. They want to see us fight each other, black against white, instead of uniting aginst those who are to blame for unemployment. They are using racism to do that—they're trying to find scapegoats for their mess",
and so on.
Apparently very few of the children went, but other children from other schools did go because four secondary schools in that neighbourhood were closed for the day, as were many others all over London. I have heard the figure of 50 quoted. I believe that on this occasion the National Front was also trying to leaflet the children at the school gates, but I think that they had very little success.
I have said a little about walk-outs; I should like to say just a few words about unofficial strike action. Some schools—for example, the girls' comprehensive in Catford, about which I spoke to your Lordships approximately two weeks ago—made a strategic decision early on that they would take strike action in such a way as to minimise the disruption caused in the schools and loss of education to the children. However, that has not been so in all cases.
I have here another interesting exhibit. Noble Lords will not be able to see it, but I shall tell them what is on it. It carries the NUT logo at the top and purports to be from the Hackney Teachers' Association and to be their newsletter. However, this heading "Hackney Teachers' Association Newsletter" is overprinted with the words "Not the". So it reads:
"Not the Hackney Teachers' Association Newsletter",
and down at the bottom in huge type are the words "But the Socialist Teachers". The Hackney Teachers' Association, which is one of the branches of the NUT, is dominated by Left-wing activists, and this document introduces some reports from schools chronicling their successes in disruption. This idea had actually been voted down in the committee of the Hackney association and also by a motion at a full

1177
meeting. However, not to be defeated, the extremists nevertheless invited the reports from schools, hence this document. The document introduces some of the reports from the schools. I have some of those here too. Perhaps I may quote one or two short extracts. Skinners School says:
"For example, we have been doing 'immediate no cover' action for about 18 months!"
In other words, they had been doing so at least six months before the strike began. They continue:
"We believe there is strong determination to maintain these improvements even after the end of the salaries dispute."
The document then goes on to say:
"There is a sense of excitment and 'power' at being able to cause disruption in the school over several days and there has been wide involvement by members in planning and organising strike action. No longer is the pay strike a passive response to a centrally controlled dictat",
and so on. There is one reference here which is interesting. It says that:
"the action has put a lot of pressure on our hierarchy".
The use of the word "hierarchy" is significant because it shows that the political action is quite outside and beyond a pay dispute. The hierarchy refers to the head teacher and to the school generally. Therefore, it seems to me that here we have a small group of extremists who are manipulating the present situation in the hope of furthering their own much more generalised political ends. Much of their action is not concerned with the pay dispute at all; nor do they appear to have any true concern for the children in their charge or for their education. The children are never mentioned.
Therefore, what can be done about it? I can suggest two remedies. Of course I am sure that I can speak for the Alliance in welcoming the draft documents and consultation paper referred to earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. However, I think that the ILEA must take adequate disciplinary measures against those teachers who flout their professional responsibilities. Only yesterday I heard a head teacher express the highest opinion of their care for the education of the children in their charge. However, this aspect is ruining all their aims. I believe that the authority has now decided to tighten up on these matters, and one hopes that its measures will be effective.
To continue to beat the old banner, the other remedy is of course a comprehensive settlement of the pay dispute. I do not think that the matters which I have mentioned would be happening if it were not for the present chaotic situation. The pay dispute is being used by pressure groups and is providing an ideal seedbed for them. Meanwhile I hasten to say that the overwhelming majority of teachers remain dedicated professionals—I know because I see them at work—with less political interest than any section of the population. However, they are confused, distressed, demoralised and, I believe, sometimes intimidated. Head teachers are at the end of their tether; parents are desperately worried; and the children who have been tolerant for so long are now beginning to lose patience.
I implore the Government to abandon any spirit of confrontation and to make use of tact and diplomacy (qualities which have been conspicuously lacking on their side throughout the dispute) as well as a spirit of
1178
reconciliation in order to bring to an end a situation from which our education service might otherwise never recover.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I should like to begin by apologising for the fact that soon after I complete my speech I shall have to leave the House for a while because—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in spite of what members of the Opposition may have assumed when I said that, I shall return immediately after my long-standing appointment. So they need not breathe any sighs of relief! First, I should like to join the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in the tribute that she paid to the many hard-working professionally conscientious teachers in the schools of this country. Nevertheless, there remains a problem. I should like to concentrate on one important aspect of that problem; namely, "peace studies". They were mentioned by the noble Baroness and have since been taken up by other speakers.
In a report on peace studies which was first published in September 1984, Dr. John Marks, who was mentioned from the Opposition Front Bench—and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that Dr. John Marks is by no means out on a limb; he is a member of a growing body of academics who are deeply concerned about what is going on in what is called "peace studies" in our schools—wrote in his study:
"In some parts of the education system it is not too strong to describe what is happening as a disinformation campaign both in terms of what is included and what is left out".
This is exactly what is happening. A whole generation of school children is now beginning to be systematically indoctrinated and brainwashed in a flood of disinformation designed to instil in them a belief that the word "peace" is synonymous with such concepts as unilateral nuclear disarmament, massive reductions in defence spending, withdrawal from military alliances and hatred and contempt for our major ally in the Western world, the United States of America.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? The noble Lord used the phrase, "a whole generation of schoolchildren". Would the noble Lord care to give us the evidence of the number of schoolchildren who he believes are subjected to that process?
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be patient he will find that in my speech I shall give some indication of the extent to which this process is happening. I hope that I may be able to develop my argument without too much interruption, but I quite understand that at times noble Lords will want to put their own points, even in the middle of my speech.
I should like to repeat what I said, which is that there is a feeling, a precept, among the teachers to whom I refer, that outside this dogma of unilaterism, neutralism and anti-Americanism, peace cannot exist. It is (and again I use without apology the words of Dr. John

1179
Marks) "propaganda for defencelessness". It is no good, however passionately, suggesting that this is a minority activity. Peace studies are a growth industry in this country. There are already, as we know, many hundreds of peace syllabuses and the peace studies concept is moving into more and more schools and polytechnics and universities every day. It is not a subject to be diminished or ignored.
In using the word "disinformation" I do not intend to suggest that there is any link between what is happening in our schools and the kind of active measures which are part of the Soviet Union's foreign propaganda programmes. But it is interesting to note that, for example, in a confidential internal strategy memorandum drawn up in 1983 by Dr. Dan Smith for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, he had the following to say under the heading "Basic education", in which he was suggesting the way in which the CND should penetrate and influence basic education. He said:
"We need to put effort into attacking Britain's propensity for war. Britain is the most warring state of the last two centuries. Building peace education is one important way of doing this".
The noble Baroness mentioned in her speech that Mr. George Nicholson, when he was authorised member for political education of the Inner London Education Authority—the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench made reference to this—said (and the noble Baroness quoted this):
"I regard my job as mainly an organisational one. It is like a subversive campaign."
But he went on to say:
"We're not just talking about history or geography. We're talking about the subject right the way across from music to maths to English. I don't believe there is any subject untouched by politics".
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, may dismiss this as a foolish statement. To me it is something much more sinister. It sounds to me very much like the recipe for a pattern of totalitarian-type education.
Before we leave the subject of disinformation there is one further point—perhaps a small point; perhaps to some amusing, and to some others not so amusing. Novosti Press, the Soviet news agency, maintains not in Moscow but in Watford a storehouse of pamphlets which it sends out to teachers throughout the schools of this country. One of those pamphlets argues for the role of the student in revolution. Revolution! Most of them predictably peddle the Soviet line. They are readily available, and used, in the schools of this country.
I do not want to harp on that link in this debate. Even without that kind of link the picture is an alarming one. What is happening, in my view, is that we are witnessing the progressive disintegration of a traditional British principle which keeps partisan politics out of the classroom—not politics, because you cannot keep politics out of anything, unfortunately, but partisan politics. The material which is available for teaching peace studies on a growing scale, and the statements of many of those involved in putting together the syllabuses, demonstrate clearly that there is in existence a well-organised and unscrupulous political campaign designed to destroy that traditional liberal consensus about what is acceptable in our schools.
1180
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was somewhat worried because the noble Baroness had not gone into in enough detail what is contained in the peace studies syllabuses. I have here the peace studies syllabus of one of the leading schools in this country. It is a school noted for its high academic standards, and it could certainly not be accused in any normal way of being a breeding ground for political propaganda. Yet this peace studies syllabus—and I have studied it with great care—is a clear example (if only a relatively mild one) of the way in which peace studies provide a cloak for straightforward political propaganda.
The syllabus is full of words such as "peace", "violence", "conflict", "patterns of aggression", used over and over again; it talks of "frustration", "religious and racial minorities", "hunger, poverty and misery in the third world", "the arms build-up and the dynamics of the arms race"—all the familiar slogans of the protest industry. But there are two words which seem to be missing from the vocabulary of those who concocted the course. The word "freedom" appears once and is then forgotten. The word "defence" does not appear at all.
How can you teach a course called peace studies, which presumes, I imagine, to look into the causes of war and the origins of conflict, and not talk about defence? There is no discussion in this syllabus of the positive case for armed forces or police in the maintenance of peace, defence, or law and order. There are the familiar simplistic arguments which so often distort discussions about the North-South conflict, such as the implication that money that is currently being spent on arms could simply and without any complication be used as aid to alleviate the hunger, poverty and misery of the third world.
There is a total omission in the whole of this syllabus of any serious consideration of the nature of communist societies and those behind the Iron Curtain. There is, as the noble Baroness has said, a glib assumption that there is a moral symmetry as between East and West, and a clear implication that there are no fundamental differences, no value differences at all, between the free liberal democracies and the totalitarianism of Marxism-Leninism.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise only because the noble Lord mentioned my name. I should like to say a word in support of the noble Baroness. She has carried out, as I understand from her previous publications, an analysis of 300 peace studies curricula. That is what would be valuable evidence to us. Neither the points that she made nor those the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is making now are really adequate as evidence for the point that he is trying to make.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am sorry if this is not adequate evidence. I have studied not only this one syllabus; I have studied many of the syllabuses. What I have done is to choose the mildest and most modest of them all. If that is not evidence, then I shall have to try to do better in future.
This is, in my view, whatever may be the reputation and the high standards of the school concerned, a political tract masquerading as an educational syllabus. I know—and I repeat this; I was about to say

1181
it before the noble Lord intervened—that this is not the worst by any means of what is going on. Many local authorities—and I have studied their syllabuses too—are encouraging peace studies based on broader and even more dubious assumptions than the one in this syllabus.
I should like to draw the attention of noble Lords to the words of a certain Miss Stefanie Duczek. She is an assiduous worker in the field of peace studies. She appears almost everywhere peace studies are discussed, and she was one of the authors of the course from which I quoted earlier. Miss Duczek's definition of peace education includes investigating,
"the causes of conflict and violence embedded within the social, political and economic structures of society".
To some of us this may seem already a fairly broad and all-embracing definition of peace studies, but Miss Duczek is prepared to go further. Speaking at a conference on the subject sponsored by Exeter University—and it really was Exeter University this time—Miss Duczek outlined a concept which she described as "structural violence", and went on to say, in the context of peace studies;
"at the level of society this could include bad housing, poor education and medical provision, systems of apartheid and discrimination, high unemployment and poverty. At the international level, one could name systems of imperialism, the arms race, or even the international monetary system".
When straight forward Left-wing political propaganda of that kind finds its way into so-called peace studies syllabuses, it seems to me that we are moving towards a very dangerous situation indeed.
I have no time to elaborate further. I could give, as could the noble Baroness, hundreds of examples of this kind. I believe that there is incontrovertible evidence that we and our children are beginning to be the victims of a growing campaign of political indoctrination. I would go so far as to suggest that peace studies is not a genuine educational discipline and should not be taught as one. I go even further and say that we ought to give very careful consideration, all of us, as to whether young children should be subjected to political education at all. The mind of a child is a very rare and precious thing; it is receptive, but it is fragile. It needs to be formed gradually and lovingly by the sort of understanding teachers who still exist, but who I believe are, tragically, a dying breed. One cannot or should not bombard the mind of a child with political rhetoric which tends to blunt the ability to comprehend and also to blunt the capacity to enjoy the real magic of learning.
I should like to conclude my remarks by asking Her Majesty's Government whether they would consider a number of specific proposals. I realise that when the Minister answers she may not be able to react to these suggestions in detail. I should not expect an answer to them today, however I ask the Government to give them serious consideration. The first is that the Government should strengthen the guidelines which they have drafted and issue them to local education authorities and others in order to define how and to what extent politically contentious subjects should be discussed in the classroom or elsewhere in the school.
It can be argued that politically contentious subjects should form no part of the curriculum of children below the age of 16 and should be completely excluded
1182
from primary schools. Some people would argue—and it has been argued to some extent already today in your Lordships' House—that no lessons or courses labelled "Peace Studies" should find a place in any school curriculum. That is an academic and a political argument on which I do not intend to dwell today, but I suggest seriously that guidelines are not enough.
In my view the Government should take urgent action to amend the existing education legislation. It should not be too difficult to ensure a duty under imaginative and serious education legislation to prevent the political indoctrination of minors in our schools. It should also give parents the right to withdraw their children from lessons or activities which do not respect their own religious or philosophical views. In other words, no session or lesson in any school containing politically contentious matter should ever be compulsory: at the moment it is.
When I think about the sheer wonder of voyages of intellectual discovery that one made in one's schooldays, I could weep for the thousands of children whose minds are now being filled with the ugly and barbarous dialectic of a band of political commissars; many of them festooned with badges of the protest industry and many of them intent only on propagating their own anarchic brand of political nihilism. I must respectfully dissent from the view expressed both by the Government and by the Opposition that the numbers and influence of these people are insignificant. They are not. Their numbers and their influence are of growing significance and it is in my view a matter of the greatest urgency that the Government should engage themselves unequivocally in this battle which is now being waged in the minds of our children in the hijacked name of peace.
I have to say that the speech of the noble Earl left me less than convinced that the Government appreciate the real dangers. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, suggested to me that, if he was speaking (as I assume he was) on behalf of the Labour Party, the Labour Party dismisses the danger as illusory. I believe that is a perilous line to take. If those of us who believe in the values of liberal education and who believe that there is no true peace without freedom do not take some action now, very soon there may be no battle left to fight.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, like so many of your Lordships, I entirely agree with the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has made. Indeed, he has enabled me to shorten my speech somewhat. My noble friend Lady Cox has performed a notable public service in choosing this subject for debate today. She moved the Motion so brilliantly. I wish to assure your Lordships that in choosing the subject and in choosing the wording of her Motion my noble friend had the full support of the Association of Conservative Peers. Having heard her, I am sure that my noble friends endorse what she said.
I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who had a very difficult speech to make, should have tried to find differences with my noble friend to the extent that he did. As I understand it, he himself was a victim of the Left Wing of the Greater London Council, and my noble friend was pointing

1183
out the things which the Left Wing have done and which, quite frankly, if they were to continue to the extent that they have been practised, will do even further damage to the Labour Party than the party has already suffered through the activities of the Left Wing.
I warmly support my noble friend Lady Cox in saying that a change in the law is required. We should amend the Education Act. We should do so to ensure that teaching in schools shall not be used for ramming party political views down children's throats, especially those of the young children. With an Education Bill coming before us I should have thought that this was a golden opportunity. I was rather surprised at my noble friend Lord Swinton saying that the legislation would create real practical difficulties of enforcement. May I say that it generally does! But there has been no great difficulty in enforcing the religious provisions of the Education Act (although one might have wished that they had been even more strongly observed) but broadly speaking they have not created great difficulties. The situation of which we have heard already today and of which we shall hear much more, points to the need for Parliament to ensure that the rot is stopped and that the rising generation of children in this country understand and support the ideals of our free democracy.
Surely we want the children in all our schools to be taught the essential subjects. Those I should say are knowledge and love of our language, mathematics, geography, history, some divinity perhaps, and eventually French, Latin, physics, chemistry and biology when they go on to secondary school. In the comprehensive schools we find that for the more senior pupils all those subjects can be taught. Those are surely the essentials of a liberal education. Above all, the children should be enabled and encouraged to think for themselves. If a considerable amount of time is to be spent in schools on political controversy, in however non-controversial a manner, it becomes a distraction from the children's academic subjects and the children then do less well in the essentials of education.
I have read the draft circular referred to by my noble friend Lord Swinton. One is able to obtain a copy of it in the Library. I am sorry to have to say that I disagree with its main trend and with its main assumption. It assumes almost unlimited discussion of political subjects in a non-controversial way. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that it is not necessary to have all children taught in that way. I should say that discussion of political subjects should be kept right out of the curricula of all primary schools and that in secondary and comprehensive schools it should be limited to an hour or, at the most, two hours a week; I should have thought two hours would be generous. Thus I join with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in hoping that the Government will not let this draft circular be the final version. I think it needs very great amendment.
The political activities already referred to by my noble friend Lady Cox are, it seems, pursued most intensively of all in London. This must surely be one of the main reasons why for some years the quarter of a million or so children in ILEA secondary schools
1184
have been achieving substandard examination results, even though ILEA spends 50 per cent. more per child on education than any other LEA.
The present tendency to divert children's attention from academic studies towards political controversy therefore places those children at an educational disadvantage; of that, I think there can be no doubt. Of course we must all acknowledge that in order to grow into good and happy citizens, children need not only to be properly educated academically and to think for themselves, but they also need to learn to behave properly. It is a most unfortunate fact that these days there is much juvenile crime, including vandalism and drug taking. This is especially so, I am afraid, in London, where the report for 1984 by the commissioner of police on page 171 in the appendix, points out that 22 per cent. of all crime in London in that year was committed by young people under the age of 17.
It is therefore really rather surprising that, whereas all teachers ought to be worried by this, it seems that many of them are not worried. One should have thought that all teachers would welcome the cooperation of the Metropolitan Police, which is willingly offered. However, what is the position? Left-wing teachers deliberately prevent the local police from entering their schools, either to give talks designed for better understanding between the police and the pupils, or to improve relations between the police and ethnic minorities, and even prevent the police, if they possibly can, from entering the schools to detect crime known to have been committed.
The reasons given for this refusal by the teachers to co-operate are mainly twofold. First, they say that the police are racist, even though we know that they are doing all they can to improve relations with coloured people, and in many quarters are succeeding. Pages 64 to 65 of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's Report for 1984 deals with this very clearly. Secondly, those teachers say that police visits to schools should have no place in our system of education; this is, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, quite rightly said, and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee said, about training young people in good citizenship.
No place for the police in our system of education, for police visits or talks! Yet the Left-wing majority of the Greater London Council have had that very ill-prepared video, which I saw yesterday, mentioned by my noble friend, called "Policing London", which in a clever buts rather sinister way, shows the police in the worst possible light. Believe it or not, it ends in an emotional recitation by a Rastafarian the last two lines of which (I hope I took them down rightly; I am pretty sure I did) were:
"When police really smell, communities must then rebel".
This video, prepared by the GLC at public expense at a cost of £35,000, has been offered to ILEA for showing in schools. I wonder whether my noble friend Lady Hooper, when she replies, can give us any Information on the extent to which that video has been shown and whether the Government have made any representations about it, bearing in mind that the Home Secretary is responsible for the Metropolitan Police and would therefore have a perfect right, without interfering in any way with the curricula in

1185
schools, to say that what he feels about this. It would be nice to know what the Government are doing about it. So there is the glaring Left-wing contradition for your Lordships: no police allowed in schools for any purpose, and a video attacking them is prepared for showing in schools and the police are not given a chance to defend themselves.
Surely we should all be trying to discover the motives of the Left-wing teachers in prejudicing the minds of young people against the forces of law and order. One is driven to the conclusion that those people who want a revolution to change our democratic society, as my noble friend Lord Chalfont said, realise that they cannot change it in the near future by violence and so they are attempting what for them is the alternative; namely, to destabilise our society over a period of years by trying to weaken the forces of law and order, creating class hatred and racial hatred, generally creating social unrest and preaching revolutionary socialism.
I do not associate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, or any of the noble Lords I can see opposite, with those motives. They are entitled to be entirely dissociated from them. However, these are motives which spring within the Labour movement and so the noble Lord and his noble friends should be concerning themselves to see what they can do, for the sake of the country and for the sake of the rising generation, to stop this terrible process. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes. I am grateful to the noble Lord and I am grateful to him for dissociating me and my noble friends from the views that he has been describing. But of course it is not just my noble friends here but the Labour Party as a whole which is opposed to what he described correctly as revolutionary socialism, and it is all the more poignant for us that we have this very small number of people who have come into our party and seek to distort our democratic socialist purposes to those ends.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord but one must remember that the small minority of people to whom he refers are playing a prominent, notorious and, I am sorry to have to say, effective part in this process.
In conclusion, may I say that the vast majority of our people are law-abiding, freedom loving and anti-Marxist. For their sake we must stop this boring political rot that has crept into too many of our schools. I hope we shall find that the Government, of whom I am a keen supporter, have the will to try to do so.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I must first apologise because I shall not be able to stay until the end of this debate as I have a long-standing engagement to take the chair at a dinner at Eton this evening. Yes, we eat there!
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, should be congratulated on having instituted a debate on this extremely important matter. I believe that she should also be congratulated on her opening speech, which was full of knowledge clearly expressed and, particu-
1186
larly in view of her strong convictions on this matter, delivered in terms of praiseworthy moderation. I have also listened to the speeches of other noble Lords with much interest and only wish that I could hear everything else that will be said. The debate is of great interest and importance because the projection of extreme partisan views into education, with or without the use of public funds and the interference with free speech, could threaten, and perhaps threatens, the whole fabric of our society as we know it and value it.
My contribution to this debate will not be on the same scale in content nor, I fear, in quality as those which have gone before. It will be a matter of a few bits of hors d'oeuvre compared with the main dishes; but I want to speak in particular about two examples of the indoctrination of the young which seem to me to be highly reprehensible. Before doing so, I hope as someone intimately connected with an educational establishment well known to many of your Lordships that I may be allowed to say a few words about the indoctrination of the young in education in general. In schools, this is unforgivable; because if you introduce loaded indoctrination of any kind to school curricula you can only do so at the expense of truth, and, in honest education, truth or, if you prefer it, a balanced view is absolutely essential.
This concept of education was admirably described by a wise Oxford don in 1914 when he was beginning a course on moral philosophy. He told his students that they were embarking upon a great adventure but he reminded them of one point. It was that whatever professions they entered—the Church, the Bar, politics, the army; anything except the teaching profession into which he hoped only a very few would go—nothing that they learnt in the next two years would be of the slightest use to them in after life save only this: that if they worked hard and intelligently they should be able to detect when a man is talking rot. That, he said, was in his view the main if not the sole object of education.
Unfortunately, young children and teenagers are not protected from indoctrination by having undergone a course of moral philosophy. They are not at all well equipped to know when something they are taught is rot or bogus or wholly unbalanced and prejudiced. They are often extremely idealistic with large hearts and untrained minds. They are wide open to indoctrination and that is why they are obvious targets for evil men and women who seek to destroy the foundations of our society. Those who are most at risk are young children and to indoctrinate them with pernicious ideas is simply wicked.
This brings me to my two particular examples. The first is a picture book. I do not know how many of your Lordships still hang up your Christmas stockings. This cheerful, cartoon book entitled How Racism came to Britain is just right to fit into a Christmas stocking and it is skillfully designed for the age group which normally hang up their stockings—unless of course they have already been purged by indoctrination of such maudlin and superstitious nonsense.
This pamplet is the third in a series issued by the Institute of Race Relations. It is very easy to assimilate with its format of cartoons with bubbles coming out of people's mouths, and it gives a graphic account of how black people were exploited by Britain in the colonial

