Sitting of 30 June 1987

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

  Member Sworn
  The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
  William Jeremy Masefield Shelton, esquire, Streatham.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Cancer Screening
    Mr. Fatchettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of cervical cancer screening machines in each of the English and Welsh district health authorities.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): Cervical cancer screening requires only the simplest of equipment, which is readily available in all district health authorities.
    Mr. Fatchett: Despite that comment by the junior Minister, is it not the case that, in most authorities, there is not an adequate system of call and recall for cervical cancer screening? The reality is