1187
era, how they were sold into slavery and how Britain's opposition to slavery was motivated not by any Christian principles but by the prospect of richer pickings elsewhere.
It tells how black people were lured to come to Britain in more modern times to man our hospitals, our buses and our tubes; Indeed, how having helped to win Britain's war they were asked to win also Britain's peace. It then goes on to show in graphic detail how black people in Britain today are persecuted by the police and exploited in every possible way. Your Lordships will be glad to know, however, that in this pamplet there is at least one gleam of hope. It is to be found on the index page. Here you can see two black hands holding up a banner borne on bamboo poles upon which is written, "Here to stay! Here to fight".
This monstrous document, totally one-sided in its approach to a very real problem, this document that can speak of the abolition of slavery without mentioning Wilberforce, this hotchpotch of half truth and misrepresentation which can only have been designed to inflame racial tension by inducing a sense of guilt in white children and a sense of resentment and injustice in black ones, was produced and disseminated with the help of public funds. It is a production of the Institute of Race Relations which was founded in 1952 as an independent body to monitor race relations. I understand that in 1973 the institute was taken over by Marxists, and when as a result of this takeover it no longer received funds from charities and businesses it was in 1982 saved by the GLC, who stepped in with annual grants.
The GLC have given it £300,000 since then. The Institute of Race Relations has also been funded by the British Council of Churches and the Transnational Institute (Amsterdam), which is the international arm of the Institute of Policy Studies in Washington, a body whose recommended policies more usually support the Soviet's point of view than that of the West.
This cartoon book has been warmly received by an organisation known as "All London Teachers Against Racism and Fascism". In the organisation's newsletter the book is given a tremendously good write-up. It is described as,
"a highly readable yet serious book",
and is recommended particularly for 12-year-olds. I can get rid of this beastly thing now.
The second example of indoctrination to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention is taken from ITV's "Dramarama" series. I refer to what was broadcast last year on the national network on Monday, 30th June, from 4.45 to 5.15. The title of this item was "The Frog". I had read the script and found it very objectionable. I have now seen a video and this, because of the visual impact of the images, is a great deal worse. Personally I found it absolutely revolting. The scene is set in an enclosed garden which, we are told, represents the Western world. The introductory picture is of a tarantula spider and a snake. The hero is, to quote from the script,
"a bloody-minded stupid adolescent frog",
and his battle cry is,
"I'm the frog that stuffs the system I'm the one they had to fear".
1188
"Frog" is a punk character, who causes a drought in "Her Majesty's Imperial Garden" by filling his stomach with all the water available. The other characters are symbols of authority. There is the prime parrot minister, the lizard scientist, the crocodile press baron—"a billion pound bingo boss". All these are hideously portrayed in a manner reminiscent to me of the horror comics of the 1950s. "Frog" of course destroys all these symbols of authority.
I should have mentioned that this TV horror comic, broadcast on the national network, is specifically entitled "A Programme for Young Children"! It is, it seems to me, in its impact destructive at every level—political, social, artistic, and, when considering children, most serious of all, psychological. And of course young children would watch it with the rapt fascination with which they would look at freaks or cripples. I must confess that I do not know whether this horrible TV show for young children was designed specifically to indoctrinate them against the acceptance of authority and, by the ugliness of the symbols, to degrade the whole concept of Western culture: but I am quite sure that this is the effect it would have in the minds of young children.
I hope the Government will not underestimate the dangers that have been brought out in this debate. I hope very much that they will take it seriously and that they will do something about it. I fully associate myself with the suggestions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others in this matter. Guidelines are well enough but it is extremely difficult to give them teeth. I think the most helpful action would be the setting up of an independent inquiry of the type Sir Humphrey in "Yes Minister" would view with fear and terror, one which actually dug into the matter and one which I hope might later lead to legislation.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, in the light of his connection with Eton perhaps I may ask him whether there is anything in the way of political education at Eton.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I am sorry; I did not hear the noble Baroness.
Baroness David: My Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's connection with Eton I asked whether there is anything in the way of political education at that college.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, we have a very vigorous political society which is for people normally over the age of 16. Politicians from every possible side of the political spectrum come to talk to us. I put a plug in here. One of our miseries is that those of the Left are reluctant to come. I cannot think why. They would get a warm and loving welcome.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords who have spoken in congratulating my noble friend Lady Cox on the magnificent way in which she introduced this subject. Her speech was noteworthy for its vigour, for its intelligence and for the skill with which she deployed her arguments. I believe that I am not the only one who found the

1189
speech of my noble friend the Minister a little subdued by comparison. I trust, though, that my noble friend Lady Hooper who will be summing up, will field some of the arguments put forward with her usual skill and perhaps reassure us that the Department of Education is taking this subject very seriously indeed.
I also thoroughly enjoyed the speech by the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat. The noble Lord mentioned the political society at Eton. I should perhaps mention that at Harrow there is a very strong political society also and that members of the Left are extremely welcome there. According to my two sons, they welcomed a visit recently by Mr. Eric Heifer; so perhaps the Left do not like to go to some schools but are very welcome at others.
But we are here to talk about the public sector, and I have to agree with my noble friends who have pointed out that the police, those who support our armed forces, are being used as a scapegoat in order to whip up hatred and distrust against the entire system by which this country is governed. It is very easy to pick a few motes out of the eye of the society in which we live, ignoring of course the beams in the eye of our ideological adversaries in the other half of Europe. This is what has been done with consummate skill and great determination by a number of people who have influence over our education.
I am unable to share the view of the noble Lord who spoke for the Opposition that this is just a small problem, the work of a few fanatics, and that it will go away if we do not treat it very seriously. I also read the booklet to which my noble friend who has just resumed his seat referred. It is on sale in the borough of Brent, an area which I represent in the European Parliament. I too was deeply shocked by it, and deeply shocked by the fact that London ratepayers' money was used to pay for it.
Several of us here have become students of history and have learnt about the British Empire. We have learnt about the good and the bad of it. Good heavens! in all our histories, whichever nation we come from, there is the good and the bad. We know about what went wrong in the British Empire, but this cartoon depiction of Britain's past is a travesty of the truth and a great disservice to those people, whether dead or still with us, who served the Empire when it existed. The institutions and the democratic procedures which were built up in those days in India and other countries are greatly respected in that part of the world and greatly revered, but not apparently by some of the people in this country who see virtue in slandering their own nation and their own traditions.
The main issue of this pamphlet is of course racism. I join with those who say that there can be no excuse for racism, which does exist in certain parts of this country and among some people. However, such publications offer no hope. They offer no hope to black people or to Asian people who have to contend with racism of a minority. They give no hope to white people, who are made to feel guilty, concerned and distressed because they are led to believe that their racism is the only racism that can possibly exist, and that their sins, or the sins of their ancestors, are the cause of all the ills of the world.
I will mention one or two short quotations from the pamphlet. One quotation from Mr. Roy Hattersley is
1190
depicted in large letters. It seems that in 1965 Mr. Hattersley expressed the view that immigration should be limited and that without such limitation, integration would be impossible. The conclusion drawn by the writer of this journal, set against the background of a swastika, is that the impression grew up from what was said by Mr. Hattersley, that if one has fewer numbers there would be less of a problem; and that this was just the same sort of answer that Hitler had for the Jews.
Is that really what the GLC feels about that which Mr. Hattersley said in 1965; that by advocating limitation on immigration into this country, he was as bad as Hitler? Does the GLC feel that his words need to be set against a swastika? Is that what we ratepayers of London spend our money on? I believe that this journal should be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. I should be happy to contribute my own because I do not want public money to be spent on buying another copy. Perhaps another noble Lord would donate his copy to be placed in the Library of another place.
The bottom line of all that propaganda is, as has been mentioned by noble Lords previously, that people should rise and rebel or, as is stated in the pamphlet, defend their communities. There are pictures of National Front members, escorted by the police, marching against a community of black people. There is the clarion call to people to defend their communities because juries will let them off. No wonder some people in Tottenham and Brixton committed terrible crimes in recent months against the forces of law.
The same theme is to be found in the video "Policing London" mentioned by my noble friend Lord Renton. There is given the impression that the police are indifferent to crimes against the person and that police forces are riddled with racism; that they are at best idiotic and at worst evil. Not that one wishes to over-glamorize the police and say that they are perfect. In the past day or two we have heard of a terrible incident in which five policemen committed a vicious crime against five innocent people and were not even apprehended for what they had done. We know that such incidents occur, just as we know that racism exits in our society.
However, the nastiness of such propaganda is that it gives no hope for the eradication of the problem. It puts forward the idea that the police are beyond reform; that they will always be like that and that the only solution is to rebel. As my noble friend said, the last few words of that video are that communities must rebel and use violence against the police. That is the cry, and that is the message that comes across in all the publications.
I turn again to the borough of Brent, where there is very deep concern about indoctrination in the schools. It is not my job to represent that borough in the area of education, but since I spend a fair amount of time there—indeed, I shall be visiting that area later this evening and so apologise if I miss some of the following speeches—I understand the deep concern felt by very large numbers of people, not only about indoctrination in the schools but about the poor standard of education: this, in spite of the fact that there is a very good teacher-student ratio in secondary

1191
teaching in Brent. There is one teacher for every 12 or 13 pupils. That is a very good ratio. It is not an answer to say that more money must be spent on teaching in Brent. On the contrary, that does not seem to work. The answer is to change the way that teaching is done in Brent and in many other large parts of London.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I weep for the children and their parents who miss so much of the beauties of our heritage, arts, science, literature and poetry because those subjects are not being taught. Pupils are not able to live up to their full potential because they are being politicised and left to their own devices. The idea of true teaching is being forgotten by many teachers. Large numbers of parents are leaving various boroughs such as Brent simply because they know that they must move elsewhere if their children are to be well educated.
Recently, an investigation was launched into education in the borough of Brent. One member of the investigating team was a Professor Chris Mullard, an expert in education. More than £100,000 of ratepayers' money has so far been spent on that investigation. Professor Mullard is a well-known leader of the anti-racist movement, but the way that he expresses anti-racism is bizarre in the extreme. In a book published some years ago by Allen and Unwin, he wrote:
"Blacks will fight with pressure, leaflets, campaigns, demonstrations, fists and a scorching resentment, which, when peaceful means fail, will explode into street fighting, urban guerilla warfare, looting, burning and rioting … Critics will argue smugly that this cannot possibly happen here. Most of them will be white, blind to what is already happening, wrapped in cocoons of isolation and utopian dreams of multi-racialism, confident that white is might. To these I say, 'Watch out, Whitey, nigger goin' to get you!'."
Those are the words of someone who is investigating education in that particular borough.
I suppose that Professor Mullard is entitled to express those views inasmuch as they do not conflict with the Race Relations Act and do not amount to incitement to racial hatred. But again I ask myself this question: Is it right that someone holding those fanatical views, expressing as they do a deep hatred of white people, should be paid out of public funds to conduct an investigation into education in Brent?
Again we see the same themes. There is a call to violence and a call to the community—in particular the black community—to rebel with violence against the established order. Not to get rid of racism, which we all want to do; not to punish the guilty, whether the guilty policeman, the guilty teacher, guilty councillor or even the guilty noble Lord for that matter—but to get rid of the whole thing. That is the call of the people who hold that particular view.
I do not see any possibility of a way out for anyone in this country, black or white, if those ideas continue to be fed into the minds of our young people in schools and universities. In this I feel very keenly the problems that black people face, particularly in our inner cities. Quite understandably, they feel that in times of high unemployment they are the ones most at risk, and that they are the ones at the bottom of the pile; but they are the ones who need the most help in order to make a decent living for themselves and for their children. It is no service to them to feed them that sort of
1192
propaganda in the schools and allow that sort of stuff to be taken home to parents. Indeed, as my noble friend Lady Cox said, many black parents are rebelling against that sort of thing themselves. They are setting up their own schools. In some cases they are sending their boys and girls to the Caribbean where they probably get a better education than in London—perhaps paying more than they can afford in order to do so.
Therefore, this type of propaganda—vicious and hateful to black people as well as white—cannot continue to be fed into schoolchildren in this country without irreparable harm being done to our society. I very much hope that my noble friend when winding up at the end of the debate will indicate what the Government hope to do about it. We need something to be done now if all of us, black or white, are to be given hope for the future.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin by striking a novel note and announcing that I intend to remain to the end of the debate. I shall start as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, did when she spoke very sadly about declining standards and about sloppy professionalism, selective quotations, bias and the grinding of axes. However, my target is not that of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox: it is the Government, the Minister, and her supporters in the debate tonight.
What we have seen is an attempt by the party opposite, properly timed in their view, to coincide with the continuation of a dispute which has gone on and on, and the responsibility for which, in part at least, must lie with the Government. What we have seen in this debate is an attempt tonight to divert not merely the attention of this House but the attention of the public outside from the real problems—I do not deny that there are some problems—which face education in our country today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and her supporters made introductory remarks along the lines of, "I believe that there are many fine teachers", or, "I do not believe that I am talking about a majority". They very carefully indicated, in general, that teachers are trying to do a good job. But they know that the media tomorrow, when they report this debate, will not have headlines saying,
"House of Lords believes"—
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, where are the media?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord asks: where are the media? As far as the press is concerned, it has its means of hearing, certainly if it heard the earlier speeches. There will be that kind of imbalance and bias, and an attempt to prejudice, that will appear in the press tomorrow. There will not be a headline which says:
"House of Lords agrees that the teaching profession, in difficult circumstances, is doing a very good job".
I do not have grounds for disputing a single case reported, but it will be those cases, which may or may not be valid, which will be regurgitated tomorrow.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and to her supporters that if they really believe that the purpose of this debate is to serve the best interests of education,

1193
with a capital "E", and of the partnership—I shall give way in a moment, although the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has not yet said he wishes me to; the noble Lord is always very helpful—which ought to exist between parents, governors, pupils and politicians, I believe that the events of tomorrow, and subsequently, will show that this debate has not served that purpose at all.
Lord Renton: My Lords, what surprises me is what the noble Lord said. I can assure him that, speaking for myself and, I believe, for my noble friends as well—
A noble Lord: Those still here, my Lords.
Lord Renton:—it was decided to raise this matter for its own sake. I personally had no thought whatever of the dispute with the teachers. I did not mention it, and I do not think anyone else has done so. So perhaps the noble Lord will now, for the rest of his speech, apply his mind to the very real problems which have been so clearly described, and largely acknowledged by his own Front Bench.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, against the background that there is a dispute which is grinding on and on I am trying to see what the effect of this debate will be in getting a resolution of the problem. Who, in fact, is under attack? Primarily it is Certain teachers. We have sought—as I did in an intervention—to ask Members generally to quantify the size of the problem. All we have heard from is a small band; a number who are influential and insidious.
I do not have much experience in that my sons do not go to Harrow and I have no connections with Eton, but I have other claims to knowing what is going on in the state education system. Noble Lords opposite ought to be able, but have failed so far, to give the evidence which the Minister in introducing this debate said was needed: the evidence upon which the Ministry can act and upon which education committees can act. They have signally failed to provide it.
I can give only one illustration. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, read a headline from the Standard which, as I recall it, said that 28 Haringey teachers asked for early retirement because of the hassle to which they were subject. The noble Baroness quoted one of those teachers. The impression is left that someone knows that 28 teachers have left for that reason. I can tell the noble Baroness that one of those head teachers, who I know personally and to whom I spoke after the event, said, "I did not know that that was the purpose". She said, "I am not leaving for that reason. I have other reasons; not least the whole teaching profession, not just in Haringey but in every other borough, is in a process where teachers are being induced to retire early". She said, "I can speak for myself and I understand what the article says, but that was not my reason for leaving. I have two or three friends who are also leaving, but not for that reason".
In my view, what my noble friend Lord McIntosh did in a very effective speech was to demonstrate that, while there may be something in what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, it is certainly not sufficient
1194
either to take up the time of this House or to ask the Government to act.
When the Minister made his remarks he was very fair. He did not dispute anything that had been said. He pointed out what could be done and what could only be done if the evidence was produced. I have some experience as a governor of a school. I have some experience as a councillor, and I have some experience in pressure groups. What the noble Baroness and others are saying is that there are powerless groups in our society—powerless groups like parents, powerless groups like councillors, and powerless groups like professionals who are teachers and officers. Every time I have looked at an analysis of election results after a general election when a survey has been made the teaching profession has been shown not to have voted for Labour. It has always shown that more teachers voted Conservative than for any other party—and that includes the last general election.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: For the last time!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it may be the last time, and I hope it is the last time, but I am talking about history. If it is the case that most teachers in schools vote Conservative, then we must be led to the conclusion that in their professional organisations they are outnumbered, out-manoeuvred, outvoted and out-argued, or that they are taking no interest in such matters either as teachers or as trade unionists, or even as parents. I cannot believe it. I believe that the teaching profession is very caring and very understanding.
Let me read into the record a note I received from the National Union of Teachers. I am certain that others of your Lordships, on the other side of the House, must have had it as well:
"The union has always agreed with the Government that subjects at school should be taught in a balanced, unemotional and rational way. We believe that they are. It is readily accepted that there are differences of opinion and approach in the teaching of subjects such as history, religious education and economics, yet no-one is seriously suggesting that these subjects are being taught in an unbalanced way. Teachers are professionals and are well able to distinguish fact from opinion, as are their pupils. The so-called evidence suggesting bias in teaching is anecdotal and has not been substantiated".
We have heard a lot about this argument tonight; and we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, whose knowledge of the defence industry and the issue of war and peace I deeply respect. In fact, he and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, say they have this mass of evidence which they disagree with. It may be right or wrong, but they disagree with it. They are seeking men and women of influence who will share their view and who have some power, and that must mean the Minister, yet apparently they have failed to move the Minister. Whatever the size, weight, number and nature of their arguments they have been unable to persuade him. I suggest that they ought to spend their time in that direction.
Reference has been made to the situation in ILEA. The noble Lord from the Alliance Benches acknowledged the unique nature of the problems in ILEA. With 400 separate dialects in the mother tongues of children who are taught in our schools, there are massive problems.

1195
One talks in terms of money and practices, but I do not believe that noble Lords who sit opposite have even a remote concept of the enormous difficulties which face not only ILEA itself but the teachers in ILEA. My attention has been drawn by ILEA to the statement which appeared today in the Telegraph. It is the press release of which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said he possessed a copy, and is the statement by the Secretary of State, where he calls for guidelines to protect the integrity of political education.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is in the Library.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am not saying it is not available. I am simply drawing attention to the fact of its existence. As far as ILEA is concerned, I am told that no one would disagree with the draft circular on politics as outlined in the Telegraph of 5th February. Of course, some people will say that it does not go far enough, but it is going out to consultation and I assume that in time we shall receive the product of that consultation. We on this side of the House are saying to Members opposite that we believe it is grossly unfair to elevate and distort the significance of the regrettable and unacceptable practices which have been drawn to your Lordships' attention. They cannot be tolerated, certainly not by me as a democrat and as a person who believes in free speech in all places.
I live in Enfield. My wife has been a teacher there for 20 years, and she was a president of the Enfield National Union of Teachers. I left school at the age of 14 and did not have the benefit of the type of education which it is acknowledged that many of your Lordships have enjoyed. I respect that education. I am a qualified man; I received my degree from the Open University when I was 50 years old. I can tell your Lordships that the teachers in Enfield will deeply resent the implications which will flow from this debate, which are not that there are some bad practices but that bad practice is general—and that has been said by Members opposite, I repeat.
But the media will not be able to distinguish between what are generalities and the true position. I honestly believe that the debate we have engaged in tonight has been a deliberate attempt to shift the emphasis away from the real problems which face this Minister and this Government, which are not only to settle the strike but also to make sure that all children, regardless of their race or colour, will receive an education which will benefit them.
6.56 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I am certainly not here to attack the teachers. I am here to attack the indoctrination that is thrust upon them. I know one or two teachers. What first drew my attention to something wrong in our schools was that one or two of the young people I employed—and this was a long time ago—were receiving very subversive propaganda. But it was not actually through the schools that they received it. I think it came direct from some Soviet agency and it appears now to have dried up.
I have had a lot to do with young people because for nearly 30 years I have been associated with NABC and
1196
especially in Kent where I have been on their executive for nearly 30 years and have been their treasurer for about the same amount of time. Apart from that, I also speak quite a lot in universities in their union debates. The extraordinary thing is that I have never had anything thrown at me and I have been well treated. I can only assume that that is because I am not important enough to have things thrown at me.
However, I should like to say that I am always extremely pleased when I hear the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, speak because I remember the days (about 25 to 30 years ago) when he used to sit on the Benches opposite and I used to say many of the things that he says now and he would roar with laughter. I used to point out communist cells in certain factories that I knew and various subversive activities that were going on in the country. I am glad to say that now he has come round to my point of view.
I should also like to take up something that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said regarding racial education and the divers races in our country. For a short time I had an agricultural estate in Jamaica. We had a school on the estate which taught about 600 children of the workers. All the teachers were black. The children were beautifully disciplined and they could not have behaved better. I do not know whether any of them have come here, but if they have, they have maybe gone completely to pot, presumably because of our state of education and the fact that there is so little discipline in our state schools.
About 18 to 20 years ago a friend of mine was inspecting a big state school to the north of London. It took a lot of time to go round it because of its size. When the visit was over, he said to the headmaster, "I think that the school is excellent. You have wonderful buildings, playing fields and other facilities. But there is just one thing. Your students appear to be extremely bad mannered". The headmaster replied. "Manners are a relic of the feudal age and we do not teach them". That made me think. A lot of the trouble today is the great lack of discipline in our state schools. If a young man has no discipline, he is useless to society.
I try to employ young people when that is practical. Some of them are very good, but some have the most astounding ideas. I shall not propound them now. But I remember instructing one young man who I was asked to employ how to work a machine. He said, "Oh, I know all about that. If you don't like it, you can something, something off", and he just got off the machine. One cannot employ people like that. It is quite impossible.
Your Lordships may find another example interesting. I sold a cottage to a certain professor. Some young men went in before he had taken possession and completely wrecked it. I called the police and did what else I could. It would not be fair to give the professor's name in the House, but I am prepared to give it to any noble Lord who wants to know it afterwards. He wrote me very rude letters, and so I did some research and found that he had been instructing those young men in sociology and had told them that nobody should own private property—presumably apart from himself. That is indoctrination, but he was a humbug. He was all for private property for himself but presumably thought that nobody else should have it.

1197
In this country for some time public funds have been used for partisan political purposes, but I think that it has almost always been in local authority government. We can hardly have had a better example of the use of public funds for partisan political purposes than the GLC over the past two or three years. I was always of the opinion that such practices were against the law, but they go on. In Prime Minister Walpole's day, in the middle of the 18th century, some parliamentary candidates were prepared to pay up to £50,000 to get a seat, but at least it was their money. I am perhaps being rather facetious. But today some politicians will use taxpayers' money to tell the electorate that they can get more and more for doing less and less if they vote for them. I have my tongue in my cheek a little. But that is taxpayers' money. It is not dissimilar; the wish is there to perhaps subvert.
Politicisation in our schools is definitely growing. I do not necessarily blame the teachers. The propagandists are so skilful that they probably get round them, although some of the teachers may be blameworthy. The question is how to prevent it. It may be an absurd suggestion, but I have often wondered whether teachers could take an oath, in the same way as doctors, that they will not try to pollute their pupils' minds with false propaganda. What was it that Lenin said? He had so many sayings! I think he said, "Pollute the young, inflate the currency, and the state is mine". Talking of inflating the currency, I warn noble Lords opposite when they get power to be careful about that. But I remember that saying well.
I quite forgot to congratulate my noble friend on her speech; I apologise. She was magnificent in putting her points forward. I have obviously never been a teacher, but I was fortunate enough to have very good teachers and I am grateful to them. The population of our country is 90 per cent. urban, and we are vastly overpopulated. If one is brought up in a concrete jungle, as so many of our people are, it is difficult for them to resist some of the propaganda that we come across.
I do not think that the teachers are so much to blame. The media must take a great deal of the blame, with its obscenity and violence. I think that it must probably take the chief blame. But teaching is a delicate operation and, as other noble Lords have said, it is sad that all young people cannot have the advantage of a good education that some of us have had. I do not know what we can do about that. It is a fact of life; but there it is.
I have spoken for long enough. If we cannot stop this pollution—if that is the right word—of minds by false theories, I fear for the future. After all, Britain was once the home of the British Empire, a country that will go down in history as the greatest civilisation in the world, astoundingly tolerant and having always tried to uphold the cause of freedom. If, however, we cannot strike out of our society and out of our teachings these false theories, I am afraid that the world will be the loser. I doubt whether the world will ever again behold such a tolerant nation.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, I should like to confine myself to one aspect of my noble friend Baroness Cox's Motion—the infringement of freedom
1198
of speech and lawful assembly in universities. A few such incidents have caused widespread concern recently. While there is no general or acute problem of disruption and intimidation in universities, some of those incidents were extremely well publicised. In practice, they are few when set against the many hundreds of orderly meetings that take place in universities. Nevertheless, the universities themselves are concerned about this behaviour. As foundations devoted to teaching, research and learning they know that their pursuit of truth is dependent upon free speech and lawful assembly flourishing.
In view of the way in which the terms of the Motion are drawn, it is important that your Lordships should know that universities as free societies give their forthright and unequivocal support to freedom of speech and lawful assembly. There can be no excuse for disruptive and violent behaviour. But proper protest and heckling can so easily pass into an infringement of freedom of speech that at this point universities often find themselves the target of small groups of extremists, not necessarily students, who wish, through provocation, to create conflict and even violence.
The administration of a university, even a large one, has no group of staff remotely like a police force—generally, just a few excellent men like Dogberry and Verges, and no one would wish them to be any different. But on the occasions when violence breaks out, when meetings are disrupted and free speech infringed, universities and indeed other educational institutions do not have the means of identifying all those who take part. Moreover, the law defining the right of free speech and the law governing meetings and demonstrations abound with uncertainties. The Vice-Chancellors' Committee has prepared guidelines to assist universities in this difficult area. If new legislation is contemplated, it might be worthwhile consulting the universities. Their experience in this field could prove particularly useful.
As an example of the kind of problem that arises from the present law, may I draw your Lordships' attention to the distinction between a public meeting and a private one? The police frequently have some understandable hesitation in displaying too high a profile on a university campus or in university premises. Where the meeting is public the police may be prepared to be present to minimise the risk of disruption. But if the meeting is private the situation is much more difficult. If a potential threat to public order is known in advance, a university will generally try to secure that the meeting is a public meeting in the legal sense. Moreover, university authorities can be helped if those who organise a meeting will give reasonable notice and if speakers such as MPs or others will give advance notice of their visits. Ministers have already given an assurance that they will follow this procedure. But the politician who gives notice at ten o'clock one morning that it is his intention to speak on a potentially controversial subject on the campus that very evening gives the impression of deliberately sailing too close to the wind.
It must be recognised therefore that universities do not have the physical ability to maintain public order in the most extreme situations. Where the police are reluctant to intervene on private premises it may be

1199
impossible to fulfil the sovereign duty of maintaining the Queen's peace except by refusing permission for a controversial meeting. This would be a very exceptional situation. But there is no doubt that the duty of maintaining the Queen's peace must be the first consideration. Where an infringement of free speech or disruption of the right of assembly occurs and it amounts to a breach of the criminal law, if the police prefer charges, universities and educational institutions will co-operate fully and do all that they can to assist. If, by agreement, the matter is better dealt with by the university's own disciplinary procedures, the limits of such a system cannot be ignored.
I have already referred to the university's difficulty in identifying offenders. If the disciplinary committee, as it generally does, contains student members, it is not always an efficient body for the investigation of such political activity. Moreover, the university has no power to subpoena witnesses. It may find that witnesses are reluctant to volunteer evidence against the pressures of a close academic community.
Finally, I should like in this connection to refer briefly to the position of student unions in these matters. The official view was recently put forward by the Vice-Chancellors' Committee in its recent paper, The Future of the Universities. I should like to quote a paragraph of that paper:
"Student unions provide a framework for the intellectual, sporting, political and recreational activities that complement academic pursuits. The gathering together of a large number of young people is bound, on occasions, to lead to difficulties and from time to time the behaviour of student unions will need firm direction. But without the possibility of error, there can be no chance of learning to behave responsibly. There are, in any case, a number of safeguards which act as a check on foolish or extreme behaviour. All registered students are members of student unions and this should continue to be the case. It ensures the widest possible electorate and the likelihood of a good choice of candidates for union offices. The constitutions of the student unions normally do, and always should, require the approval of the university authorities. The Vice-Chancellors' Committee has issued detailed guidance about the elimination of ultra vires expenditure and is satisfied that, in conjunction with the university authorities, student unions are implementing that advice."
I take a somewhat different view about student unions. That is why I have taken the trouble to quote that paragraph. But I should like to preface what I am about to say by recording that as a vice-chancellor I have received the greatest help from many presidents of the students union who have conscientiously participated in the activities of the university and served devotedly upon many of its committees.
In some universities the union building has been provided either by old members or by external sources and is held on trust either for the union or for the students. In the majority of universities, however, the building has been built out of public funds and handed over to the union. In both cases the responsibility for running the building and what occurs in it rests with the union. The building itself becomes invested with a kind of diplomatic immunity; and the union enjoys a form of autonomy. This system is reinforced by the practice of making all students automatically members of the student union on their matriculation.
The proposal has been made from time to time that compulsory membership of all students should be converted into voluntary membership. The majority of students generally play little part in the student
1200
union's political activities, and on rare occasions of crisis many resent the suggestion that they should spend hours in tedious, elongated meetings to frustrate an active minority having its own way. Some argue that the university itself should ensure that conditions exist in which academic work can be pursued, and that it is no part of a student's contract that he should spend hours in union meetings to prevent, or bring to an end, a sit-in or other disruption of the university's life.
The decision to make all students compulsory members of the union was doubtless coloured by the consideration that a compulsory universal subscription would become part of the fee and therefore be paid mostly by the local authorities. This was a bad system because the level of subscription was negotiated between the university and the union and created an open-ended commitment for the local authorities. A few years ago that system was changed and, instead of the local authorities, each university became responsible for paying out of its UGC grant to its union a sum representing the total student subscriptions for the year.
The statistics for 1983–84, which are the latest available, show that in that year the universities in the United Kingdom handed over to their student unions a total of £16.8 million. In addition some £7.8 million was spent on the maintenance of athletic facilities and a further £3.7 million on other student facilities and amenities.
Of course, some of what was handed over to the unions was returned to universities as payment for necessary outgoings such as heat, light, power et cetera. On the other hand, most unions ran bars, or run bars, some catering, and frequently shops, all of which provide further substantial income for the unions.
At a time when the erosion of student grants is causing increasing financial hardship I suspect that many students would prefer to see their compulsory membership of the union replaced by voluntary membership, if part of what is currently paid on their behalf by the university to the union were used to increase the student grant, thereby enabling them to decide for themselves how it should be spent.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, for the first time in my parliamentary life—and I would choose tonight—I have to leave before the end of a debate in which I am taking part. I did offer to scratch, but it was felt that that would be an even worse alternative. I shall therefore try to compensate your Lordships by being brief.
Listening to the interesting opening speech of the noble Baroness I thought I perceived a way of thinking. For example, if we take the wording of the Motion, "politicisation"—what a dreadful word!—is something which takes place when the constitution is criticised; but it does not occur if the established order is merely explained or defended. Politicisation therefore is something which is critical. Defence of a status quo is not politicisation. That seems to be the way of thinking.
Perhaps I may take this a little further. Partisan political purposes are those purposes which question

1201
the acquisitive society. It is not partisan to explain that parties which uphold the established order are desirable, and all others undesirable.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way in the interests of accuracy, please? The noble Lord will see when he reads Hansard in the morning, that I specifically made a point of saying that education should encourage young people to think critically and rigorously, on the basis of all available evidence, about the problems in our own society as well as its achievements. I endorse the need for criticism as part of education.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right in saying that she said that. But it seems to me to follow from the examples that she gave afterwards that in practice what she found objectionable was precisely what I have described; and not the other type of criticism or defence of which she approves.
It seems to me that it is not partisan to explain that parties which uphold the established order are desirable. But to suggest the contrary is, I think, not only partisan but positively subversive. In foreign affairs, for example, it is not partisan to criticise the Soviet Union, but it is very partisan to criticise the United States. Furthermore, it is not done, and if one does it one will be in trouble, as has been discovered in Government circles recently.
The principle of freedom of speech is, I think, violated in this thinking when advocacy of racism or warfare is discouraged or prevented. Freedom of speech is not violated by suppression of peace studies, for example; it is violated by the discouragement of racism.
I noticed that on this occasion the only university department in Britain exclusively concerned with the study of peace escapes its usual lambasting at the hands of the noble Baroness. But peace studies generally were still a bad thing with her, and therefore we have in this case an example to which my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton referred; that is to say, general opposition but withdrawing from specific examples.
It may be that the university of Bradford is now "all right" with the noble Baroness, or it may be that she still has her reservations about it—the noble Baroness is nodding so that is obviously the explanation. I had hoped as a matter of fact that she had found out that Bradford was really not quite so bad as she thought. I see that the noble Baroness still thinks that it is as bad, which is rather sad because it is true that under the original head of the department, Professor Curle, there was possibly a linkage between theory and practice, although I think that it was a small one. However, it could be said that under that regime a clear distinction was not always made between understanding the nature of peace and doing something to bring it about.
However, under the present regime of Professor O'Connell, the academic standards are very high. I readily admit that my way of thinking may seem as odd to the noble Baroness as hers is to me. Professor O'Connell was of course a Catholic priest, and it occurs that that may be considered to be no great recommendation these days. There was a time when
1202
Catholicism was considered to be extremely subversive and, if we are not very careful, we could be heading in that direction again. However, under Professor O'Connell it seems to me that a very high standard is being maintained at Bradford, which, as I say, is our only school in a university exclusively concerned with the study of peace.
On 11th October an article in The Times Higher Educational Supplement found the same. I thought it was this article which might have converted the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, but there I had no luck. If The Times cannot do it, I do not think that I shall succeed where they failed. The article in The Times said:
"Contrary to misleading information which is regularly disseminated by the school's opponents—notably Roger Scruton, professor of aesthetics at Birkbeck College, London—the peace studies department is mainly financed by the Government, just like any other university school. Scruton and his allies claim that it does not attract Government funds because it is too unconventional".
I am happy to say that it does, and I hope that nothing which takes place here this evening will alter that happy state of affairs, because in my judgment the department of peace studies at Bradford University does a valuable job. I shall not claim that it does a completely impartial job, because in this area it is almost impossible to be impartial, however hard one may try. However, at Bradford I think that they try to provide a variety of approach.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will probably tell us, it is quite true that at least one of their leading lecturers is a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, has written for that campaign and has, I think, made a highly intellectual advocacy of the idea of nuclear disarmament. However, that is not true of all the people who teach at this university. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will decide that this particular part of the peace studies movement will escape her wrath in future.
I promised to be brief and I intend to carry out that promise. This has been an interesting but a rather worrying debate. In our education system we have some elements of which we are not proud. I believe that tonight we have heard too much about those elements of which we are not proud, and not enough about the elements of which we have reason to be proud. In spite of areas where events take place which please none of us, in my view on the whole our education system is a good one. It is my hope that, by the Government applying a little leniency and by the Secretary of State himself indicating that he may be prepared to take another look at the whole situation, it will not be too long before this damaging dispute in the schools, which is bad for everyone—it is bad for teachers, the children and the parents—will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion for both sides.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I too should like to apologise for doing the same as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. Had the unnatural break of 65 minutes for a Statement about Welsh water and other matters not taken place, I might have been able to stay to the end of the debate. However, I promised to take my wife to the Swiss Embassy, and I would not wish to insult His Excellency who represents that wonderful democratic country which has always been very friendly towards us.

1203
I should like to add my congratulations to those which have already been paid to my noble friend Lady Cox. I am sorry that a previous speaker spoke about the tremendous publicity that we shall receive in this debate. I wish that were so. As the ITA or the BBC decided to televise the Labour Party's day a fortnight ago, which was also a debate on schools—the cameras were set up with all the lights on—and as they televised the SDP debate just a week ago, I felt sure that, under their charter obligation to maintain a balance, they would be present and televising today. Although we put down this Motion on the Order Paper three weeks ago, they have found themselves unable to keep that balance and have absented themselves. I hope that there is nothing more sinister in that absence.
I was very surprised and deeply shocked by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I have always regarded him as one of the best spin-offs from the takeover of the GLC by the hard Left. When the noble Lord arrived in our House I thought, "Thank God, we have a really nice chap who must be solidly against the hard Left", who kicked him out 24 hours after he had been elected the leader of that body. I do not think that the noble Lord did himself justice. I know that he is in a very awkward position because of that; but he did not do himself justice by making a personal attack on the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and saying that she was quite unrepresentative of Conservative Peers. I have the honour of being deputy chairman to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who is chairman of that august body which represents all the Conservative Peers, and there is quite a number of them. I guarantee that the noble Baroness was speaking for the solid majority. I have not heard a single person object to her Motion on the Order Paper. Everyone supports it. I would also suggest that the noble Baroness speaks for Conservative parents in all parts of the country, and perhaps particularly for parents whose children have to go to ILEA schools. Therefore, the debate is timely and I thought that the noble Baroness introduced it with great moderation. My blood pressure would have been much higher than hers on that occasion.
It is the ILEA where the example is most alarming, and I could quote sections from John Marks' admirable book. The ILEA is the biggest branch of the NUT, and what is strange is that within the ILEA even the Communists are now beginning to give up because the extreme hard Left of Trotskyists—what they call "new" Communism—has taken over from them. There are no SDP members, no Liberals, no crossbenchers, no Tories, no moderates, only the hard Left. I never quite understood why this Government gave way and left the ILEA in existence, denying them the right of even proportional representation, thus making sure that there would not be a minority to expose some of their goings-on.
In October 1983 Mr. Ken Jones, who is a Trotskyist member of the National Union of Teachers but on its national executive (so there are those type of people there) said:
"About half the NUT associations in the Greater London area now have Left (i.e. 'new' Communist) leaderships. The Left's position get a consistent 40 per cent. of the vote at the [NUT] Annual Conference".
1204
That is pretty alarming. We cannot have people from the Labour Benches saying that this is a small minority. These people look after the education of 250,000 children in the centre of London, and therefore they are not a small minority. I suggest since 1983 that 40 per cent. has grown substantially. It was in 1984 that that same element which, in 1981, regretted that the Brixton riots were not better organised, said of the IRA bombing, "What's four dead Tories? A start". That is a pretty ignominious and extreme view of a dastardly project.
The extreme people, one regrets to say, are there. It is true, as a previous speaker said, that some of the head teachers have been encouraged to take early retirement of that 28, but there are a lot of good, solid teachers who have abandoned, as the Labour Party have abandoned, trying to stand for NUT elections. No decent replacements are readily available, and this is a shame because some good people are being lost.
Like others, I do not believe that the primary schools—and this is going very far, because the Hitler Jugend is in the minds of my generation—should give political instruction. After the 11-plus is plenty soon enough. Goodness knows! they have enough conventional subjects to take on. With the expansion of science—and I speak as a scientist—the knowledge of science is so great that there is more and more for the young to learn in their early and formative years.
I want to quote a north London school. I have in my hand a typical document. I have many much worse documents than this, but it is symptomatic. This curriculum is in line with the GLC's new curriculum as outlined in a booklet called, Improved Secondary Education. This concentrates on the rights of children. It is aimed at the 13 to 14 year-old bracket on the rights of children at all different ages. Parents cannot opt out of this. They can opt out of religious education, English, or history, but they cannot opt out of this subject called "Social Awareness". It is compulsory in schools.
Here we have some examples. It is just your rights; not your responsibilities or duties. I asked about that. I said, "Is there a comparable document about responsibilities and duties?" "No, it is your rights". At five you can drink alcohol legally in private. At 14 you can own an air rifle and, under certain conditions, a shot-gun. At the same age you can go into a pub and not drink. At the same age you can be found guilty of rape (boys only). At 16 you can consent to sexual intercourse (girls). You can drink beer, wine, cider, or perry in a pub, hotel, or restaurant. You can buy cigarettes or tobacco.
Incidentally, we understood that it was the tobacco lobby which was pushing tobacco. Here it is compulsory instruction in the schools drawing attention to the fact that at 16 you can buy them. Perhaps the most disturbing of all, you can at this age enter a brothel, or live there. Do not pretend that this is something that does not turn our stomachs. The Government must wake up if this is a typical example of what is going on.
Then still with 16-year olds, you can leave home whether or not your parents agree. Why draw it to their attention? You can change your name without your parents' consent. You can sign contracts, sue and be sued in the courts. You can buy drinks in pubs and

1205
drink them there. You can enter a betting shop and make a bet. Then at 17 you can buy or hire any firearm or ammunition. At 21 it is your right to engage in homosexual activities in private. It is a pretty despicable document to give to 13 or 14-year-olds, and, as I say, that is based on a GLC code.
I want to be short because of other arrangements and in order not to keep the House sitting too late. I hope that the Government will take many of the criticisms very seriously indeed. One must try to be constructive in a debate of this sort. I wonder whether Her Majesty's inspectors could be strengthened and themselves be given a new code. As I understand it, currently they give many weeks' warning to a school that they are coming to inspect. What happens? I have at first-hand that all the posters—all the anti-police posters; all the stirring up racial conflict posters—are taken down.
Everything is taken down for the inspectors. They come in, and then there is tremendous laughter by all the staff as they pin all the posters back in position, and the schoolchildren have to see them for the rest of the term. Surely if you can have ad hoc stopping of cars to see whether drivers are drinking, you can have an ad hoc visit or two to a school to see whether the discipline, the teaching, the general instruction and the general atmosphere are orderly and proper.
I would hope that we could include something in legislation. A lot has happened since 1944. Everyone shelters behind saying, "Don't disturb the coalition Rab Butler Act of 1944". Surely in 1986, 42 years later, there has been such a change that we ought to start looking at this again and perhaps legislate. It may be that the Government—many governments do—would wish to set up an inquiry or even a Royal Commission. If it is a Royal Commission, I hope that they will urge some speed. I have sat on Royal Commissions and they go on interminably. This is so serious that we do not want to see the minds of our children rotted any further before something is done.
I would hope, as other speakers have said, that we would firm up on the Sir Keith Joseph draft, which I have in my hand. There is no reason why, if you have to have political instruction in schools—although I do not think that it should be given in primary schools—that the parents should not have the ability to opt their children out. You can opt out of other things. Why should you not opt out of indoctrination, or social studies, or whatever it is called?
I thought that the Sir Keith Joseph document was a useful, honest one. I would have thought that it was harmless, but I also thought it was bland and did not face the problems. I should have liked to quote from the large number of samples that I have received which are deeply disturbing. I shall send to Lord Swinton's private office copies just in case some of them have not filtered up through the department and he is not aware of just how serious the samples are.
I hope that most people in this debate will support Lady Cox's excellent initiative. I am sure it will have the support of some of the SDP. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, speaking for the Alliance Party, condemned the view taken by my noble friend Lady Cox. I should think that at least the
1206
Liberals born in the last century must be rotating in their graves.
I was surprised that even a spokesman for the SDP should say that. I thought that most of the people who went from the Labour Benches to the SDP Benches went because of the threat of the extreme Left. I should not have thought that they would have held the belief that ILEA should continue on its desperate course. My plea to my noble friend is to be firm, get the maximum amount of information, and persuade your colleague who is to wind up to give us some hope that this matter is going to be attended to.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I consider that the reason for this debate is that my noble friend Lady Cox wanted to bring this subject before the House in order to try to save the future education of new generations. I think she has done a great service in doing that and in pointing out matters in which we can take an interest today, and perhaps see that what the Motion refers to does not happen in the future.
I should like to say a few words about the closed shop. I consider that it is the very violation of freedom of speech. It denies freedom of association, freedom of action and freedom of speech. It is assumed that the closed shop applies only to industry and that it has nothing to do with education. It has something to do with education. Not only is it wrong but it is a dangerous assumption, because it gives teachers a false sense of security. Even teachers believe, "It couldn't happen to us". I understand that attempts are being made at the present time to make it happen.
Already, in the field of further education, it is understood that two or three local authorities have conceded sole negotiating rights to NATFHE. This stands for the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education. In other areas, this union puts pressure on non-members and actively discourages recruitment by other unions. The NATFHE, which is affiliated to the NUT, is not merely a teachers' union; it is a pressure group. It is only necessary to read its literature to confirm this.
In the schools, the NUT has not yet managed to gain sole rights with any employing authority, although there is little doubt that it could with pressure and that it would like to. A continual call from the NUT is for one union. It sees the existence of several unions in the teaching profession as a great weakness and membership of no union is considered devastating. Again, anyone knowing anything about local organisations, for example ILEA, which has been mentioned already, will know of the highly political Left-wing input. One only has to look back a few years to the antics of the Trotskyite members at Little Ilford school, in getting rid of Reg Prentice, one of the then Labour Members.
NUT, NAS and NATFHE are all members of the TUC. It follows then that if a closed shop came about in education, these would be the "correct" unions. The "approved" unions, which teachers would be compelled to join—the NUT and the NAS—are militant, disruptive unions. This is clearly shown by the events which have been taking place in the past year in schools throughout the country.
Why would the closed shop in education be so dangerous, and in what way could it result in the

1207
violation of freedom of speech? If all teachers were obliged to join a particular union the effects on children would be devastating. They would be used as pawns even more than they are being used now. If a teacher disobeyed the union's instruction to strike, a teacher could be disciplined. He or she could be expelled from the union and, since a closed shop existed, the LEA would be forced to sack that teacher. Similarly, if a teacher even criticised the union the same thing could happen: "Joint the union or you will not get a job"; "Agree with the union or lose your job"; "Obey the union, or you will not be employed". The position could exist, as Trotsky described it.
"where opposition is a slow form of starvation".
Once the Left-wing had achieved a complete grip on the teaching profession it could then become even more political, and this would be an ideal way to subvert their way of life. By ensuring that children were only taught by those teachers approved of by Left-wing dominated unions, the most important object would be achieved: the control of the minds of our young children. This could be done, I have no doubt, with a ruthlessness that has not yet been seen in this country and certainly not in the schools.
This is a less obvious way of looking at the violation of the freedom of speech. It is far less obvious than the crude attempts which were made to prevent Ray Honeyford, the Bradford headmaster, from expressing his views. Nevertheless, it is at least as dangerous, probably because it is less obvious.
The forces of subversion work best in the dark. I hope that light can be shed on these subversive activities so that everyone—parents, children, teachers, school governors, local authorities, Members of this House, union members, voters; indeed, anyone who has an interest in children and our future society and anyone who could possibly have any influence for good in our society—must be made aware of the dangers. The debate is about being made aware of the dangers.
We have the responsibility to ensure that our basic freedoms are never taken away; that the mass of ordinary men and women know what is happening in their midst and in their name; and that by knowing, they will be in a position to fight it and stop it, and thus preserve our democratic way of life.
I should like to draw attention to two other points. I am in constant touch with the Association of Career Teachers, which was formed in Leeds in 1975. I have taken an interest in this organisation and I always provide a reception for them to meet Members of both Houses at Christmas. These members are pledged not to strike. It is a small association at present but it believes and says, "We must set a personal example which our children can follow". Therefore its members never strike.
I should also like to pay a tribute to the Church of England. The National Society, which is now 175 years old, founded the first parochial schools in parishes in 1790. The National Society, with national schools, aimed to plant in those days a Church school in every parish. At one time there were 6,724 pupils. There are now a number of Church of England schools. At one time they had 1½ million children. From 1870 to 1944 the relations between Church and
1208
state were far from easy and the difficulty today is the proposal for the reduction of student training centres and colleges and the possible closure of some of the Church of England colleges.
The governor of one of these colleges which takes international education students has given me the figures. They have 180 full-time pupils from 20 different countries. To shut one of these colleges would be a disaster. These students live locally with permanent residents. The college I am thinking about is in Plymouth and I go there quite often. The students get to know and understand life in England and they benefit greatly from their knowledge of how we live, how we really respect them and do not have all the feelings about them that were expressed in this House today.
I should like to have a positive partnership between Church and state. By this means they could help each other to give a lead and help to put this Motion into being. The Motion has been moved excellently by my noble friend Lady Cox and I hope everybody will agree that the debate is to safeguard the future. Unless we bring out all the various points which we consider are dangerous we cannot build up and safeguard our education in the future.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, must be congratulated on having started what has proved to be a wide-ranging debate. Indeed the title of it ranged fairly widely, including the two perhaps allied but quite distinct subjects: the politicisation of education and the violation of the principle of freedom of speech.
Talking of the violation of the freedom of speech, I can remember when I was a Minister of the Crown in the 1960s being shouted down at the Oxford Union, being nearly thrown down a flight of stairs at another university, and several similar experiences. I found that what are regarded sometimes as the quality newspapers, such as The Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian, although they reported those events they never said anything that suggested there was anything reprehensible about it! Still less, I may say, was there any debate in this noble House about it.
I do not fuss about this for it is the kind of thing that one must expect if one goes in for politics, especially on the Labour side, but I notice that it is an almost universal characteristic of Conservative Peers that they think something is an abuse only if it offends them or their opinions. It can violate the freedom of speech of people of other parties without evoking any more than a remark, but there is no comment with any vigour in it.
Certainly the debate itself has ranged even wider than that. If we listen to all the suggestions made, the Government are being asked to revise the curricula of secondary schools and to pass a new Education Act. Well, they will do that. They seem to do that once every Session almost without prompting. Personally, I noticed the Minister spoke of "this Session's" Education Act, as if we must regard an Education Act as a sessional occurrence. Personally, I think teachers and all those engaged in education have had rather enough of this. However, apparently we are being

1209
urged—and urged not merely by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, but by the serried ranks of the Association of Conservative Peers—to have an Act which would increase the powers, possibly of teachers and possibly of governors on the school governing bodies. One would affect the curricula of the schools, and the kind of literature that could be used. One would also be engaged in reforming the teachers' trade unions, and even the student unions as well.
All this has been urged on the Minister, who showed, if I may say so, an admirable disinclination to do anything of the kind in any of those fields. I really think the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, must agree with us that, quite frankly, she did not receive massive support from the Front Bench. The Front Bench is a little more aware of what is involved in trying to turn these general diatribes into something like workable legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, I think quite rightly—and I hope I do not misquote him; I do not think I do—that we want our children to respect our democractic heritage. I think we would all agree with that. But let us note just what that involves. It means that education is not merely the imparting of facts—the multiplication tables, the principles of Euclidean geometry, or whatever. There are also certain matters in relation to which we want to say to children, "This is right; that is wrong". We believe that it is right to indoctrinate in certain fields. If we say we want our children to respect democracy, we are not merely telling them a fact: we are holding up to them a value, just as if we teach them rules of elementary hygiene we are telling them, "These are things you ought to do". We must accept that this is part of education.
I hope I carry the whole House with me when I say that we want our children taught to respect democracy. That would mean, among other matters, particularly today, that we must get them to accept the principle of equal rights for people of all races; to believe that it is wrong to hurt or discriminate against anybody because of his or her race or skin colour. I think we should regard that as necessary, and, of course, more necessary now than it was a generation ago because in this country the problem is more acute.
Similarly, with the increasing part played by women in society I think we should also take the view that as part of the good upbringing of a child, we should teach him not to engage in sexual discrimination; to regard a member of the opposite sex as inferior simply because he or she is a member of the opposite sex—or, at least, if one does hold that opinion, to keep it to oneself.
These are matters in which ILEA has been engaged. I have studied the documents provided by ILEA for study by teachers on the problems of sex discrimination and race discrimination. Although I did not agree with everything that was said, I thought they were serious and important contributions to a problem that we have to consider. You cannot know how to handle this problem of encouraging right attitudes towards sex and race in school by merely innate kindness and goodwill alone. It is a problem that needs thought, care and consideration; and ILEA has been
1210
quite right to encourage its teachers to do that kind of thing.
That is the kind of matter, it seems to me, that speakers from the Benches opposite ought to have concentrated on. What they have done is to look for every example of people who have handled the topic of sex or of race wrongly and maliciously. I do not deny at all that the examples quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, were vicious and undesirable. However, that puts all the more on those who criticise that kind of thing a duty to consider how we ought to handle this problem of education about matters of race and sex. We cannot say that the problem does not exist. We cannot say that the school ought not to do anything about it. As every other agency in the country, such as the press and the advertising media, and so on, is going to try to influence children's opinions, the school has a duty to try to get people to develop civilised attitudes of thought to democracy and to matters of race and of sex. That is why, I think, ILEA has been right to pursue these topics and why the attitude of so many noble Lords opposite has been obstructive and has offered no real solution to the kind of problems with which we are concerned today.
I noticed the frequent references to ILEA. The question has been raised why this topic has become the topic for our debate today. Surely there is one reason which has not yet been mentioned but which I am going to be indelicate enough to mention. That is the gradual approach of the elections in the Inner London Education Authority. The Conservative Party will be in some difficulty in fighting elections on an education issue, because it is not one of the topics on which the Government are doing awfully well. As I think I pointed out when we debated this subject a fortnight ago, they will want something to try to divert the public's mind away both from the inept way in which the teachers' dispute has been handled and from the starving of education of necessary resources. To do that, an attack on ILEA might hold out some promise. I think this is why we are having this debate at the present time.
I trust that noble Lords, any more than the country at large, will not be over-influenced by this, because we are dealing with a real problem; that is, the problem of how to help the educational system perform one of its duties, which is to help children live properly in a civilised, democratic society.
It is not the first time that that has been attempted. I remember many years ago, shortly before the war, co-operating with the then Principal of Morley College, Dr. Eva Hubback, in setting on foot a body called the Association for Education in Citizenship, where we studied the problems of how one promotes political education in the schools and at the same time avoids the imputations of bias. I think we made some progress. I think it can be done. I wish there had been a more co-operative and positive approach to that task from the Benches opposite than that which we have seen this evening.
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stewart. I am sorry that he was thrown down the steps of the Oxford Union, but I have to say that it did not really seem to do him any harm.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, excuse me, but that was not at Oxford. That was on another occasion in Scotland.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, in either case it seems to have done no harm, and indeed imbued him with a sense of humour.
I should also like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that I have the privilege to serve under my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter on the Committee of the Conservative Peers. I have to say to him quite categorically that there was no discussion at all that this debate should be held to blot out or to take people's minds off the teachers' strike. In fact, I would say this. I wanted a debate on a slightly different subject and when I heard that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, had got this subject, I gave way to her and did not fight for my subject.
Noble Lords: Shame!
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, Your Lordships might not have liked it! In fact, I think that you would like it less were I to tell you what it was. But let me say that at no time was it ever mentioned that this debate should be a smoke-screen for the strike. I think that we ought to have that absolutely clear for the record.
I propose to stick entirely to facts and I wish to pass into the world of training of social workers. In order to speak to the Motion so brilliantly and so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Cox, I think it is necessry, if your Lordships will allow me and forgive me, for me just to say in what areas social workers must be trained. Briefly, they must be trained to administer the Children and Children and Young Persons Acts dealing with children with from 0 to 18. This is an enormous subject, as noble Lords must well know. Not only must there be a knowledge of the needs, physical, emotional and mental, of children; there must be a knowledge of the law and there must be a knowledge of family law: divorce, separation and so on.
Social workers must administer the Disabled Persons Act 1968, and that means that they must have a very real and detailed knowledge of the needs of disabled and impaired people; and that, in itself, is a very wide subject. Then again, they must be trained to work with the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped under the Mental Health Acts. As is well known to your Lordships, there have been debates on this subject and we even had one debate on just the one subject of mental illness and the mentally handicapped. Then again, they must deal, under the Health, Services and Public Health Acts, with the needs of the elderly. And there is, too, the sector of probation. And then, I digress slightly, in many social services departments there are what are called welfare rights officers. They must know the whole of the supplementary benefit system and insurance. Perhaps I may say here that I disagree with welfare rights officers being in social services departments. I think that we ought to have welfare rights officers but I think that they should be based in the supplementary benefits offices. Then there is the wide spectrum of housing and of homelessness, and there is the need to know of the working of central and local government.
In the report of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, it is laid down that
1212
among the things that should be taught to students are the institutions of central and local government, including their political and administrative dimensions, methods of financing local government services and relationships between central and local government. I do not say that Marxism should not be taught, but if Marxism is going to be taught then it should be taught in the context of all political systems. I am not saying that it should not be taught, I am saying that it should be taught in the context of the policies of the Liberal Party, of the Labour Party, of the Conservative Party and, when they print it, of the SDP Party. In fact, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, would go further, as I discovered when I was talking to him today. He would say that we ought to teach anthropology, as to how people live in foreign lands.
What I do object to is when only Marxism is taught. There is no choice for students. I have to say—and I am not going to embark on personalities—that the curriculum issued by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, as I have said, does not specifically say what kind of system should be taught. But I am given to under tand that there are many tutors who infiltrate into their teaching and into the curriculum their own points of view. Fair enough! Why should they not? So long as they are strictly honest and infiltrate other points of view.
There is one particular professor who has written books. I have them here, so that I know that this is correct. He is the professor of the Applied Social Studies course at a very well known university and his
"synthesis of Marxism and feminism"—
and I am reading from The Times Educational Supplement in which there is a review of his book—
"will be reverentially laboured over by those for whom ideology has an escapist attraction. For the rest, particularly those social workers who prefer to understand their clients as complex human beings rather than 'gendered class subjects', the book will have neither appeal nor relevance".
The article says:
"One must reluctantly assume that his book will soon find its way on to the essential reading lists of the social work courses around the country".
The training of social workers is carried out in universities, in polytechnics and colleges of further education. I have served as a governor on a college of further education and it is my belief, and it is stated by a number of other people, that the colleges of further education are so geared to the actual vocational courses that they do not adopt in any way teachings on any kind of particular form of ideology. But in the universities and polytechnics, I regret to have to say that I believe—and I have evidence of this—that there is a certain amount of infiltration into the social work courses.
Professor Julius Gould has said:
"There is a clear and explicit commitment amongst certain Marxist factions to politicise social work students in an attempt to feed Marxist activists into the welfare services. For, if the provision of welfare and the practice of social work are seen as mere tranquillisers operating in the interests of the ruling class to perpetuate an inherently unjust and iniquitous social system, then one of the most effective strategies will be to work within the welfare services in ways which subvert them in their everyday functioning".
So again, I make the plea that if Marxism is to be taught—and, I hope, taught well—then other political systems must also be taught. I would also say this.

1213
With all the work that social workers must do, with the training that they must have, despite the fact of the curriculum issued by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, I sometimes wonder whether they have the time in the allotted two years (which is now going to be made into three years) to spend so much time on the systems of government.
In the areas of practical training, social work students must work in social services departments. This presents a difficulty because, inevitably and rightly, the different departments have different councils—some are Labour, some are Conservative, and some are hung councils. The Association of Directors of Social Services, giving evidence to the Widdicombe Committee on the role of officers, particularly chief officers, said:
"There is no easy answer to the question of Officer "neutrality" or "commitment". As indicated, stability is more likely to arise from the appointment of "neutral" professionals, and it would be the preference of A.D.S.S. that the tradition of the non aligned Chief Officer appointed solely for his/her professional management skills should be continued".
I was a chief officer in a local authority: at no time did I ever let anyone know to which political party I belonged and for whom I voted. When I came to your Lordships' House it was to some a shock—shall we say?—when I came on to these Benches. But I have to say that at no time did I or my staff let anybody know to which political party we belonged. I believe that that is how it should be, and I regret sadly that so many officers either in central government or in local government are no longer completely non-political. I believe that if you are non-political in serving your council, or in serving your Minister, you concentrate on your profession, on your professional skills and your professional outlook.
I consider that this has been a good debate and that we have covered a wide range, but I hope we preserve a sense of balance and that we look at this subject in the round. I do not ask the Minister to change the present curriculum of the Council for Education and Training in Social Work. I simply ask all those who are tutors, lecturers and professors in the social work world to be objective in their teaching to the social workers, and to provide them with the necesssary skills to serve the most vulnerable in our society.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I, too, should like to express pleasure, which is diminishing by the hour, in supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in this Motion. I have been astonished how far Labour speakers appear to have gone in minimising the mischief in schools and universities. They spoke as though the whole thing was got up by some secret society apparently called the Association of Conservative Peers. I must say that, like my two noble colleagues on the Cross-Benches, I take a rather different view. I agree with those speakers who have said that the Minister's interim reply was pretty feeble.
I must admit that I first met the noble Baroness more than ten years ago, when she was even younger than she is now. I met her in connection with the book Rape of Reason which she had written with two academic colleagues, Dr. John Marks and Keith Jacka, from the Polytechnic of North London. The
1214
subtitle of the Rape of Reason was a straight description. It was, The Corruption of the Polytechnic of North London. After declaring an interest as her amateur publisher in the name of Churchill Press, I would say that it is still a good read and copies are still available.
As an indication of the relevance to this debate, I offer some of the chapter headings, such as, "Seeds of Subversion", "Attack on Knowledge", "Intimidation", "Bias and Confrontation" and "Trojan Horses". It may not sound very imaginative, but this was not a work of fiction, though parts of it read like a horror story.
Alas, the Polytechnic of North London appears to be past saving. Perhaps I may enliven the debate by indulging my own modest leak. I have in my hand a letter from the present director of the polytechnic, Dr. John Beishon, dated 21st January. In it this presumed leader of the academic community appeals to his colleagues, to all staff and students, for such unimportant events as lectures to be re-arranged so that staff can join students in a demonstration against the Government's social services review. I regard that as simply the latest example of the attempt to overrule demos by demos.
There are no grounds for complacency about extremist political activities in some of our 44 universities, 31 polytechnics and hundreds of colleges of further education. I dare say that many of us have in our time been connected with perfectly respectable institutions that harbour unstable and obsessive individuals with bees (or more malignant pests) buzzing in their bonnets. Mostly they can be disregarded as freaks or harmless eccentrics. They are rendered ineffective by their isolation and lack of resources to propagate their fads and fantasies. But when these scattered extremists are brought together daily within a large institution and armed with "free" resources to organise and conduct propaganda, I think you have a devil's recipe for instability and disruption.
There is a lot of talk about the exaggeration of these dangers. The antics of some of these juvenile revolutionaries in universities go rather deep. Indeed, their leaders make no secret of their somewhat sinister if rather far-fetched aims. Thus, in 1969 Blackburn and Cockburn wrote a textbook sometimes described as a bible for agitators. It was called Student Power and was obligingly published in large numbers by Penguin. In this volume they fantasise as follows:
"The emergent student revolutionaries aim to turn the tables on the system by using its universities and colleges as base areas from which to undermine the key institutions of the social order … So long as the universities and colleges provide some sort of space which cannot be permanently policed they can become 'red bases' of revolutionary agitation and preparation".
There are too many examples of unrepresentative minorities of students who exploit the political apathy and academic devotion of the vast majority to gain control of public money and to gain control of meeting facilities and propaganda machinery, all of which they daily pervert for their partisan and often primitive purposes. Sheltering behind the cloak of the university as an educational charity, they indulge in blatantly uncharitable and often illegal activities. In the name of the students' union they suppress freedom of speech, as we heard, and they lend aid and comfort to such murderous fanatics as the Angry Brigade, the Brighton bombers and Northern Ireland terrorists.

1215
They hire coaches to bus demonstrators and pickets around the country and make donations to freak organisations from publicly-provided funds intended for the benefit of students. They deny meeting rooms and subscriptions to Jewish students on the strictly racial grounds that the Jews are pro-Zionists, and they deny funds to Conservative students on the phoney pretext that they in turn are racialist. They elect delegates to NUS conferences, often with 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of students voting, and then pass cranky resolutions in the name of their phantom membership of more than a million. The leverage of these extremists can be measured by the legal quorum for students' union meetings, which is often less than 5 per cent. and is sometimes nearer to 1 per cent. of their involuntary membership.
Through the press gang of the closed shop, student unions can collect up to £50 or £60 a year for every captive member, receiving in all well over £20 million of public funds a year. Much is spent on so-called sabbatical officers, who are freed from the fatigue of study to indulge in the joys of political troublemaking. The Polytechnic of North London has six sabbatical officers, and from a recent budget of £150,000 I see that the students' union spent £80,000 on administration compared with £18,000 on student societies and welfare.
I was even more shocked to note from the accounts that the polytechnic students made a loss on the bar. This raises the question: what kind of education are those people getting if they cannot make a decent profit from selling beer to thirsty students?
More seriously, what kind of preparation is it for the responsibilities of the real world outside when unrepresentative minorities can rule the roost over their fellow students at the taxpayers' expense? Over recent years, British experience demonstrates that the Attorney-General's department, as the guardian of legal charities, is unable to check determined and devious abuse of charitable funds for political purposes. Likewise, the Australian legislation against student closed shops has failed in turn to prevent the compulsory levies earmarked for "services and amenities" from being diverted to crackpot causes or worse.
I have reached the conclusion that halfway houses provide no remedy, for reasons seen in Liverpool, the GLC, and other local authorities, where sectarian cranks gain control of public money because they do not have direct or effective accountability to those who provide the money.
I conclude that there is no solution short of making the membership of student unions voluntary. One could go further, by making the provision of student services and facilities dependent on direct, personal payment by the customers. The only principled method of achieving that objective and of purging politics from the academy is by a system of student loans that would give our young men and women a decisive interest in getting value for money from higher education, including sporting, leisure, living and, not least, educational facilities.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about a few of the observations that have been
1216
made in some of the speeches in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, took us to task in his speech because, in his opinion, we were not hitting the nail on the head and trying to improve the curricula in schools. My reply to that criticism is that we must first deal with militancy in order to create the situation in which studies can be undertaken and in which both teachers and students can carry out their duties in a happy atmosphere. That is my first point.
There was a reference made to various ideologies and in respect of Karl Marx, by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I remember an occasion during the last war when I was in prison in Malaysia when the Chinese Communists were in the jungle and the people who were suffering from suppression from occupation over a period of many months. The Chinese Communists looked after those people in a very decent way, giving them food and trying to treat the illnesses that were all too prevalent at that particular time.
One evening, an Indian arrived who was trying to escape from oppression. The Chinese Communists tried to make him swear allegiance to Chinese Communism. He was not prepared to do so. He was bayoneted and shot. Thai is one example of an ideology that I put before your Lordships' House.
Also during that particular time, the Japanese were excessive in the rule that they imposed upon the country. On one occasion, some people arrived in ships from Australia and sank a lot of Japanese shipping in the port of Singapore. The Japanese called in the head of their secret police from Tokyo and installed him in the gaol where I was imprisoned, having been accused of passing out information that helped to sink the ships. In such circumstances, the Japanese practice was to say that people were guilty before they had been proven guilty. They carried out excessive tortures from which people died. Those are two examples of ideologies of which I have had some experience. I should not like any of that to fall to the fate of people in this country.
This is a serious debate and we are discussing some very serious incidents. There are wide issues covered by the Motion proposed by my noble friend Lady Cox. I congratulate her on moving it. I wish to concentrate on the youth in our universities, on the case for avoiding the politicisation that is going on in education for party political purposes—and I emphasise the words "party political purposes"—and in that connection the violation of the principle of freedom generally, which of course includes free speech.
I have an interest to declare in this matter. I am a former chairman of the board of governors of a girls' school, and I served for a short time as a governor of a London state school. That was some years ago. It was during that period that I became aware that educationists in the highest positions in our country were tending to propound the idea that some of the principles that have supported our democracy for so many years, and which we value, were now to become permissible of argument and not blind acceptance.
It is possible to state that in the event, by the introduction of universal education at the end of the Second World War—presumably to reward our people for the sacrifices that they made to achieve victory, it has not been a particularly happy time for

1217
our youth. Even those who were benefiting by greater intelligence have been unable to find anything better than the accepted principles hitherto universally accepted as supporting our democratic system and our democratic way of life.
I submit that that is on the plus side. But it has been an unpleasant experience for some of our youth, who suffer from a lesser experience; failing to understand that the whole of universal education gives each boy and girl in our society the opportunity to scale the heights and does not deny to them the highest positions in our country. That opportunity is threatened by propaganda peddled by unscrupulous elements. That is the situation as I see it existing today.
Today, in 1986, we are considering my noble friend's Motion, which correctly draws attention to a very serious state of affairs. I have to say that five years ago, in 1981, that state of affairs existed then. It still exists five years later. How much longer is it to continue? It existed in 1981, and it is reported in Hansard for 22nd October, 1981 at cols. 878 to 892, when I asked an Unstarred Question. I asked the Government:
"Whether in the interests of democracy they will take action to stop the distribution of literature to the public, to schools and to colleges where such literature is extremist, a threat to authority and an invitation to public disorder".
It is my intention, in a moment or two, to compare some of the evidence which I submitted in 1981 with the evidence I propose in support of my noble friend's Motion today, in 1986. For what was going on in schools in 1981, when our boys and girls were presumably 12 years of age, exists now when some of the same pupils today may well be at an age of 17 years, and upwards. Obviously I cannot weary your Lordships with all the reports in my possession which illustrate the examples of militancy and intimidation which has existed in 11 red brick universities today and 14 polytechnics. However, I propose to show the link between 1981 and 1986 in three or four cases, late as it is.
It was in 1981 that I called the attention of the Government to the production of a newspaper by the Socialist Workers Party and targeted at schools. The paper is called Blot. I quote:
"To change schools we have to organise ourselves independently of teachers and parents and rely on … militant action to change things."
As I said, I have this in my possession. I have a second document. In 1985 it was reported to me that Trent polytechnic members of the Socialist Workers Party—the same people who were active in 1981—approached a stall shouting abuse and attacking people who were manning the stall. They punched a female member of the Conservative student association, after which it was possible to restore order. Militant action in 1981 was being carried out again in 1985.
In 1981 I produced a pamphlet which had been passed to me possibly indicating at that time the type of argument being used in the teaching of social sciences in schools. It seemed to me blatantly political accusing the status quo of responsibility for the calamities named in the pamphlet—that is, vandalism, flood, the dropping of bombs, and poverty. There then follows on this document the people to
1218
blame and with individual drawings of them. They were named as a boss, a trade unionist, a churchman, a politician, a terrorist, a teacher, and, finally, a parent. Again, I have the document here.
In 1985 it was reported that a leaflet was circulated to the Bournemouth and Poole Further Education College. I have it in my possession. It is headed:
"Wanted for crimes against the state."
There then follows cyclostyled copies of photographs. There is a photograph of the Prime Minister and another of a girl named Nicola Dunsford who I assume has some political status at that college. The following words appear under the photographs:
"Wanted dead or alive—preferably dead".
There then follows some political jargon. That pamphlet is not dissimilar to pamphlets I saw which had been seized from terrorists when I visited Rhodesia (as it was then) during the Lancaster House Conference in 1976.
Again, in 1985 produced at the University of Leicester during the Freshers' Fair is a pamphlet which was circulated among the crowd. It bears another photograph of the Prime Minister. It is headed with a four letter word which I shall omit to state. The following sentence reads, "Tory scum out". It is clearly political and vilifying in the words that follow:
"The Tory scum have raised their ugly head at Leicester once again—they want to recruit mini-fascists to their banner while staying outside the student union .. either they stay in the student union and we'll let them sign people up, or they stay outside and stretch our decent humanitarian .. principles too far .. If you want peace—prepare for war on the Tory scum."
I have no direct evidence on who actually disseminated that leaflet but it is believed that the pamphlet was issued by and on behalf of the National Students Executive Committee, to which there is not one Tory student elected.
Up to the present, I have stated the situation on the militancy that existed in 1981 and in the ensuing years to 1985 and the present. The militancy displayed now is worse than it was five years ago. Militancy creates fear and the violence which follows. It is here now and it is intended that it should continue by the purveyors of this violence.
I have seen the documents issued in a letter by the Secretary of State for Education and Science headed:
"The Treatment of Politically Controversial Issues in Schools."
It is in the Library. I have also seen the draft statement attached by the Secretary of State reminding authorities of their duties under the circular. My noble friend Lord Swinton, following the speech of my noble friend Lady Cox, referred to these documents now deposited in the Library of this House. Examining them I am, with respect, of the opinion that they do not meet the serious situation existing in colleges, polytechnics and some universities today.
The fact is that at many universities, polytechnics and colleges the authorities are too frightened, I assume, where militancy and intimidation exists, to act on and observe the advice given by the Secretary of State in his letter and circular. I submit in all seriousness that other action should be considered even if it means that the Government must seek greater powers under the Education Act 1944. The present situation is not only tragic for our youth and their future, it would also be tragic, if it were to persist, for the future of our country.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, as one who has taught at every level of the educational system in this country, and in administration, and who has had experience in the educational systems of three other continents, I have spent most of my life very close to the world of education. Like my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham, I wonder to what extent this debate has been concerned with education or with the problems of education. Why is it that so many noble Lords opposite have made their headline-attracting speeches and then gone home, even before their Minister can wind up?
I suggest to noble Lords that if there had been a genuine concern for education in the debate this afternoon the chaos of our educational system throughout this country would have been foremost and the minutiae of the bizarre examples given by noble Lords opposite would have been seen to be comparatively irrelevant. Not one word has been said from the opposite Benches on the year-long dispute between the teachers and the Government and local authorities which is bleeding to death our educational system and the educational opportunities for our children.
I am not suggesting that the noble Baroness who introduced this Motion is guilty of any of these intentions, but they may very well be used in what the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, has pointed out is a very difficult situation for the Government when it comes to the elections for ILEA. May I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that when she speaks about freedom of speech in our educational system and criticises any question of censorship, I agree with her wholeheartedly. I agree with her because I have had some experience of it myself, not least in this House, where only 12 months ago noble Lords opposite combined to prevent me continuing to speak; but for a much deeper reason also, because any invasion of freedom of speech is an invasion of the basic arguments on which our democracy rests. Those of us who are confident that when reason and argument is put fully then our philosophy will be seen to be rational, inevitably oppose any form of interference with freedom of speech.
I would suggest to the noble Baroness that she might consider, when reading Hansard tomorrow, whether certain of the implications of her speech did not come very close to the doctrine that when people believe something that you yourself do not believe then they should be censured and their freedom to speak should be removed. I would simply suggest to the noble Baroness that she takes this point into consideration. She gave us a set of bizarre examples, all of which we would reject, but they were actual incidents and if we on this side of the House had been prepared to waste time we, too, could have given a similar set of examples coming from Right-wing forces in this country. After all, those of us like the noble Lord, Lord Stewart—and I include myself also—who have been accustomed to speaking in Conservative strongholds and National Front strongholds, are quite accustomed at least to the attempt at being shouted down. Fortunately, both the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and myself have too much experience in public speaking to be shouted down, but that has happened and still does
1220
go on. We condemn it, from whichever side it comes, as much from our side (and from people I would not even include in our side), from people who call themselves Left-wing, as people from the Right-wing.
I am worried about the framing of this Motion, and I am worried that the noble Baroness has included in the framing of the Motion the politicisation of education along with partisan political purposes, because I think that the noble Baroness is there confusing two separate issues. I believe that all of us would agree that at every point in the education system a person who is in the position of teacher, whatever rank of teacher it may be, should not put over party political dogma. But that is different from politicisation of education, from politics within the education system. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, included in his speech the phrase "unbiased education". I suggest that, certainly in the social sciences, there is no such thing as unbiased education. I would call in support of that statement the thoughts and the writings of educationists throughout history, going back to Plato and Socrates.
Yet what noble Lords opposite do not seem to understand is that when they talk about the status quo they consider that anything which supports the continuation of the status quo is non-political. I should like to suggest to noble Lords that they should consider the period when no doubt most of us in this Chamber were brought up. We were brought up before the war in an education system which was essentially based upon classic public school ethics in which the Empire, the armed forces and the capitalist system were nonpolitical. Those who taught those ethics were considered not to be politicians but to be putting over an objective unbiased form of education.
What I suggest is worthy of consideration is the fact that that system and the people within that system were shocked out of their complacency and those assumptions by the war, and during the war not least by the organisation which I believe has had a bigger impact on post-war thought about education than any other, and that is the organisation known as ABCA (the Army Bureau of Current Affairs). I used to lecture for that body on naval ships in Gairloch, in army barracks and in air force hangers during and after the war. What happened as a result not of indoctrination but of the raising of issues was that adult students, young men and women could think for themselves for the first time and question that pre-war system; and once it was questioned there was a current of debate and unconventional views spread right through the country.
Noble Lords opposite might very well say to themselves, "Yes, that is what brought the Labour Government into office in 1945", and I believe that to be very largely true. They should not regret it because it is only when there is the questioning of the assumptions of society that you do get innovation, new ideas and progress, and whether they consider that the 1945 Labour Government was progress or not, society was changed and it was changed as a result of people's changed attitudes.
Those young men and women became the teachers and the parents of the post-war generation. What they were saying was, "We do not the way in which we were brought up. There is something wrong with it. It

1221
brought unemployment, poverty, bad housing and eventually war, and we want to find out how to prevent that happening again". So they questioned and argued. There never was a generation, certainly in my experience in the university world, such as that in the five years after the war, when the ex-servicemen and women came into the universities. It went right across the country. In adult education one only had to set up any kind of current affairs class and people flocked to it.
What a shame that the spirit of those days has gone! Because the result of it has been that, as parents and as teachers, there is a great deal more questioning throughout the education system today. But the new young generation appear to be more interested in flower arrangements or motor-mechanics than they are in talking about the world in which they live and the values of that world. Before the war the noble Earl's "unbiased education" supported that assumption. It was not deliberate indoctrination; it was the assumption that these were the right things and were the values of Britain.
Well, they were not. They were not the values of Jarrow; they were not the values of Glasgow; and they have been questioned since. I say to noble Lords that if there is any suggestion in this debate that we should take politics out of education, then we are doing a disservice to the future of this country, and particularly to the future of the younger generation in this country.
I suggest that the purpose of education is two-fold. It is, first, to give young people the opportunity to control their personal destiny, and, secondly, to fit them to participate fully and equally in determining the kind of society in which they will live. This House should support without question those principles of education. We can do so only if we recognise that within the education system there must be political education in raising issues and getting people to think about them, and not in indoctrination. That is a very different thing.
The noble Baroness mentioned peace studies as an example in her argument, but she did not mention the institution of which I have had the honour to be an honorary member for many years, the Bradford School of Peace Studies. It is the only department of a university in this country specifically devoted to peace studies. It was described on one occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, as a training ground for urban guerrillas. My first experience of peace studies was in the United States, not in this country. But that department was set up in 1973 to give students the opportunity to learn and explore the techniques of negotiation as an alternative to violence. It has been devoted to that task ever since its first leader, Adam Curie, set it up.
If the noble Earl or his companions on the Front Bench want to know more about the contribution made by that department and its members to negotiations in difficult situations in various parts of the world, they have only to ask the Foreign Office. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Stewart can also inform them of the skill, patience and quietness devoted to negotiation on behalf not only of this country but on behalf of various areas where conflicts
1222
have occurred, such as, for example, Nigeria, Cyprus and Northern Ireland. That is one way in which young people are being fitted to contribute to the world in which they live.
I ask one question of the noble Baroness who is to wind up: Do the Government believe that political education within our education system is a vital element; and, if so, how do they believe that it should be fostered?
9.3 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, my theme is the politicisation of music in schools. Music is an international language that should mean harmony, and harmony among all races and creeds. Indeed, one of my earlier musical experiences was meeting a young Russian orchestra whom Yehudi Menuhin had brought to the Bath Festival in 1963 and discovering, to my amazement, that communist and capitalist thought in harmony when it came to Schubert.
Here is a modern attempt at harmony by some Lambeth schoolteachers in a nursery rhyme booklet:
"Baa, baa, white sheep, have you any wool?
Yes, ma'am, yes, ma'am, three bags full".
It is "white sheep" and not "black sheep"; "Yes, ma'am" and not "Yes, sir". It is an attempt to promote racial and sexual harmony. It is well meaning, indeed, but misguided, I feel.
Music is harmony, but I would argue that there are three elements in music teaching that foster not harmony but discord. The first is anti-class: the lower class are as good as the middle class. The second is anti-sexist: girls are as good as boys. The third is anti-racist: blacks are as good as whites. No one could argue that there was anything wrong with those as premises, and no one has so argued today. But it is in their implementation, I suggest, that education authorities are sometimes doing more harm than good.
For instance, the first, the anti-class premise, means that in Nottingham and Leicester fee-paying pupils are excluded from county school orchestras and state school music teachers cannot coach private pupils, and vice versa. Inevitably musical standards fall. Nearer to home, ILEA criticises the piano as a bourgeois instrument, since, it maintains, only middle-class homes have one. That is destructive thinking and, worse, it is muddled thinking. Perhaps ILEA still regards society as a pyramid, with the rich at the top and the poor at the bottom. But we heard only a week ago that that is no longer so in this country. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, in an excellent speech, described our society now as diamond-shaped, with the huge middle class at the broad centre and the diminishing lower class towards the narrow bottom. To discourage piano playing because it is bourgeois is to deny that instrument to the largest sector of our community.
Moving to my second element, anti-sexism, I turn again to another useful nursery rhyme. I have the booklet here. It is:
"Richy put the kettle on,
Richy put the kettle on,
Richy put the kettle on,
We'll all have tea.
Michelle take it off again,
Michelle take it off again,
Michelle take it off again,
They've all gone away".

1223
Fair enough, it is a boy who now brews the tea, and of course we should not discriminate against girls and say that they are good only for putting the kettle on and other household chores. But I question whether that is the best way to do it.
I have also the ILEA Schools Anti-Sexist Policy Guide. In that, teachers are told to watch out for what is called "Gender stereotyped language": for instance, "strong lads" or "giggly girls". They are asked to evaluate school reports for sex stereotyping under various heads, of which one is: "To what extent does the ascribed behaviour of girls fit into the female stereotype of girls lacking in confidence, being quiet and understanding, being neat in the presentation of their work, etc?". The next is: "To what extent does the ascribed behaviour of boys fit into the male stereo-type of boys being boisterous, untidy, capable but not prepared to make the effort, etc?".
A new Labour party research document which I noticed in The Times the other day and which was published on 3rd February suggests that fathers should serve refreshments on prize days and mothers should make the speeches and look after financial matters; similarly, girl pupils should show the guests round the school, while boy pupils present posies to the VIPs. That is going a little too far. I have yet another handy nursery rhyme. It is simply:
"Old Macdonald had a farm e i e i o,
And on that farm she had some pigs e i e i o".
More seriously, this anti-sexism has backfired on a dynamic group of young children called the Young Recorder Players of London. They used to rehearse in a hall in Islington. Now they have been banned and will have to be bused out to Beaconsfield because some of the players are boys. Furthermore, when their teacher wished to record a song for the BBC television programme "You and Me" she was banned again. So she reapplied with an orchestra consisting entirely of girls. But it was not good enough. ILEA said, "But the BBC sound recordists may be men". This really is sad. Where once there were 60 or 70 young recorder players in that hall there are now a mere six or seven girls doing what are called cultural studies. These girls happen to be Asian girls.
That leads me to the third element that I mentioned at the start of my speech. It is once more illustrated in the Lambeth nursery rhyme:
"Caleb put the kettle on,
We'll all have tea.
Nese take it off again".
This is the racial element. I do not deny, and no noble Lord in the House would, I think, deny that Calebs and Neses suffer racial discrimination. I am certain that we all deplore it. But is the solution for ILEA to ban from the curriculum Le Petit Negre and The Golliwog's cake walk?
It is going even further than that. It is seeking to increase the ethnic content of music. So, withdraw the bourgeois piano and advance the sita, the tabla, the Indonesian nose flute and the 64-string Chinese zither. I doubt that children of different races really want to learn ethnic instruments in London. London is the world capital of Western music. There is no other city in the world better at Western music than we are. Nowhere can children better learn the works of
1224
Beethoven, Bach, Saint-Saëns and Prokofiev. Nowhere in the world can they be better instructed in the clarinet, the bassoon or the harpsicord—you name it.
Suppose, conversely, we went to Delhi. Surely, we would like to hear and to learn there the sitar. Or if we went to Rangoon, we might like to study Burmese pitched gongs. I should have thought that we would be rather disappointed if, in Rangoon, we found that we were going to be taught simply European music—and rather badly at that.
A young English music graduate bears out all this. She has just taught her London primary school class the music of the great Indian Duvali Festival of Light. As it happens, there was only one Indian child in her class. That does not matter. What worried me a little, however, was her reply to our question: "Have you ever done a Kyrie Eleison?" She said, "Kyrie? What's that?" This is an English music graduate with patently no knowledge of the great masses by Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Verdi or Fauré, and, it would seem, more knowledge of Hinduism than of Christianity. Certainly we have class problems. We have sexist problems. We have racist problems. My belief is that our local education authorities go over the top and, in trying to solve them, often only increase them.
I mentioned at the start of my speech that extraordinary breakdown of barriers that Yehudi Menuhin achieved at Bath 25 years ago. I believe that it is that same Yehudi who is solving the music problem in his school today. I would certainly urge music staff throughout the country to visit it. There, they will find pupils of every colour, nation and creed living and playing together. There, they will find African boys, Indian girls, Chinese boys and Korean girls playing Western music with joy and excellence. No one can surpass us, the British, in the teaching of Western music. So that is the field that we should pursue. ILEA policy causes a musical dissonance and discord. It is Menuhin who produces the true harmony, a harmony of Western music in a Western country. Surely, in Rome do as the Romans do. ILEA policy veers towards, "In Rome do as the Carthaginians do", and rather badly, and thereby falls the standard of music in our schools.
9.13 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I support my noble friend's Motion and congratulate her on all the study and work she has done for many years in this important area. I do not believe that my noble friend ever meant or even said—she has, I believe, made this clear—that politics would not feature in education. The word "politicisation" is possibly capable of being taken more than one way. But I am quite sure that she and all those who have supported her regard the idea of "no politics in education" as a ninepin which has been put up and successfully demolished by certain noble Lords opposite. It is great fun knocking down one's own ninepins. I am sure that we all accept that politics comes into education, a little at early ages and more fully later. There are politics and economic courses at A-level which I am sure we all regard as an important part of the syllabus.
I found myself in this respect in total agreement with my noble friend Lady Faithfull. Just as when, for a short time, I was a Minister, we never asked our civil

1225
servants what their politics were, and in most cases never knew, so a mark of a good teacher is that one does not know his politics. A good teacher is a seeker after truth. A good teacher is one who knows that the truth has many sides.
I found that for once in this very important debate I was disappointed—in contrast to my normal reaction—with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, whose many speeches in many areas of national importance I have listened to with great respect. I thought that for once he took a rather narrow contemporary political line. If I may say this to him for a start, I think all of us who support this Motion are not saying that there should not be indoctrination one way round, or are even thinking of it. I believe that communism in theory and in practice should be taught, and, as children get older, in the political and economic classes. I believe that all other forms of political way or simply do not know what goes on and how widespread it is.
I think there was absolutely no difference between what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said and what my noble friend Lady Cox said, in terms of the problem of the National Front. My noble friend has no sympathy, and said so—in fact, complete antipathy with the National Front. No; I do not think that this can be written off as a political device for those on these Benches to try to prevent communism, socialism, being taught and taught thoroughly in theory and in practice at the right times and at the right levels in schools.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made great play of words, saying that his party never had believed never did believe and never would believe or countenance certain of the things which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned in her speech. I hope that the noble Lord is right. However, I think that we have to say to noble Lords opposite that we have noticed certain major changes. For many years between 1933 and 1972 a large number of organisations, and particularly front organisations like the World Peace Council, were proscribed. One could not be a member of the Labour Party and belong to them. That stopped in 1972, and it has encouraged the activities of these front organisations. This, in turn, has now had time to have an effect in many areas of our society, but by no means least in the areas of teachers.
The situation is not as it was in the days of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, in the other place. There are 20 parliamentarians for peace—and it is about peace studies that I want to make some remarks in a moment—led by Mr. James Lamond, who is a vice-president of the World Peace Council. Perhaps if communism were not such a counter-productive word we might have 20 Communist Members of Parliament in Parliament today.
There is a new constitution in the Labour Party, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, took account of it when he forecast what the Labour Party would never allow. But the leadership of the party today is no longer elected as the last step in our universally recognised democracy, but is elected to a considerable extent by the trade unions and their block votes, and by the constituency parties. That leads one
1226
naturally to point out the problems of reselection that are arising.
I feel that the great names of Gaitskell, Bevan and Bevin, of trade union leaders like Carron, and of my many friends in the party opposite whom I have met during my period with industry and who have been Ministers responsible for areas with which I have had a good deal to do, would have been worried as to whether the promises of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the future could be relied upon. Those who write off this whole area as a fantasy of the extreme Right are either trying to make light of it in a political way or simply do not know what goes on and how widespread it is.
One of my sons who was going through the usual unhealthy rebellious stage once said to me when I was arguing about the organisation of his school, "Dad, I don't think you know what goes on". He may have been right, and I believe that many of us do not know what goes on.
I can remember enough of the events leading up to the war to remember the kind of things that were said about Churchill and about Vansittart, who I used to listen to sitting on the steps of that Throne. I remember my own father's prophesy made in 1933 that war would start in 1939. I remember the sort of remarks that were made about people who studied deeply, who visited Germany often, as my father did throughout those years, and they were brushed aside.
In the area that we are discussing today I believe that my noble friend Lady Cox, Dr. John Marks and many others are in a similar position; and I believe that in the area of defence, peace studies and misinformation the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is in a similar position. They have studied in enormous depth what is going on. When I was at the Ministry of Defence and I occasionally used to question my civil servants about speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I sensed a certain, "Well, that is Lord Chalfont again" kind of approach. However, when I pinned them down to the noble Lord's remarks, as human beings go I found him to be extraordinarily accurate on nearly every count.
If we need to teach peace studies in schools, we should teach what goes on here and what goes on in Russia and in China in theory as well as in practice. When I was at the Department of Industry I tried to speed up the introduction of computers in our education system. When I suggested that we must get this new discipline into the teacher training colleges in a big way—and I think that there is a reason for new disciplines in relation to computers, which did not exist in previous generations—I remember being told by quite a senior civil servant, whose politics I did not know, "That is no good, Minister, the teacher training colleges have been red for years; they want to introduce other subjects; they will not pay any attention to this". That is a factual story. I believed that assessment to be an exaggeration and I continued my efforts. Today there are computers in schools and they are working well.
In a moment I want to introduce a public opinion poll carried out by Gallup for a conference which I was asked to chair, because it bears on the question whether the peace studies as they are taught

1227
today—and in my opinion they are not taught in a balanced way—have had a greater effect on the young than other forms of propaganda are having on the population as a whole. Before doing so, let me say that it is extremely hard to separate the effects on the young of what is actually in the curriculum and what is the subject of other propaganda.
But let me, if I may, before introducing that public opinion poll and conference—and it is too late to give many examples of the question of balance in peace studies—quote from a chart (I cannot remember whether it was prepared by Dr. John Marks or the noble Baroness, Lady Cox) of seven reputable educational organisations: the Avon education committee; the Newcastle education committee; the Schools' Council; the Centre for Peace Studies, Lancaster; the National Union of Teachers; World Studies Teacher Training Centre, York; and Teachers for Peace. A chart was set out of the references which people studying peace should look at and study.
Of the pro-NATO organisations, which perhaps the majority of us on all sides of the House believe is the foundation for defence, if we first take the two government departments—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence—they received only three mentions each from the seven institutes as being authorities worth consulting and worth reading their literature. The pro-NATO campaigning organisations did not get a single mention throughout. There is a much higher intensity of reference for all other organisations, particularly those in the unilateralist and pacifist campaigning world.
I mentioned that there were other influences on the young. These of course include music, which my noble friend Lord Mersey has just mentioned. But I am talking of things like punk music. As I am deaf and quite unmusical—although I got a credit in music in my school certificate, which I did not take because my examiners had been called up for the war—I read the words on the flyleaves which large numbers of these groups, often helped by anarchist organisations, have written into their songs—and they amount to some tens or possible hundreds.
Of course the young at that age always want the latest trend in music. I can only tell your Lordships that they are worse, if anything, than the many examples that have been given today of written pamphlets and literature. I found that anarchist pamphlets reached even into public schools and crammers in county towns. They are anti-everything—monarch, police, defence, colonialism, race, sex, the law. You name it, they are "agin" it. They are cleverly produced. I found that many of them had sufficient strands of truth, and examples of true things, to convince the fairly gullible young at that age. The objective clearly was to de-stabilise the minds of youth.
In one case I happened to meet a boy who was sacked by a major public school for finally going beyond the bounds. He had, to my knowledge, because I had read his pamphlets, been supplied by various anarchist organisations with all sorts of literature, and produced on a monthly basis pamphlets which were also anti-everything.
1228
After he was sacked, I asked him whether the headmaster, his housemaster or anyone else had discussed the pamphlets with him. The answer was "Only after I was sacked". He was sacked for something quite different. They ignored the pamphlets. They neither banned them (in this liberal age in which we live) nor did they do the other thing, which one should do in a liberal age such as this, challenge and discuss fully and openly. Do not let us run away with the idea that this kind of destabilising propaganda is only going into the areas of the ILEA or the inner cities.
I shall mention quickly the opinion poll produced for a conference at Kings College run by two foundations for study in the defence field. It was commissioned by the Foundation for Defence Studies. While I must admit that the poll shows enormous ignorance of the facts at all ages, in virtually every case the misunderstanding and misapprehensions were greater in the 16 to 24 age group of a full Gallup sample than in any others. For example, of conventional armaments—tanks, aircraft, artillery and infantry—the public was asked who had the most, Warsaw Pact or NATO. There were high "don't knows" throughout, but of the 16 to 24 year-olds 26 thought NATO had the most and 24 thought the Warsaw Pact. Your Lordships will know that the truth on those armaments is between 2:1 and 3:1, and even in the case of artillery, 4:1.
Another question was asked whether it was true or false that before the arrival of United States cruise missiles in Britain there were no significant numbers of American nuclear weapons. Again the 16 to 24 year-old group were most wrong with 39 believing the statement to be true and 36 believing it to be false.
In another area where peace studies either neglect the subject altogether or talk about cost in an exaggerated way and how much money could be spent on other things, we asked the question: what percentage of our annual defence budget is spent on Britain's nuclear forces? The reality is about 3 per cent. The highest answers by far were in the 16 to 24 age group. There was quite a high "don't know" figure; and 52 per cent. thought the figure was above 15 per cent., and 42 per cent. above 25 per cent.
I shall not weary your Lordships further and I do not want to over-exaggerate the significance of that. As I have said before, there was great ignorance in all parts of the population, not least because a great deal of misinformation passes through our free society like a knife passes through butter.
If I were to teach or to have a say-so as to what should be taught in peace studies, if there were to be such a subject taught with which I would not fully agree, I would teach the actual balances of the forces of the main countries and powers in this world. I would teach their costs as fact. I would teach the facts and trends on the so-called arms race, with the progress of the weaponry of both sides during détente and after and before various agreements. I would teach the details of the dozen or so pacts which have been signed in 25 years, and I would teach the major efforts at agreement which failed and the various accounts by both sides of the reasons for breakdown. I would suggest literature such as the Ministry of Defence

1229
suggested to me to read on the causes of war, and I hope I would get a balance of this kind.
At this conference—and the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, mentioned him—Professor O'Connell, the vice-chancellor of Bradford University and the head of the peace studies faculty at Bradford, from which much of peace studies head, spoke. There were a good number of points on which I was interested in what his philosophy was and I had sympathy with it.
It had been raised by Lady Cox and others at the conference, that the criticism of the different schools of argument in defence was not being taught in a balanced way. I quote Professor O'Connell:
"Let me take up the issue of asymmetry of criticism. I think that is a criticism which the peace studies people should take on board and I think there is a certain truth in it. But let me explain why I think it exists without thereby justifying it. I think that in point of fact most youngsters in school and most of those who come even into my own department are thoroughly convinced that the Soviet Union is not a very agreeable place. They know that it is an autocracy. Many beyond that are convinced that it is a totalitarian society, although I think that is simply not true and that there is plenty of evidence now to that effect. I think some of the criticism we have received this morning is misplaced".
I have less quarrel with Professor O'Connell than with what obviously happens well down the field of the teaching of peace studies in many areas. They are not yet universal and, on the figures that I have given your Lordships of the opinion poll, disaster has not yet struck us. However, misunderstanding is widespread and there is evidence that it is worse among youth than it is in the older ages. I beg to support this Motion, and I hope that the Government will have an inquiry and will get some principles into our education Acts.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lady Cox feels rewarded. Her Motion, which she so admirably introduced, has led to one of the best informed debates that I have heard in this House—and that is saying quite a lot. It has attracted speakers of real authority, with knowledge and experience. One cannot often say of a debate that nearly every speech—and this is true of speeches from all sides of the House—will be worth reading in Hansard, but is is certainly true of this one. She could scarcely have selected a topic of more importance to the future of Britain.
Nostalgia is a dangerous drug. My noble friend Lord Chalfont allowed himself about 30 seconds of it. However, while my noble friend Lady Cox and your Lordships were speaking. I could not but recall the pattern of education in the villages and towns of Scotland, as I was closely connected with that at one time, and not so very long ago.
The education then was supplied by three partners: the mother in the home, the dominie or schoolmaster in the school, and the minister of religion. In the home, the mother taught the basic disciplines which ensure that brothers and sisters contribute to a harmonious home. But she did much more. In the evenings, she would supplement the teaching in the school, particularly in the reading and writing in the early years when the child had to learn to understand and to be understood.
1230
The schoolmaster accepted responsibility for the curriculum, but he did much more than that. He taught those tolerances which it is desirable for the young to observe in the early days of community living as an apprentice to life later in a democratic society; while the minister of the church reinforced that area of learning with instruction in the code of conduct for life on earth laid down by the founder of the Christian religion which, in its insistence on man's duty to his neighbour, has a close affinity to the obligations inherent in the citizenship of a democracy.
I suppose all that could be called indoctrination; but it was education then designed to balance knowledge and values which were thought to be true in terms of democratic life. Two of those influences on education have been weakened. The great majority of young mothers leave home to work and are away for most of the day. It is asking too much of a young mother when she comes home from work in the evening to pay the same attention to the child as mothers were wont to do in those days. It is much easier to give the children some money to go and amuse themselves.
The churches are so stretched in manpower and the school curriculum so overloaded that the teaching of religion is at best perfunctory. That being so, a greater responsibility than ever before now falls upon the teacher in the school. I would not be a party in any circumstances to the wholesale criticism of the teaching profession—it is a fine profession—nor to the public section of education, so called, which is full, too, of dedicated people. But this Motion is not directed at those; it is directed at those teachers who, in teaching politics in school, carry personal bias to the point of indoctrination.
The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, did very well to remind us that indoctrination can easily be carried to the point of distorting the truth. It is against those that this Motion is directed and it must surely follow, must it not? that in so far as a teacher deliberately uses indoctrination and distortion of the truth and allows his personal political prejudice to colour the teaching of his pupils, he is guilty, first, of betraying the trust placed in him by the parents; and, secondly, in conspicuously lacking the responsibility which he ought to exercise towards the boys and girls under his charge and care.
There are two ways in which political education can be taught. It can be taught with objectivity and it can be taught with distortion and the aim to indoctrinate. Many examples of indoctrination have been given by your Lordships this afternoon, and I shall add only two. The first is of one teacher and it is in literature supplied to me by my noble friend Lady Cox. This is first-hand evidence, and it is a speech by a teacher stating what he believes, and what he conveyed to his pupils. He said this:
"America's power is the source of all the world's evils. America must be regarded as the enemy of democracy".
Not a word about the fact that America had come to fight and to help the democracies win two wars against dictatorship. Not a word. That is what I call distorted politics.
But I was rather more disturbed by the highly selective and grossly over-simplified cases which teacher after teacher gave as justification for violence.

1231
I have lately been concerned—and I dare say that others of your Lordships have, too—with evidence that an increasing number of our young and potential citizens seem to look upon the law as their enemy and the instruments of the law—the courts of justice and the police—as automatic objects for confrontation. Should that trend develop it will be catastrophic for the future of our democracy. Indeed, anyone with experience can testify that there is no halfway house between dictatorship and democracy, and that the law is the sole guarantor of the individual's rights and freedoms. Who tells that today to the young?
When I read the categories of action which quite a number of teachers in this literature recommend as just violence, I cannot blame the young students who take to the street. I confess that I see little case for political education in the primary school. In the secondary school it is different. There I think the young ought to be taught, to begin to learn about comparative constitutions, comparative political systems, comparative government. But there are two ways of conveying such knowledge—again, by
1232
objectivity or by deliberate indoctrination. I am bound to say that this debate—and I have listened to the whole of it—has proved that indoctrination is developing to a point of danger to the nation. I am bound to come to that conclusion on the evidence of what has been said today in this House.
What should be done? Guidelines are certainly needed and will be welcome. It is good that parents are given more influence in the governing bodies of schools. They should use it. But I listened to the whole of this debate and I have come to the conclusion that there will have to be something more. I have sometimes thought that education has reached such a point that we ought to have a Royal Commission into it; but a Royal Commission takes a very long time and seldom are the findings of a Royal Commission acted upon with any sense of urgency. I am quite certain that there ought to be some inquiry to clarify the facts and to suggest how best to handle them. Whatever the form of the inquiry, I hope that the Secretary of State for Education will agree to one, and it should be set up soon and with urgency.
9.49 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Home, with whose speech I found myself in almost total agreement, particularly on the last point he made, to which I shall come later. I can say without hesitation that this has been one of the most interesting debates in which I have participated, and that we all owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for having introduced this subject today. I fear that that view of mine does not appear to be shared by the Opposition Front Bench, but nevertheless the noble Baroness will no doubt contain her sorrow with her customary fortitude.
The noble Baroness will not be surprised to learn that on a number of other occasions when issues of this kind have been raised it has been made clear by the Opposition Front Bench that they would have preferred that a different matter altogether had been raised. I remember raising nearly two years ago, together with my noble friend Lord Evans of Claughton, the question of what was going on in Liverpool. That was their reaction on that occasion. A few weeks ago we raised the question of Liverpool yet again. The response of the Opposition Front Bench was identical.
The common feature of these two debates—the debate that we had yesterday on the Local Government Bill and the debate we are having tonight—is simply the infiltration of extremists into the Labour Party. In reality, that is the subject we are discussing. As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said a few moments ago, the reason for that is the abandonment of the list of proscribed organisations. If that had not been done then some of the problems, if not all of them, would not have occurred. We should recognise that at the outset.
There are two particular legs to the Motion that we are debating today. The first is the question of freedom of speech, the second is the question of the politicisation, as it is described, of parts of our education system. On the question of freedom of speech, I of course share very nearly all the views that have been expressed on both sides of the House. I am perhaps a little more sceptical as to whether it is a totally new problem. I remember visiting with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer a university in 1968 where there were substantial demonstrations by students, despite the fact that it was a televised programme that was open-ended in order to give students the opportunity of expressing their point of view. Indeed, it was so long ago that Robin Day was then Mr. Robin Day rather than Sir Robin Day.
On that occasion, I found it deeply depressing that so many people had gone there simply in order to shout and bawl, and not to ask any intelligent questions. That seemed to me to be a negation of what university education is supposed to be about. I found that situation distressing, and I am bound to say that I find some of the more recent manifestations of the same type of conduct equally distressing. It is most unpleasant, but I repeat that I do not regard such behaviour as an entirely new problem.
1234
The second issue raised in the Motion concerns the degree of politicisation of our education system. There are, for reasons I have already touched upon, some very disturbing elements. We can put the problem into two categories. First there is what can be described as unreasonable behaviour by some teachers. Secondly, there is the matter of unreasonable behaviour by some local education authorities. I will first touch first on the question of teachers.
Teachers obviously have civil rights, just like everybody else. They should be free to express their point of view as vigorously as they want. Before I develop this particular part of my argument, I must say that I believe that the teachers have not been well treated by the present Government. The present impasse over their pay claim has been deeply damaging to the cause of education in this country. I hope very much, as one who is certainly not an unqualified supporter of the position of the National Union of Teachers in this matter, that this unhappy episode will be brought to a conclusion as rapidly as possible. The only people who are suffering are schoolchildren.
Having said that, I think we must recognise that although the overwhelming majority of teachers, whatever their political views may be, do the very best they can to provide quality education, we have a new situation—I think it is a relatively new situation—of a determined militant minority in the education profession who are prepared to treat children as political playthings. I think that the problem is at its worst in inner London. There are manifestations of the same difficulties in other parts of the country, but it is in inner London that we see it at its worst.
We know, of course, that in inner London there are serious and most difficult problems. There is the inner city cycle of deprivation: bad housing, bad schools in many cases, and a high level of unemployment. We have the educational problems of disadvantaged ethnic minorities and we have the new and serious problem of racist attacks directed both at children and at adults. It is a matter which is occupying a great deal of attention by the police in many communities in East London and elsewhere. We have to take these matters extremely seriously and recognise that they are to some extent the background to some of the problems that we have been debating this evening.
A number of examples have been given tonight about some of the more unattractive behaviour of the militant minority of school teachers. Part of the speech of my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee was related entirely to that. I should like, for a moment, to touch on this subject of the increasing power of this minority of extremists in the Inner London Teachers' Association, which has about half the teachers in the area among its members. It is run and dominated by the Socialist Teachers Alliance, which includes a substantial number of Trotskyists—believers in permanent revolution. It was set up 10 years ago with groups ranging from the International Marxist Group, the Workers League, and the Socialist Workers Party.
At the NUT annual conference this coalition can sometimes get up to 100,000 votes out of the roughly

1235
235,000 votes which are recorded. Their power base is primarily in London. The majority of their leaders, including the general secretary, Mr. Loosley, and the president, Mr. Esterson, were members of the International Marxist Group. Seven years ago the International Marxist Group, then led by Mr. Tariq Ali, disbanded and very nearly all its members joined the Labour Party. They thought that to infiltrate one of the existing major political parties was a more productive use of their power. That has led, I think, to some of the problems—not all, of course—that we have been debating today.
One of the Socialist Teachers Alliance's principal figures, Mr. Bernard Regan, criticised the decision—I give this as an example—of the teachers' unions to fight redundancy notices in Liverpool through the courts. Despite the fact that his own members were in fact being threatened with total deprivation of their income this gentleman felt that it was entirely wrong that the teachers' organisations had gone to the courts in order to protect their own members. That gives some rough idea of his political position.
Mr. Regan says that the STA is campaigning to change the aims and objectives of the National Union of Teachers in order to allow it to take on, as he describes it, a wider political role. He wants to change Rule 8 under which industrial action has to be sanctioned by the national executive of the NUT. He says, and I refer to The Times Educational Supplement of January 10th this year, that this puts a limitation on what he describes as union democracy. His colleague Mr. Ken Jones, whom the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, mentioned a few moments ago, says that there is an unresolved conflict between the union's national rules and "particular local experience". He says that London is a special case (and I again quote) "because of the volatility of the politics of race".
I believe that the interpretation of that phrase "the politics of race" is of absolutely fundamental importance to what we are debating this evening. Certainly, as I have indicated, there is an issue of high importance here. As we are all well aware, there is a highly sensitive problem in many areas of London. In fact, there are deeply objectionable racist attitudes held by a number of people. Of course there are; we are well aware of it. But let me just give an illustration of what happened when Mr. Jones and his friends decided to develop their ideas on the politics of race.
My noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee mentioned right at the beginning of our debate the events which occurred only a relatively short time ago at Daneford School. My colleague Mrs. Anne Sofer raised this precise question at a meeting of the Inner London Education Authority, when a series of episodes occurred following an incident in which an Asian boy was attacked by four other youths. These boys were expelled. Nevertheless, extremist members of the staff then took over and with some colleagues mounted a picket at the divisional office of the ILEA, where there was a series of incidents and the divisional inspector was at the receiving end of a great deal of angry abuse. He happens to be black, I may say, but that made no difference whatsoever.
1236
As a result of a number of incidents which took place, several arrests were made and the heroic "Daneford Twelve", as they rather pretentiously described themselves, found themselves before the Highbury magistrates. A series of strikes were called in addition to all the dislocation which was taking place as a result of the teachers' pay claim, and we had 50 schools in London either closed or partially closed as a result. That is just one example.
My noble friend Lord Ritchie raised a second example of what happened at the Dick Sheppard school, when a number of teachers asked the head-master for permission to attend a march and rally following the lamentable death of Cherry Groce. Many lessons had been missed because of the teachers' pay claim, but the headmaster, aware of the sensitivity of the situation, agreed that a few pupils and two members of staff could attend. Twenty-five per cent. of the staff of the school then walked out, all of them of course well known Left-wing activists on the teaching staff, and there was a series of disgraceful episodes of vandalism, of criminal damage, theft and attempted arson within that school.
What happened to the perpetrators? Nothing happened to the perpetrators. Why did nothing happen? Because the Inner London Education Authority would take no action because of the suspension of its own disciplinary rules. When we examine episodes of this sort some of the arguments that have been put forward in this debate, which suggest that the problem is in some way being exaggerated, seem to me to raise serious questions about the judgment of those who make such statements.
I think we have to recognise that in incidents of this sort—and there are plenty of others which could be cited, unhappily—there is a situation where, because of the suspension of the disciplinary rules of the authority, the instigators of incidents of this sort know that they are entirely free to continue their campaign of disruption. The authority of head teachers is constantly being undermined. What is worse, some of the most deprived children in Inner London are, as a result, being denied a chance of quality education.
Then there is the determined campaign against the Metropolitan Police. That matter was touched on by the noble Baroness at the beginning of the debate, and by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The police have been banned by militant teachers, led in the first instance by the Hackney Teachers' Association, from a number of schools in Inner London. My colleague, Mr. Robert Maclennan, the Member of Parliament for Caithness and Sutherland, has had correspondence with the Secretary of State for Education, who told him that such rules had been applied in a number of boroughs, including Westminster, Islington of course, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham. Last week my honourable friend obtained an answer from the Minister of State in another place giving a list of the schools to which the police are banned from going for any purpose. They include the North Westminster Community School, Gainsborough Junior and Mixed Infants School, Millfields Junior School, and William Patten Junior School. There are over 20 schools in London applying this policy.

1237
What is the purpose of visits by the police? First, as we all know, there is a most alarming drug problem in London. It is serious in Merseyside and in other parts of the country, but in some areas of Inner London it has reached epidemic proportions. That is a fair way to describe the situation. In limited areas of Inner London it is as easy to obtain drugs, and heroin in particular, as in some areas of the United States. That is the gravity of the situation.
What do parents therefore want? I should think that they want one thing above all. They want their children to be warned of the risks that they run, and yet in Inner London the police are not able to go to many schools and discuss the problem. That is scandalous. What has ILEA done about that? It has done precisely nothing. That is a monstrous act of irresponsibility on the part of the education authority.
Only a few weeks ago a number of us raised the question of the notorious video made by the GLC at a cost to the ratepayers of London of £35,000. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that he saw it only yesterday; I saw it a few months ago. It is a sophisticated piece of extremist propaganda, developed by Mr. Paul Boateng and his colleagues on the so-called Police Committee of the GLC. One wonders about the sense of responsibility of people in public life who are prepared to make such films which are designed, as in my view this one is, to poison relations between young people and the police and among various other sectors of the community.
I hoped that ILEA, incapable as it is apparently of ensuring that the police are able to go into schools in parts of its area, would at least take some action to ensure that the video did not go to the schools; but, strangely enough, it has found itself quite incapable of doing that. In other words, we have a situation in some schools where the video can be shown with this highly sophisticated onslaught on the Metropolitan Police and the police themselves are deprived of the opportunity of going into those schools to discuss highly important issues with the pupils in those schools. Behaviour of that sort by the ILEA is deplorable. I hope very much that as a result of this debate it will now be shamed into doing something.
I wish to make only two additional points. First, I agree with many of the criticisms of noble Lords about these and other acts by the Inner London Education Authority. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, pointed out, we had an opportunity of doing something about this a few months ago. On that occasion, this House had the opportunity of passing an amendment to the Bill relating to the Greater London Council which would have introduced proportional representation in the Inner London Education Authority. That amendment was defeated. I can understand the attitude of the Labour Party without any difficulty. I find it rather more difficult to understand the position of some noble Lords opposite. If they are as concerned as I am sure they are about extremism in the Inner London Education Authority, I am surprised that they found their way into the Government Lobby on that occasion which ensured continuation of that form of conduct. In the future, when matters of this sort arise—if any noble Lord on
1238
the Opposition Front Bench wishes to intervene, I shall gladly resume my seat—all I hope is that they will consider this matter anew so that they will have the opportunity of taking action that will limit the risk of a continuation of the sort of conduct we have seen from the ILEA.
Secondly, there is the point on which the noble Lord, Lord Home, concluded his speech and on which I propose to conclude mine. I believe that there is need for an inquiry. The case for one is now overwhelming. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Home, that Royal Commissions are rather ponderous organisations. They tend to sit for an immense period of time. I believe that a committee of inquiry with a fairly based membership is highly desirable.
A whole series of examples has been given during the debate of the way in which a determined effort has been made to indoctrinate young people. It seems to me, especially following the appeal of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, at the beginning of the debate, that we should give the Department of Education and Science some examples (and quite a large number have been provided in the debate) that if such a committee was appointed, a substantial amount of information would become available. It seems to me that this is now an urgent priority. Given the fact that there has, I believe, been very nearly overwhelming support for this proposition, I hope that the point will be put to the Secretary of State with the utmost vigour.
10.13 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, in my innocence, I must say that I was really rather puzzled by the Motion that the noble Baroness put before us today. It seemed a bit of a hotchpotch. My puzzlement was made greater because the wording changed from time to time. First, it was more related to local authorities and their responsibilities and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was going to respond for the Government. That appeared on the Order Paper. Then it changed and became more an education debate with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, having the responsibility—
Baroness Cox: My Lords, may I, with respect, explain this to the noble Baroness and put her out of her perplexity? Originally, the Motion was to have been on local government, but as the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill was due to come through yesterday it was thought inappropriate to have a debate on that subject on two successive days. It was nothing more sinister than that.
Baroness David: My Lords, I did not suggest that it was sinister. It seemed a little odd because I knew for quite a considerable time—I think quite as soon as the noble Baroness's Motion was on the Order Paper—that the Local Government Bill was coming on yesterday.
Lord On-Ewing said that they decided what was best for the party. That has become abundantly clear in the course of this debate. Of course, my innocence was enlightened particularly by the speech of my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham when he pointed out that the ILEA elections are not too far away. This

1239
debate has been more about ILEA than about anything else. I think that all the illustrations which have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, and most of the noble Peers from the Conservative Benches, have been from the Inner London Education Authority
We have the ILEA elections—and the Fulham by-election—coming along. Lord Home said that there had been a very good distribution of briefing by the noble Baroness. That we had suspected from our side of the House for a considerable time. It was very well distributed among the noble Peers who were speaking from the Benches opposite.
The real issue in education at the moment—and what I should have hoped people would be worried about—is the condition of state education, the denigration that is happening, and the dismantling of the whole state service with the disruption, lack of finance and demoralisation which is going on both among officers, councillors, teachers and indeed parents. Even in today's papers we have headlines saying, "Secondary teachers in exodus"; and the teachers who are leaving are the teachers of mathematics and science and so on, which are the subjects we most desperately need.
However, having said that, I should at once like to congratulate the noble Baroness on the clarity and brilliance of her opening speech. I admired it very much. She has very great talents. I just wish that they were directed at a more worthwhile subject. The noble Baroness shows enormous moderation and good sense when she is dealing with health, the health service, nursing and so on, but she seems to have a King Charles' head about peace studies and the education service. I think that that is rather a pity and I hope that she will be converted in time.
Turning to the campaign to expose the hidden indoctrination of our children by hard Left teachers, that is a fairly new lobby and, I thought, a fairly small one, but after tonight it seems to have increased its lobby. However, I still think that this lobby is really a handful of the far Right. What is so pleasing is that they do not have the total backing of the Secretary of State, who is himself supposed to be quite Right wing. His speech in March 1984 to the National Council of Women was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, whose balanced, cool speech I was very gratified to hear, and which I thought poured a little cold water on the efforts of some noble Peers opposite.
In this speech to the National Council of Women, the Secretary of State accepted that teachers are responsible for the school curriculum and teaching methods. Many critics of peace education do not accept that position and would appear to prefer that the state should dictate what is taught in schools and how it is taught. Sir Keith said that a key role for teachers,
"is to develop the reasoning power of all pupils",
and accepted that there would be occasions when questions of the morality of war and the conditions which lie behind war and other aspects of international affairs will crop up.
How people could teach history and current affairs without reference to peace and war is rather difficult to
1240
understand. However, this consideration did not prevent quite savage attacks on Sir Keith during educational debates at the Conservative Party Conference. I thought I had the feel of Conservative Party Conferences occasionally today. There was a sort of baying from the Benches opposite, which I thought was quite extraordinary. And when we look down the list of Conservative Peers who are speaking the noble Baroness was the only one who had not attended a public school—I mean an independent school—rather than a state school. Somehow this seemed rather odd in this debate. However, I see in today's papers that Sir Keith has said that it is right for controversial issues to be discussed but that pupils and students should be allowed to form their own conclusions.
We have heard about the draft circular, from which that was taken, but this Front Bench was not sent copies of it beforehand, which seems rather odd. We were able to send a Whip to get a copy from the Library, but it would of course have been nice to have it beforehand. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, the draft circular is fair enough. However, it does not go far enough for a good many noble Lords opposite. I believe that it is a perfectly reasonable document.
Apart from the reasonable attitude of the Secretary of State, the attitude of Her Majesty's inspectors should also be considered. In Education Observed No. 2: A review of published reports by Her Majesty's inspectorate, which was published in 1984, they call for greater weight to be given to political literacy in the school curriculum. There have been calls for an inquiry from various parts of the House tonight. I think that very little attention has been paid to Her Majesty's inspectorate. After all, they are the people who are responsible for ensuring what the curriculum is and how teaching is progressing in state schools. When the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Renton, and even the noble Lord, Lord Hams, who ought to know better, have called for an inquiry, I think that part of the inspectorate has been very much ignored.
In their paper on the 11 to 16 curriculum they say:
"Although the idea of political education is suspect to many people, there are nevertheless compelling reasons for asserting its importance in the 11–16 curriculum. It is of course already present in many subjects of the curriculum: in history, geography, economics, even English and religious education classes; work done under such headings as 'social' and 'environmental' studies is often concerned with issues that are political. So political education does not necessarily mean the addition of a new subject to the curriculum. But its importance to society requires a clearer definition of its objectives, and of the knowledge and skills and attitudes which are necessary to support it".
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is paying attention to that because he implied that a special subject had to be set up. In fact, I think that the modern idea is that this spreads throughout the whole curriculum, the whole number of subjects.
There are some other quotations which I should like to make. The Minister, Mr. Robert Dunn, speaking at the 1984 annual conference of the Politics Association, said:
"Political education, sensibly structured, has a valid place in the curriculum.
"Political literacy is one of the prerequisites of adult citizenship".
He then went on to say:

1241
"Society, I believe, expects certain approaches to be maintained in our schools. These will include integrity and consideration for the views of others, and a respect for the process of democracy itself.
"Many of these issues dealt with in political education, however organised, are inevitably sensitive and controversial. We cannot avoid discussion of such issues and we should not seek to do so".
On the occasion when he made that speech there was a quotation from the Hansard Society's survey into the political awareness of the school-leaver and this revealed a,
"'truly appalling' state of affairs in which, for example, 44 of fifteen year-olds interviewed thought the IRA was a protestant organisation and that nationalisation was a Conservative policy".
I hope that after all this political education is not thought to be quite so peculiar. There is certainly a need for it. Roger Scruton suggests a medieval curriculum; I suppose that rhetoric and that sort of thing is better than an attempt to grapple with the problems of the real world because it can develop the powers of logic and reasoning. That may be all right for the scholars of Eton, but not perhaps for pupils in the state sector in the real world of today. Education ought to be about the real world, and it is almost bound to be controversial. Children cannot be taken in. They know what is going on.
The central issue from this debate is the teaching of peace studies in certain schools. Perhaps the critics have a narrow idea of what peace studies involve. Maybe it is an unfortunate name. In their document, Peace Studies: a Critical Survey, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and Roger Scruton, portray the new disciplines as not genuinely educational, and encouraging prejudice. They go on to say:
"Peace, war and disarmament should have no place in the school curriculum."
And they ask for legislation.
I think I have quoted from the HMI to show that there is a place for political education in the school curriculum, and I have also given the Secretary of State's and the HMI's attitude to that. I think legislation is entirely unnecessary, and I am glad to say that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said the same and that it would be difficult, and that the HMI really can do the job. I think it was H. G. Wells in 1951 in his Outline of History who said:
"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe."
Well, let us hope that education wins.
How much evidence of indoctrination is there which is not merely anecdotal? We had a certain amount today, but I also think that much of the criticism is ill-founded. Sometimes it comes from rather unexpected quarters. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, is not here today. She gave the Dimbleby Lecture in 1985. She caused a certain amount of anxiety. She made a certain number of accusations about ILEA, and she said that ILEA departed from professional standards which she exhorted teachers to observe.
That caused a letter to be written to The Listener by Mr. William Stubbs, the much respected chief officer of the Inner London Education Authority.
"After warning against the dangers of teachers seeking to engage in political indoctrination Baroness Warnock then chose to criticise what she referred to as political education in the ILEA. 'It has', she says, 'aroused enormous hostility among parents, and not only those to the right of centre. I think the parents are right; the ILEA are
1242
abusing their powers for political ends.' This is a serious allegation to make about a responsible public body."
I was going to read quite a lot about the advice which is given by ILEA to its teachers and its inspectors, but I shall not read all that because time is getting on. I shall read this part:
"Unlike Baroness Warnock I am unaware that these developments have aroused 'enormous hostility among parents'. The Authority, in contrast to most other local education authorities, has an extensive network of local and central committees for consulting parents. Not once has there been any criticism of political education in ILEA schools in meetings of these committees. And I can assure readers that parents are not slow to criticise action of which they disapprove."
"As Education Officer I cannot recall having received one complaint from a parent expressing concern about political education in the curriculum of their child's school. This in an Authority which has a school population of over 300,000."
I think criticisms are sometimes ill-founded. Maybe some tonight are correct, and that is sad because I disapprove of what I have heard if it is true.
There has also been discussion about Government departments other than the DES distributing literature about politically-sensitive topics to schools. I understand that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have drawn up an agreement with the NUT about the procedure for making such literature available. But the Ministry of Defence have not ratified it and there are reports that unsolicited pro-nuclear pamphlets are still being sent out to schools. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that no such leaflets or pamphlets, or whatever, are sent direct to schools but always to the chief education officer for his inspection and decision.
I am told by a head in Manchester that he asked for leaflets from the Ministry of Defence but when he received them he did not think that they were very good. I was surprised to read elsewhere that Lady Cox and Roger Scruton criticised activists sending floods of information to schools by way of propaganda, and that one of the organisations that they criticised was the United Nations Association. Is that really true, I wonder?
We have not heard much about the universities' schools of peace studies. I want to say something about Bradford, Lancaster and York. Dr. Selby, at York, vigorously defends the courses that he runs. I shall not read some of what he said, but I shall have mercy on the House and go straight on to Bradford. There were some justified criticisms of the department when it started in the mid-1970s as not being of a satisfactory academic standard, but these criticisms should have been stilled by the arrival of Professor O'Connell (who was referred to by my noble friend Lord Jenkins) when he came to head the department in 1978. He has enforced his beliefs that the true activism of university work is scholarship.
The department is gaining a reputation as one of the most productive in the university as well as being the most successful in attracting funds. It has recently launched its second appeal for donations in its 13-year history. The Quaker Peace Studies Trust, which plays a big part in financing the school, is leading the appeal for £250,000, which is specifically to fund disarmament and peace research. The fund is sponsored by a range of the great and the good which spans all the Churches, most political parties (with the

1243
exception of the Conservatives) a retired rear-admiral and Lord Zuckerman. It would be a brave person, I think, who questioned the integrity and motives of the Quakers. It was on their initiative that the Chair of Peace Studies was founded. To get the whole thing in proportion, the school offers an undergraduate course with an intake of 25 students a year, about half of whom are usually mature students. It recruits from the police force, and a few from the armed forces. Its lecturers are regularly invited to speak to various branches of the armed forces.
The school hopes that its recruitment of overseas research students on to its MA and doctoral programmes will have a significant effect abroad. Several Palestinians seconded from their own university have had time to reflect, the school claims, on peaceful solutions to their conflict. Nigerians have come to study development issues, and there is a small Soviet exchange scheme operating.
I intended to say something about Lancaster as well, but I shall cut my speech short and say that that, too, has support from the Quakers. Its school is funded only a third from the university and two-thirds from external sources.
About America, there was criticism that some of the peace studies courses criticised America, but I understand that the United States of America has dozens of universities with peace studies chairs—Catholic universities as well as others. The people who hold the chairs are not members of CND, or pacifists. In fact, one leading theorist is a Republican, Professor Kenneth Boulding.
I wanted to speak about part of the debate which dealt with funds not being used for a political purpose, but I believe it was well explored in the debate yesterday, so I can leave that out.
About the violation of the principle of freedom of speech in the universities, we are all for freedom of speech and the Labour Party would be totally against any attempt to prevent it. We totally condemn it, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh said in his opening speech.
I was going to criticise the police. I am normally very much in favour of the police, but I really think that in one of the cases—at Manchester, where Leon Brittan was attacked—the police perhaps did not behave very well. There were a great number of arrests. Of 38 arrests and 36 charges brought, 17 were dismissed and a further three were dismissed on appeal; and there were a number of complaints about the behaviour of the police. Thus maybe sometimes it is not the students who are to blame, though if they are I should condemn them.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, who is still in his place, spoke about student unions. I was also going to speak about those, and I was going to quote the same paragraph as he did; but I see that I have already spoken for 21 minutes, and I am sure that at the end of a debate that is quite long enough.
I should say that we are not against political education in schools and universities. In fact, we think it is extremely important. We are against the kind of thing which has been mentioned today, the really partisan indoctrination—and I hope it is really a very
1244
small percentage of what takes place in schools. I think that the local education authorities, the inspectorate and the parents have a part to play there, and that freedom of speech is all-important.
10.36 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lady Cox for introducing a debate which has been wide-ranging, fascinating and at times disturbing. However, both in consideration of the heavy snow falling outside your Lordships' House and because of the extreme lateness of the hour, I cannot hope to respond to all the many important points touched upon, which cover so wide a spectrum of the education service.
My noble friend Lord Swinton, in his speech earlier this afternoon, set out the Government's views on the main issues relating to schools, about which my noble friend Lady Cox and many others have spoken; so although I shall return a little later to certain points about schools I do not wish to duplicate his comments in any way and I ought first to spend some time on the Government's response to those questions relating to higher education, on which the debate has touched.
Much of the concern expressed about freedom of speech has focused upon higher education. The Government are greatly concerned about the number of occasions in recent months when invited speakers have faced uncouth behaviour and worse on university campuses; and, more subtle but no less insidious, about the indications that some student bodies have sought to impose a ban on invitations to certain organisations or individuals. The Government see freedom of speech as a fundamental right in a democratic society and it is, above all, fundamental in an institution of advanced learning. All young people should be helped to develop minds that are open to opposing arguments and capable of discrimination and judgment. No one should be forced to listen to debate irrelevant to his interests; but no one should be denied the opportunity to deepen his understanding of issues that concern him. It is right that universities should hear speakers on all subjects of general interest; and members and societies of a university should be able to invite such speakers in the confidence that they will receive a hearing.
I recognise that, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, reminded us, this is not a new problem. Nevertheless, the Government are most concerned that university authorities should take firm action to ensure that full recognition is accorded to the principle of freedom of speech on their campuses and that the principle should be applied in practice. They welcome, therefore, the publication by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of guidance on free speech and lawful assembly.
My noble friend Lady Cox expressed her concern that part of the guidance implies that universities could on occasion justify denying a hearing on grounds of security. The guidance in fact refers to "cases of very high risk" in this respect and the Government would not be content to see this plea become an excuse for failure to pursue vigorously a policy of support for freedom of speech. The Government therefore hope to see universities building on that guidance by setting up

1245
their own procedures to ensure that all possible precautions are taken to avoid disruption, so that no invited speaker is denied a hearing.
Not only this, but universities should also take steps to ensure that they learn of any case where a student union refuses a platform sought by an interest group among its membership. It would seem right in any such case that the university should itself consider offering a platform. Issues like these are being discussed between the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the authorities of institutions of higher education; and in this respect I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Butterworth for his helpful and clear contribution from his wide experience which helped to answer some questions which were raised by other noble Lords.
Reference has also been made, not surprisingly, to the occasion in Manchester last November when the Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. Waddington, was denied a hearing by members of a student audience. The Government have made clear how serious a view they take of such incidents and are glad to note that the Manchester University authorities have instituted disciplinary proceedings against certain students identified as having been actively involved.
The reported failure of the students union either to express regret at what happened or to co-operate in the disciplinary process, provides evidence of the attitude of its leaders. It is to be hoped that this factor will not be ignored by the body of students responsible for electing their successors. Disruption of the kind that we have seen on a number of occasions in recent months may well, as is claimed, be essentially the work of a small extremist minority; and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, who specifically deplored this.
So how do we remedy the situation? The easy, theoretical answer is that all students should exercise their democratic responsibilities within the union to ensure that the leadership is constrained by the collective will. But the majority of students see their main purpose at university in other terms, which we hope include the desire to concentrate on acquiring a good qualification. But their view of higher education will generally not include participation in what has become political activity, the more so as abuse and intimidation can be the lot of those who so involve themselves.
Many who have written to their Members of Parliament have said that they cannot afford to spend the time that would be needed to defeat the minority whose main interest is not in study but in the acquisition of power by manipulation of the democratic process. In many of the situations that we have heard discussed today it is this minority who bring all students into disrepute.
The Government would be most reluctant to disturb the provisions that give to student bodies the dignity of responsible partnership in our institutions of higher education, and in broad terms they accept the view recently expressed by the CVCP that, "without the possibility of error there can be no chance of behaving responsibility," but they have difficulty in contemplating the travesty of that ideal of partnership
1246
which too often obtains today. They will therefore continue to keep a watchful eye on student union activities, mindful that a radical solution may eventually be required giving students the right to decide individually whether they wish to be represented by what is termed a student union.
The question of the use of public funds for partisan political purposes by individual student unions has also been raised. Student unions, as they are now constituted, receive public funds in trust. That is, such funds may only be spent in accordance with the student union's essential objectives. In general terms, these are to further the objectives of their institution as a place of advanced learning and to further the welfare of all members of the student body. In 1983, the Attorney-General sent guidance to institutions of higher education setting out the limitations placed by charity law upon how student unions may spend their money. It is plain that there is much for student unions to do that is both legitimate and valuable.
Many, for example, offer their members help with a variety of personal problems that young people may encounter over, for example, housing, money and relationships. Unions run common rooms and bars where students can meet and relax; they run sports facilities, and the majority of funds of most unions are spent on these things.
But this is not the expenditure which has aroused public concern. There have been complaints, a number of them well founded, of expenditure by student unions on political causes of no direct relevance to students. The Attorney-General acknowledges that judging the propriety of such expenditure is difficult. The touchstone is whether the issue affects the interests of students as such or the affairs of the institution as such. So it is legitimate for students to hold meetings to debate political issues. Such debate furthers their education. But expenditure in support of a political campaign not affecting the interests of students as such is not likely to be legitimate.
A fine line has to be drawn in many cases, and unions are well advised to seek the help of college authorities. Continuing vigilance is certainly needed. I should not like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that all misuse of student union funds has ceased, and it is of course impossible to prove that such misuse is less than it would have been had the Attorney-General not issued his guidance, while just because of it such misuse as is reported is likely to receive the greater publicity. But I would repeat that the Government believe that the guidance has been of use, and it continues to be the case that any allegation offering convincing prima facie evidence of abuse will be investigated by the Attorney-General.
There have been references also to the activities of the National Union of Students in connection with the use of public funds. An important fact to be recognised is that the National Union of Students is not itself in direct receipt of public funds. At the same time, the main part of its income is certainly derived from public funds. The 1984–85 accounts show that the affiliation fees of its member unions accounted for more than 90 per cent. of its income, and those unions receive their funding from the public funds administered by their institutions. The Government and the

1247
public and Members of this House cannot fail to be concerned when they see tactics being employed which they know many students themselves would not support and, in addition, NUS funds being applied to political activities which are not directly the concern of students as students.
The simple solution is the same as that which I have already indicated in the case of the individual student union—the exercise of active influence by the majority of students upon the policies of the NUS. The practical obstacles to this solution are in this case the same, but perhaps even greater. Moreover, the NUS is not, as most individual student unions are, subject to the law of charity. Its policies are determined in the light of its own members' perceptions of the organisation's purposes. Be this as it may, the fact remains that the NUS as presently constituted depends to an overwhelming degree on the availability of public funds to support its work. It should be seen to be concentrating on the essential role for which it exists. The point could otherwise come when the Government felt bound to consider limiting the availability.
Before turning from higher education I should perhaps refer to the School of Peace Studies at Bradford University, since the noble Baroness, Lady David, gave this considerable mention, and it was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. It is perhaps not surprising that this university department, whose work focuses on controversial topics, should attract criticisms. However, allegations that the staff are ideologically committed in a way that may be incompatible with academic detachment and impartial teaching have not been substantiated. Students on the courses concerned, who include seconded police officers, appear properly to have full and fair opportunities to consider both sides of the tricky issues covered.
I turn now to subjects relating more to schools. My noble friend Lady Cox quoted a number of examples of what she regarded as biased and distorted teaching, which she viewed with great concern. Other examples have been quoted by other noble Lords during this debate, and none more notably and convincingly than by my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel. I recognise the depth of concern that has been expressed about examples such as these.
It would be premature, perhaps, to comment on an individual case on behalf of the Government before it has been fully investigated. However, I invite those who have mentioned individual cases to supply details of them to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and I hope that they will do so. My noble friend Lord Swinton has already made it clear that my right honourable friend is concerned to investigate most fully and carefully all complaints of that nature.
I turn to the draft circular and statement issued yesterday, which my noble friend Lord Swinton dealt with in his opening remarks. I am pleased to note that it was welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and subsequently by the noble Baroness, Lady David, on behalf of the Labour Party; and that it was welcomed also by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, on behalf of the Alliance. Perhaps their welcome
1248
should have prepared me for the comments of other noble Lords who feel that it does not go far enough. Among them are my noble friends Lady Cox, Lord Renton, Lord Orr-Ewing and Lord Home, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. They all suggested that the Government should perhaps institute an inquiry or further legislation, or both.
The only reassurance I can give at this stage is that my right honourable friends will, I am sure, consider the views of noble Lords most carefully together with other views received as part of the consultation process. I must say that it was refreshing when that subject was mentioned to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, comment that we should desist from further legislation.
There have been other suggestions for action relating to such diverse matters as, for example, the training of social workers, a closed shop, and the teaching of music. Inevitably, there have also been references made to the teachers' dispute. However, I must beg the forgiveness of the noble Lords if I do not respond in more than general terms. In attempting to reply to specific points, I shall concentrate on those that fall most directly within the terms of the Motion being debated.
First, I must refer to the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, that this debate was, more than anything, about ILEA and the coming elections. While I cannot agree with her, those waters have been adequately stirred by my noble friend Lord Swinton.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and other noble Lords on both sides of the House expressed and illustrated their concern about the subject of peace studies. I feel that it is important to restate the Government's policy on this subject. The Government believe that there is a place for the discussion of sensitive political issues such as peace, war and disarmament. Indeed, such issues can hardly be avoided in the teaching of such subjects as part of regular history, religious education, physics, English, and other lessons.
However, when those issues are being discussed it is of first importance that the teacher should deal with them in a balanced and impartial way, encouraging pupils to weigh the evidence and arrive at their own conclusions, and the Government so encourage teachers. Nevertheless, I do not underestimate the significance of the topic, and I have no doubt that your Lordships' views will be taken very seriously by my right honourable friends.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked specifically whether a leaflet had been sent to schools on those subjects. I cannot give her any assurance at this point—or reassurance, as the case may be—but will follow up that matter for her. My noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, were among those who dwelt upon the subject of schools and the police. All sensible and responsible people must see the benefits of establishing a closer understanding of the role of the police, and of establishing a good relationship between the police and young people.
When the police go into the classroom it is with the long-term aim of making our society better, safer and

1249
more law-abiding. This must be particularly so in high-risk areas. To suggest, as some people have done, that the police go into schools to indoctrinate the young is as absurd as it is to suggest that they go there to spy on the community. It is for that reason that I very much regret the action taken by the Hackney branch of the National Union of Teachers in publishing their document, Police out of School. It encourages teachers not to co-operate with liaison arrangements between schools and the police and that is downright irresponsible when there is so much that teachers and police officers, acting together, can do to educate and protect children.
However, I am glad to be able to say that the Hackney teachers' action has been firmly disowned on all sides. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has recently condemned such attempts to keep the police out of schools. The Inner London Education Authority has said that there is no question of the authority refusing to admit police officers to schools and the National Union of Teachers has made it clear that it wishes to see a proper working relationship between the police and education services.
Discussions are taking place between teachers and police officers in London on ways to improve liaison and the indications are that those who want to foster distrust and hostility will find themselves increasingly isolated. That must be good news.
As regards the police videos to which my noble friend Lord Renton specifically referred, I can only say that no complaints have been received about these videos. From inquiry to HMI I understand that there is no evidence of these videos being used in schools.
Many noble Lords referred to racism and deplored its incidence in our schools. I wish to reassure them, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, among others, that the Government abhor racial prejudice and discrimination of any sort and are determined to give ethnic minority pupils the same opportunity as all others to profit from what schools can offer.
The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, and my noble friend Lord Bethell both referred specifically and rather obviously to a publication called How Racism came to Britain. On this topic I can say that the Government have emphasised their concern that where sensitive and controversial issues such as race relations and racial prejudice are addressed in schools they should not be presented in a one-sided or misleading way. The Government believe that this book could give children a distorted picture and we would be concerned were it to be used in schools. It is not in the Government's power to have the book withdrawn from general circulation and we have received no evidence that it is finding its way into classrooms, but we will certainly want to follow up with the local authority concerned any complaints about its use in a particular school.
The concern expressed in this debate is that there is a serious danger in some schools and colleges of a type of creeping politicisation of what goes on in the classroom in an attempt to influence the minds of pupils and students by biased teaching and distortion of the facts. The Government share that concern.
1250
Several noble Lords have criticised us for not taking sufficient action on these matters. However, I have to say, as many speakers have recognised, that the number of teachers who approach their work in this way is small. It is important to remember this in order to keep the problem in context.
I also reiterate that the Government have taken action. On the one hand, as my noble friend Lord Swinton explained, they are making proposals in the forthcoming education Bill that will allow the governing bodies of schools to become the focus for their identity and direction free of undue political influence. On the other hand, my right honourable friends have published for circulation yesterday their draft circular and statement of principles. That statement sets out afresh the principles which the partners of the education service have long adopted in discharging their function. What my right honourable friends are calling for is that the partners should endorse such a statement and commend it to their members.
I believe that it was my noble friend Lady Vickers who said that the importance of this debate has been to create awareness of the dangers. In once again voicing my gratitude to all those noble Lords who have contributed, I would say that in this respect the debate has been amply justified.
11 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, it only remains for me to say a very sincere "Thank you" to all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have contributed this afternoon and this evening to the discussion. It has been a very worthwhile and, as my noble friend the Minister, Lady Hooper, has said, a very fascinating debate—and a long one, so I will not prolong my concluding remarks.
I should just like to say how grateful I am to those who share my concerns for endorsing them, for adding the benefit of their wisdom and experience to the discussion and for providing further analyses and evidence which must be taken seriously. Also, I thank my noble friends the Ministers for their contributions and for the ray of hope, however faint, which they have been able to cast on the dark horizon of our concerns. For this relief some thanks; but I hope that they will agree that the arguments and evidence which have been adduced today will enable them to take further steps to remedy the unacceptable situations which confront us.
To noble Lords who have been critical of my stance, I also say "Thank you". It is always salutary to receive valid criticism. But for the record I must correct at least one of the allegations, which has been made too often: that the choice of topic for this debate was motivated to serve as a distraction from the present problems of the teachers' strike or was concerned with the ILEA elections. That was not the case. In fact, the very suggestion reflects the Opposition's machiavellian disposition and not ours. The topic was chosen for its own sake because it is so serious and because it merits consideration on its own terms. There can hardly be any subject more serious than the wellbeing of our children and the future of our society. I am indeed most grateful to all your Lordships for your

1251
contributions. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Territorial Army: Pay Deductions
11.2 p.m.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider remedying the situation which arises between employed and unemployed Territorial Army soldiers by virtue of the deductions from pay levied on soldiers in receipt of unemployment or supplementary benefit.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in so doing I should like particularly to thank those noble Baronesses and noble Lords who have shown the stamina and indeed the interest in this important subject to stay on until this late hour to join in the questioning of the Government on it. I am grateful to them all.
It is estimated that approximately 17½ per cent.—that is, about 11,700—of the soldier strength of the Territorial Army are unemployed persons. Of these, 46 per cent. or thereabouts are on unemployment benefit only; 41 per cent. or thereabouts are on supplementary benefit only; and 13 per cent. are probably drawing both unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit. Of course these figures have to be treated with some caution because such figures are not always easy to arrive at, as well as for a number of other reasons. Nevertheless, they provide a fair measure of the problem.
It is also estimated that there are wide regional differences, ranging from as little as 4 per cent. unemployed in Greater London to 18 per cent. in Scotland, 20 per cent. in Northern Ireland and more than 25 per cent. in the North of England and Wales. Some units in these areas have 40 per cent. or more unemployed soldiers on their strength. Although some recruits join from the ranks of the unemployed, it is important to recognise that many have become unemployed since joining the TA. It is towards those people in particular that the army has a special responsibility for welfare and morale. The total number of unemployed in the volunteer reserves of the other services, other than the army, is broadly estimated at some 600.
The rules for the payment of DHSS benefits are highly complex. They are difficult for the volunteer to understand. Some local DHSS offices still interpret them differently from others, despite all the efforts made to ensure consistency throughout the country. That leads to delays in payment and in some cases hardship, particularly as DHSS benefits are often abated some weeks before service pay is credited to the volunteer's account.
Problems and discontent also arise from the fact that no account is taken of the rank pay structure and from the anomaly that those drawing unemployment benefit are able to keep their pay for Sunday training, whereas those drawing supplementary benefit have their pay for Sunday taken into account for deduction.
1252
Consequently, within the same unit there tend to be three categories of volunteer, all created by external forces. First, there is the employed volunteer, who keeps all his TA pay, less tax, in addition to his civilian emoluments. Then there is the unemployed volunteer on supplementary benefit, who is allowed a disregard of £8 per week or £32 per month. Finally, there is the unemployed volunteer on unemployment benefit, who has all his benefit deducted whenever he is paid more than £2 on any day except Sunday.
Under present regulations, if an unemployed person participates in any form of remunerative employment and earns more than £2 per day he loses unemployment benefit for that period. The volunteer who gets supplementary benefit can earn £8 a week, or £32 a month, as I have said, before deduction from his allowances. So anomalies arise thus.
If a single private soldier, man or woman, doing a certain amount of training (for example, two Saturdays, two Sundays and four drill nights in one month) is employed, he will get TA pay for four days at £12.78 per day, making £51.12, and four drills at £3.20 per day, making £12.80, giving a total of £63.92. If one deducts tax at 30 per cent., totalling £19.18, that shows net TA pay of £44.74, which he keeps in full in addition to his civilian earnings. If he is unemployed and drawing unemployment benefit, he gets TA pay, as already stated, but from that is deducted six days (two Saturdays and four drills) times £4.74 unemployment benefit, making £28.44, giving the balance which he gets to keep of his TA pay of £ 16.30, as compared with £44.74. But if he is unemployed and on supplementary benefit, he gets TA pay, as already stated, less the maximum that he is allowed to keep per month of £32, and the balance of £12.74 is deducted from his supplementary benefit. In summary, an employed soldier nets £44.74 TA pay; an unemployed soldier on unemployment benefits nets only £16.30 TA pay; and an unemployed soldier on supplementary benefit nets £32 of TA pay.
Then soldiers suffer stoppage of rent, milk tokens and family income supplement when they are at camp. Attendance at camp means that a month is required after camp to re-establish one's status quo with the DHSS. Clearly, this is divisive and very bad for morale. In addition to the complexities referred to earlier, which worry the individual, considerable extra administrative burdens are placed on the unit arising from its involvement with personal problems and its dealings with Department of Health and Social Security officials. If a young man or young woman is fortunate enough to be in gainful employment and is enthusiastic enough to serve his or her country in the reserve forces, their standard of living is enhanced by virtue of the pay and bounty earned. Such people have been described as being "twice a citizen." The community, in the main, applauds such service, is grateful for it and does not complain that the disposable income of such people is greater than that of those who choose not to join. The community at large recognises that these people are giving up their spare time in our service. Certainly, no employer would suggest that a member of the reserve forces in his employment should accept less pay for his civilian work since he is in receipt of military pay during his spare time.
It would seem illogical, if not morally indefensible, to argue that a citizen who perforce is in receipt of unemployment benefit should not be permitted to improve his lot or be encouraged to be "twice a citizen." The state has undertaken to support those who cannot get work and budgets accordingly. If such a citizen wishes to join the reserves forces, what justification can there be for discouraging him? His rights are surely the same as those of his neighbour who is working. The argument that he is not available for employment if he is at a week-end camp is a poor one. Is the employed man who packs his tent and his fishing rod and goes away for the same week-end available for employment? The volunteer who earns a quarter of a day's pay at a drill hall during an evening is as readily available as the man who spends the same time with his friends in a pub.
Nor is there any virtue in the argument that the state may not pay a person twice. For example, a civil servant who is in the TA will quite lawfully be permitted to receive pay in respect of each form of service. Nor would an unemployed person who receives two amounts of pay be costing the state more. He is entitled to his benefit, and the Ministry of Defence expects to pay its reserve servicemen and women regardless of their civilian circumstances. Therefore, neither paymaster is really entitled to any clawback. Can it be that the apparent intransigence of the Government is due to concern that to allow unemployed members of the reserve forces to retain their benefit in full and to receive military pay could lead to abuse? This would be to equate part-time service to the Crown with moonlighting, which I consider to be an insult, indeed. Bearing in mind that the average number of days' service annually given is approximately 50, including annual sea training or camp, and that payment is made by Giro and cannot be falsified, such fears are surely groundless. It should be remembered that the 52 Sundays in each year are not taken into account when considering unemployment benefit. There can be no justification, in my view, for clawing back any element of a benefit entitlement.
If it is suggested that to allow an unemployed citizen to earn service pay without loss of benefit would be to open a floodgate unless the reserve forces were made a special case, the answer, clearly, is that such service is indeed special. There is no such thing as a full-time territorial. But although they may not be the professionals, they are cheap to the country at the price. Not to recognise the true position can cause two situations. Reserve servicemen can omit to advise the Department of Health and Social Security that they are in receipt of service pay but they will inevitably be identified at some stage with serious consequences.
The present system almost encourages this potential abuse. But far more likely is the probability that the unemployed person, knowing that they will be making a personal financial sacrifice (not required by the employed) if they join, will give the idea of joining no further thought. No statistics can be produced showing how many may not have joined up for that reason, but statistics are building up of those who leave because of these anomalies.
The Reserve Forces require to recruit an increasing number of young men and women to replace those
1254
who leave and to fulfil the present enhancement programme. The Ministry of Defence will train those whom it recruits, and in this respect it could even be argued that it is of benefit both to the individual and to the state if unemployed young people are given new skills. In the Territorial Army young people acquire many new skills. On occasions those in employment are not available for military training when their employment has to take priority, whereas an unemployed man or woman will nearly always be available to turn out.
It can therefore be shown to be justified on social, moral, political and military grounds to allow unemployed members of the Reserve Forces to train for at least 50 days each year without financial penalty. We should regard them as being twice a citizen, but at present they are being treated as half a citizen.
I ask the Government, not merely to tell me that there is no money to do this, but to say that they will enter into discussions with the Department of Health and Social Security and the Ministry of Defence to see whether something cannot be done to ease this situation and to remove this anomaly.
11.17 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I am sure that the House is most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for having raised this matter this evening. It was on 3rd July last year that my noble friend Lord Ridley—who, as noble Lords know, is president of the Territorial Army Association—raised this question during a debate on the Defence Estimates. I saw Lord Ridley last week and he told me how very much he regrets his inability to be here today. I am apologising on his behalf.
I think that it is time for a decision to be made. I strongly support everything said by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who made an excellent case. I hope that we are pressing at an open door. As a regular soldier I served in or alongside territorial regiments during the war. In 1968, when I was a Front Bench spokesman for my party in another place, I co-authored a pamphlet called Twice a Citizen—a phrase used by the noble Viscount during his speech and coined incidentally by Bill Slim. In this pamphlet we recommended that the establishment of the Territorial Army should be raised to 85,000. Our recommendations, I am very glad to say, were very closely followed by the next Conservative Administration.
In October 1969—I wish to make no party point here—the Labour Party took the Territorial Army to pieces. It fell as low as 47,000 in number. But the last figure which I have, for December 1985, is 76,000 or slightly more than that. I think that is a considerable achievement. But we are hoping, as the Government have made clear in reply to a question in another place recently, to reach a target of 86,000. In other words, we want something like another 10,000 volunteers. The Government have said that that will require a significant increase in recruiting. Recruiting in 1984–85 was of the order of 24,000. But it will also require a significant reduction in wastage. Wastage has been running at around 22,000 for each of the last three years. That is much too high and cannot be afforded.

1255
Is there or is there not a principle involved here? I can tell your Lordships that lifeboatmen, part-time firemen and those attending local authority or charity residential work camps for up to 14 days in a year are not subject to the earnings rule which results in deductions in unemployment pay for Territorial Army volunteers after quite insignificant disregards have been made.
Therefore, there does not appear to be any immutable principle involved at all, and I hope that we shall not be told this evening that there is one. These deductions are a major disincentive to recruiting. I am in no doubt at all about that. I am equally sure that they have a significant effect on wastage by increasing it. I have been into this matter with very great care; it is not just hearsay. I have spoken to the commanding officers of a number of territorial regiments and they have all confirmed both those facts.
I assure your Lordships that a great deal of resentment is caused by the different treatment meted out not only as between one territorial who happens to be unemployed and other who is employed, but as between them and the others I have just mentioned, such as the lifeboatmen and the part-time firemen. This is not a very small problem where the strength of the TA is concerned, because more than one in six members of the Territorial Army are unemployed; they come from the ranks of the unfortunate unemployed. I believe that 45 per cent. are on supplementary benefits as well.
Your Lordships know me well enough to know that I am not a great believer in jingo, but I would say without hesitation that at present the Territorial Army in this country is without parallel among volunteer forces in the world in terms of its training, its equipment and indeed its morale. Furthermore, as we all know, the Territorial Army has a key and vital role to play in NATO. The Territorial Army soldier is a very good bargain indeed for the taxpayer. There is no denying that he provides the taxpayer with really good value for money.
Therefore, I ask my noble friend Lady Trumpington personally to pass on the the Chancellor of the Exchequer that many of us on this side of the House—and I know that I speak for many of my noble friends—regard the deductions that are made as niggardly and short sighted. There is no immutable principle involved so far as I can see. I have already said that, but I want to emphasise it. Some rules are made to be bent and some rules are made to be broken. That was the second thing that I learnt after I joined the army. I cannot remember what the first was, unless it was that punctuality is being five minutes in advance of the time, which is perhaps almost as important.
When the figure was last given, which was in another place in, I think, June 1984, the cost of ending the clawback was about £5 million. Perhaps the cost today might be between £6 million and £7 million, but I am not quite sure. We shall of course have to take account of deductions that are not made where new recruits are concerned; there are also those who are already in the Territorial Army and hopefully we would be talking
1256
about a force of over 80,000 and not about a figure in the middle seventy thousands.
I think that the Government are running a severe risk—and have done so for several years—of spoiling the barrel (if I may call the Territorial Army a barrel) for a ha'p'orth of tar, and that is a very false economy. I hope that my noble friend Lady Trumpington will at least leave the door ajar, knowing, as I can assure her will be the case, that we shall be hammering on it very hard if we do not get the answer we want today.
11.24 p.m.
Lord Crawshaw of Aintree: My Lords, may I also thank my noble friend Lord Thurso for giving us this opportunity of once again bringing up this subject. I say "once again" because this is a matter that has now been running for four years. What are we talking about? In terms of money, we are talking of £1.2 million. What are we getting in return? One-third of our mobilised army in time of war will comprise territorial soldiers. Although I shall speak of territorial soldiers, these matters apply to the other reserve forces as well. It is without doubt the most cost-effective military force in Western Europe. For four years we have been haggling over whether we can allow people who are doing service for their country the right to keep the pay that they earn as territorial soldiers.
As I understand it, there are categories of people in other branches who do not have it taken back from them. Perhaps the noble Baroness will tell me whether I am correct in saying that reserve ambulance people and reserve firemen come in a category where it is not recouped from them. If that is the case, while I do not decry what they do because in fact they are emergency services, reservists in the Territorial Army not only fulfil their obligations in peacetime but they are the only part of our reserve forces and auxiliary forces which go overseas, and have an obligation to go overseas in time of war. Is that an emergency? I should have thought that one could not face any greater emergency than that. Yet they are being penalised week in and week out.
What kind of units do we expect to have when we have three people in the same category of private taking different money for the same services that they give? Those who are working, as has been explained, keep all except their income tax. Those who are on supplementary benefit have an exclusion of £28 a month. This is something which has been given this past year or so, and we pay tribute to the Minister for doing that. But in doing that it has made the situation of the unemployed man who is not on supplementary benefit even worse. He has two colleagues now who are in a better situation than he is.
The ludicrous situation now is that, having decided that they will pay for drills, if an unemployed man not on supplementary benefit attends a drill he is in fact £2.50 worse off for that drill. He will earn £2.45, which brings him over the £2 by which he loses £4.75 unemployment pay. My Lords, how ludicrous can we get? Here we have people who are willing to serve their country and we are losing them right, left and centre because the Government are not prepared to face up to paying £1.2 million.

1257
We are losing men. Every month when I attend my Territorial Association committee meeting one of the things which cause us great concern is the wastage which is taking place. Many of those who are leaving are people who joined the Territorial Army when they were working, and unfortunately have lost their jobs. They now find that it is ridiculous to stay in the Territorial Army because they are out of pocket by doing so.
If the noble Baroness wishes to have figures on that, one can say that in 1983 it was estimated that there were 13,00 members of the Territorial Army who were unemployed. Two years later, with the large increase in unemployment—and I am not making this as a party point—there were only 11,700 unemployed people in the Territorial Army. Although the percentage of unemployed in the country had gone up tremendously, it had dropped in the Territorial Army. The simple reason is that people are not prepared to serve and lose money at the same time.
It has been suggested that people will make it another source of income. What I want to stress to the noble Baroness is that when people join the Territorial Army they take on certain obligations. Those obligations are to fulfil so many days in camp and so many days' training. That is not just a nice optional extra. These are the obligations that they undertake. Is it not rather ridiculous that they are fulfilling an obligation and yet losing money because they are fulfilling that obligation?
I ask the Minister to look into this again and to discuss it with her friends to see what can be done about it. We are dealing with three people doing the same job, each receiving a different amount. It does not give any inducement for promotion. What is the good of getting promotion? All that does is to enable them to earn more and then lose more from their unemployment benefit. There is no inducement for promotion.
Not only is this wastage, but have we considered how much it costs to train a territorial soldier? What is the good of training them and losing this tremendous number of people every year? Much of this waste is because the Government are not prepared to find £1.2 million to keep up to strength and to keep trained one-third of the Army which will go into Europe in time of war. This is cheeseparing of the worst kind. I hope that we do not have to wait another four years because I assure the noble Baroness that in those four years this subject will be raised time and time again.
11.31 p.m.
The Marquess of Ailsa: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has raised this question. I am astonished by the attitude taken by the Department of Health and Social Services to Her Majesty's volunteer reserve. It is utterly disgraceful that a young man, who is prepared to undertake the commitments and training that is required to enable him to take his place alongside his regular counterparts, should be penalised because he is drawing either unemployment or supplementary benefit. I am well aware that he is paid while he is training, either in or out of camp, but his pay is taxed at source. Now we have those who are in the receipt of unemployment or
1258
supplementary benefit paying income tax, and then being penalised for doing so by the Department of Health and Social Security.
With permission, I shall quote from a letter that I have received from a company sergeant major from the first battalion of the 52nd Lowland Volunteers. A company sergeant major is a senior warrant officer with experience. His letter reads:
"Sir, In response to your request about information on the effects of the DHSS and the territorial soldier I will give you my statement as a declared soldier in receipt of unemployment benefit and with past knowledge of supplementary benefit and its effects on TA soldiers and families."
The letter continues:
"First, unemployment benefit is paid at the rate of £30.45p per week, but this is paid for Monday to Saturday only. When you work with the TA your benefit is cut by 1/16 for every day you work except Sunday. The cuts in benefit are made right away, when you declare your work on your signing on day at the unemployment office.
"As you appreciate, for example, your TA pay for January is not paid to you until the end of February. The unemployment office do not take this month in arrears into account, they take what you have declared off your next Giro".
He deals, secondly, with supplementary benefit:
"For those soldiers with a wife and family this benefit is most severe when you declare you are working. For example, the DHSS supplementary benefit is paid for a 7 day week. So if you have a wife and child or children, the DHSS reclaim all but the first £8 in a week.
"For example, TA earnings [for] 1 [week] gross pay £63.42, less tax and [National Insurance] roughly £42.28 net pay".
Out of that, the man will have received only £29.72 and he is not paid his TA pay until the next month:
"The DHSS take this money off, right away, but this family still have food and bills to pay, and they cannot off £29.72p for that week."
The writer says that if this soldier is a private and he has to go on a cadre or annual camp, then this soldier's wages in the TA would be lower than his, as a company sergeant major; that he would still have to sign off for the cadre or camp and his pay would then be a lot less than his supplementary benefit. Also, by signing off, the council would expect him to pay his full rent for those two weeks, which is normally paid by supplementary benefit.
He continues:
"This is a main reason we lose or have a high turnover of TA soldiers. They cannot support their families while they are…at camp, and also the reduced weekly benefit, when they attend normal training, puts a strain and hardships on their families.
"Thirdly, by being declared as a TA soldier, there are times you are suspended from benefit until you prove to the DHSS that you are trying to find work. This happened to me at the end of 1985 when, without prior notification, I was suspended from benefit until I proved that I was trying to secure a full time job. The red tape and time wasted in processing a fresh claim involve hardship on those families and single claimants. Until a system is devised to protect the TA soldier from these hardships, we will always have a high turnover of men.
"I myself find it difficult, financially, as I have no help in paying my bills. I rely solely on my TA pay to pay my bills, as I do not wish to go onto supplementary benefit, but I can be forced to do so after 1 year unemployed. I would then be working solely for £8 per week…with the TA and suffer the hardships [I have referred to] in the second part of this letter.
"Sir, [I am] your most obedient servant".
I have received other letters of a similar nature. I have also heard accounts of those soldiers who, for various reasons, ignorance or otherwise, have failed to declare to the Department of Health and

1259
Social Security that they are members of the Territorial Army. I have accounts of their being photographed outside their drill halls in uniform and then subjected to a grilling which one would normally have associated with the Gestapo or other kinds of services.
It has already cost the country a considerable amount of money to recruit these men. It has cost much more to train them. Surely, clawing back and making them wish to leave is not the most cost-effective way of using the taxpayers' money, especially when one realises that, whether they like it or not, these soldiers are themselves taxpayers. I understand that if these men had joined and become volunteer firemen or ambulancemen, or even joined the lifeboat corps, they would be treated in a very different manner by the Department of Health and Social Security. It appears that the department "has it in" for those who serve the volunteer forces of the Crown.
Last autumn we heard a lot about the exercise "Brave Defender". I have always understood that the purpose of that exercise was to see how our volunteer forces could acquit themselves when faced by the special forces from behind the Iron Curtain or elsewhere. But it appears to me that we in this country have more to fear from the work of the DHSS than from any outside hostile force. We seem to have a fifth column within. I hope very much that the noble Baroness who is to answer the Unstarred Question will be able to assure me that I am wrong, and not only that her department recognises the dedication and commitment that is required of, and is given by, those who join the volunteer forces of the Crown, but that her department will do what it can to ensure that no action on its part will hinder or deter those who are prepared to serve their country. Their country needs them now and will need them even more in the future.
11.44 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I think that we are all very much indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who has brought this very important matter before your Lordships tonight. I would only like to say that my noble friends totally agree that there should be a solution for all the problems that have been brought before us. I must say that it is very interesting that it appears to be a crop of old women who are going to deal with this problem of the Territorial Army tonight. But that is how it is.
I would just like to ask the noble Baroness why unemployment benefit is not payable for any day on which earnings from employment exceed £2. Now, £2 is not very much money. Therefore, if the £2 is to be correlated with TA volunteers, that does not seem to be very generous. Then I gather that there is another rule about Sundays; that pay for Sunday training does not affect entitlement to unemployment benefit, which is a daily benefit not payable for Sundays. I do not know what is special about Sundays in this connection, but I understand that an unemployed volunteer will lose one day's benefit if he was working on a Sunday, but not if he was working on another day.
1260
I do not want to detain your Lordships with all these details, but I should like to submit to the House that there are many anomalies and stupidities connected with the whole question of Territorial Army volunteers' payment and non-payment. I should like to think that it will be possible for the noble Baroness who is to reply to say that the Government are going to look again at the whole question. When volunteers go to their camps or to their weekly processes there must be a fairness for those who are unemployed so that there is not discrimination.
That is all I want to ask of the noble Baroness tonight. I should like to be assured that Territorial Army people will not suffer because of their unemployment and that fairness will be achieved.
11.46 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has given us the opportunity this evening to review the financial situation of a well-loved group of volunteers and we are grateful to him for so doing. Perhaps I may start by setting the scene in a general way. The Government are firmly committed to maintaining and enhancing strong reserve forces, and have embarked on a major expansion programme for all three services since 1979. It is planned that the Royal Naval Reserve should be increased to 7,800 from its level of just over 5,000 at the end of 1984. The Royal Auxiliary Air Force has been steadily expanding over recent years, with auxiliary field squadrons proving a most effective force.
The expansion of the Territorial Army is making good progress towards our target of 86,000; its strength was only some 59,000 when we came to office, and it is now more than 76,000 including an increase of some 4,000 in the past year alone. Equally successful has been the expansion of the Home Service Force, which has already grown to 2,800, over halfway to our initial target strength of 5,000, and we shall be considering whether we can go beyond that figure. In what I say hereafter I shall refer, for convenience, to the TA, but in principle the same factors apply to members of the other reserve forces to which I have referred.
We are the first to acknowledge that there are problems which need to be resolved. Despite the expansion that I have outlined, retention rates are a source of major concern and a great deal of effort is being put into finding ways of improving the situation, for example by better training opportunities, more interesting activities, better terms of service, and better financial rewards for these men and women who (let us not forget the fact) are all volunteers setting aside their spare time for service in the national interest and greatly to be applauded for so doing. I should be the last person to denigrate their efforts.
Tonight's discussion has focused on the question of financial rewards, and I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that this is very complicated. In particular, it is focused on the discrepancy between the position of employed volunteers who get the full benefit of the TA pay they receive and those who have the misfortune to be unemployed and who are then

1261
liable to lose part of their weekly benefit because of their TA earnings. Let me say at once that I do not believe that these reservists, all volunteers as I have said, join the TA just for the financial rewards it offers. But equally I believe that they should receive a fair reward, whether they are otherwise employed or are unemployed. That was one of the questions put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. A considerable number of volunteers are unemployed and in receipt of benefits and we would not want them to be discouraged from remaining in the TA because of the way their benefit is affected. We must ensure that there is a reasonable incentive for them.
It may be helpful to noble Lords if I start by explaining the way in which earnings affect benefits generally and then show how the rules work in the case of TA members. There are, as the noble Viscount's Question indicates, two different benefits involved: supplementary benefit and unemployment benefit. The earnings rules are necessarily different because supplementary benefit is income-related, designed to bring the recipient's other income, if he has any, up to the level laid down by Parliament, while unemployment benefit is a contingency benefit paid from the national insurance scheme—in this case, to meet the contingency of unemployment.
In common with unemployment benefit, TA pay is liable to tax according to the individual's tax position, and that tax is deducted at the standard rate from TA pay at source, leaving the individual to recover overpaid tax, if any, at the end of the tax year. Virtually all TA volunteers are liable to some tax on their earnings.
Since 1980 the standard supplementary benefit earnings rule has provided for the first £4 per week of net earnings to be disregarded. The balance of earnings are taken into account in assessing entitlement so that they reduce the benefit. It could be argued that all income should be taken into account in a means-related scheme but it is recognised that there must be some incentive to the recipients to be to some extent self-supporting and so to keep in touch with the employment field; and the disregard serves that purpose.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene, is she suggesting that those people are remaining unemployed because they are in receipt of Territorial Army pay? That is what it sounded like.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must make it clear that I was not suggesting that. Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to continue. As I have indicated, the unemployment benefit rule is very different. That benefit is not payable for any day when a person earns more than £2. The figure was raised to that level in 1982 having been 75 pence for about 10 years. In principle, unemployment benefit, being founded on unemployment, should not be paid for a day on which a person does any work but the £2 sets a de minimis level so that trivial earnings can be ignored.
The two earnings rules that I have described do not give the full picture so far as TA pay is concerned
1262
because the Government have made two changes in the supplementary benefits system to give much more generous treatment compared with that afforded to earnings in general. First, since 1982 TA earnings—which I should explain are paid monthly—have had four weeks disregard applied to them instead of one week, as had been the case before. That is done whether the member earns the pay in one, two, three or four weeks in the month. Secondly, since August 1984 an extra disregard of £4 per week has been allowed on TA earnings. The combined effect of those two changes is that a volunteer's earnings of up to £32 per month are disregarded.
In looking at how those supplementary benefit rules and procedures affect TA members, we need to distinguish between the training given at the annual camp, normally 15 days, and the training undertaken at weekends and in the evenings. I see no reasonable alternative to benefit being withdrawn for the period spent at camp. I remind the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that family income supplement is not withdrawn when a man goes to camp. I say also to my noble friend Lord Ailsa that I have never actually thought of myself as a fifth column. We cannot ignore fraud if people do not tell us of earnings, but we do not persecute people and give them the "third degree". We do not prosecute in trivial cases. We must of course ask questions if we find a man who has undisclosed earnings. I am sorry that my noble friend phrased his remarks in the way that he did.
Soldiers cannot realistically be available for work during the period that they spend at camp—a basic condition for benefit—while their earnings, which average more than £100 per week even for the lowest ranks, are well in excess of the sum that many men earn for a week's work in employment generally. However, so far as weekend and evening training is concerned, the position is different. Someone whose training lasts for not more than 72 hours can be accepted as being available for work, while availability is not of course in question for someone involved in evening training. Weekend and evening training is rarely likely to conflict with full-time work and indeed most TA men are in full-time employment. The question therefore is to what extent we should ignore TA pay when assessing benefit entitlement.
I do not think there is a good case for changing the present supplementary benefit rules particularly bearing in mind the recent relatively generous concessions. The Ministry of Defence has told my officials that the average net pay after deduction of income tax for the lowest three ranks is £11.61 a day, and this means that a man would have to be paid for three days in a month before his benefit would be affected. He would then lose about £2.80 for £34.80 earnings. The amount of training a member is obliged to do in order to qualify for this bounty, apart from the annual camp, is at most 19 days. This averages out at just over one and a half days a month so there will not be many months in which pay will affect supplementary benefit. Attendance for the obligatory period earns a TA member a significant annual bounty which is now £455 for all ranks after three years' service. For supplementary benefit purposes this is treated as capital and therefore in effect ignored. That means that the bounty would affect benefit only if,

1263
quite exceptionally, when added to the claimant's other capital, it brought the total to over £3,000.
I believe that these special rules about TA earnings ensure that there is a real incentive for the volunteer who is in receipt of supplementary benefit. I would add that when income support replaces supplementary benefit from April 1988 we intend to increase the standard disregard of earnings to £5 a week and to introduce a special disregard of £15 for couples unemployed for over two years. When added to the extra disregard for TA members, all volunteers receiving this benefit will then be able to earn £36 and some as much as £76 a month without any loss of benefit.
As I have said, the unemployment benefit rules are different. This benefit is paid for days of unemployment and so is not paid for days on which the claimant works; though, as I have explained, days on which he works but earns £2 or less are counted as days of unemployment. The effect is that a man loses two weeks' benefit for a fortnight's camp. The standard rates of benefit are £30.45 for a single man and £49.25 for a man and wife so that the maximum loss of benefit is £98.50, but Territorial Army earnings for the same period would be well over £170. So far as a weekend's camp is concerned, a man loses only one day's benefit—£5.07 or £8.27 for a man with a dependent wife—because benefit is paid for only six days of the week and not for Sundays. For this weekend camp he will receive at least £23 pay net. The annual bounty does not affect unemployment benefit because it is averaged over the full year and so is less than £2 a day.
Perhaps I may take up a point made by my noble friend Lord Ailsa and tell him that supplementary benefit is not reduced until the earnings are received. Unemployment benefit is, as I said, reduced for days worked, no matter when paid, but supplementary benefit can be paid to avoid hardship. If my noble friend Lord Ailsa can give me details of the rent problems he mentioned, I shall gladly take up these matters.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, that there is one area where territorial pay does of course cause a problem as far as the recipients of unemployment benefit are involved, and that concerns payment for evening training. Before April 1985 territorials received only an expense allowance for evening attendance and benefit was unaffected, but from that date they have been paid a quarter-day's pay for each attendance. This results in the volunteer losing a day's benefit because his pay—frequently only £2.90 net—exceeds the £2 a day earnings rule.
We are reluctant to amend the unemployment benefit regulations to cover this situation. To make such a change for Territorial Army pay in isolation would inevitably lead to pressure for similar favourable treatment for other special groups, such as special constables, and for the ordinary earnings limit to be raised, which is a move that we do not consider to be justified.
My noble friend Lord Chelwood brought up the question of money earned by lifeboatmen and part-time firemen, and before I deal with that point I would
1264
just say to the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, that this does not include part-time ambulancemen. The complete disregard of the earnings of lifeboatmen and part-time firemen started in wartime in recognition of the hazardous duties they performed. Over the years there have been many representations on behalf of people performing a wide variety of public services on a part-time basis for similar treatment to be afforded to them, but we have always taken the view that the special rules for lifeboatmen and part-time firemen were anomalies and should not be extended.
Of course, just to cover another point made by my noble friend Lord Chelwood, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be well aware of the sentiments addressed through me to him by my noble friend Lord Chelwood.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, may I put one very brief point to my noble friend? Is she able to update the figure, which was last given about 18 months ago, of what would be the cost to the taxpayer? With total disregard for territorial volunteers, it was £5 million at June 1984, I think. If my noble friend cannot tell me now, could she write to me about it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I could tell my noble friend if I turned it up, but it will take too long and I do notice an air of weariness in some parts of the House. I would say especially to my noble friend Lord Chelwood and to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that of course I fully understand that a reservist feels aggrieved when the benefit he loses is more than his earnings. At present my officials are consulting those of the Ministry of Defence to see what can be done to help territorials in this position. The £2 earnings rule for unemployed benefit was increased to that level in 1982 after being 75p for 10 years, mostly under the previous Administration, as I said in answer to the noble Baroness.
I am of course aware that wastage in the Territorial Army and indeed the other reserve forces is higher than we would wish it to be, but I am not persuaded that this is a result of the problems which have been referred to tonight. I would submit to the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, that some wastage—I would prefer to call it turnover—is inevitable, though I agree that the loss rate in earlier years is a matter for concern. But there are many causes for these losses—such as family pressures and employment pressures—and all are receiving attention, though as I say there will always be a natural and inevitable outflow. But as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne pointed out on 3rd July last year, recruitment is going well and we do not see any reason why the planned target of 86,000 by 1990 should not be reached.
Lord Crawshaw of Aintree: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether she thinks a case can be made out in respect of that training which they are obliged to do, as opposed to anything in excess of it—that is, the camp and so many 10-day attendances? They are obliged to do that by the very fact that they are in the Territorial Army. Obviously one cannot give carte blanche to people who wish to go and spend weeks and weeks that they are not obliged to fulfil, but can the noble Baroness make out a case in respect of the obligation which they have?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I feel that that is a matter for those who operate the TA and not for me to discuss this evening. The noble Lord's remarks will have been noted.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at five minutes past midnight.

  GLC AND MCC PROPERTIES: TRANSFER TO SUCCESSOR BODIES
  GLC AND MCC PROPERTIES: TRANSFER TO SUCCESSOR BODIES
  AIRBUS INDUSTRIE: LAUNCH AID
  AIRBUS INDUSTRIE: LAUNCH AID
  FALKLANDS: HOME LEAVE FOR SERVICE PERSONNEL
  FALKLANDS: HOME LEAVE FOR SERVICE PERSONNEL
  ENGLISH CHANNEL AND DANGEROUS CARGOES
  ENGLISH CHANNEL AND DANGEROUS CARGOES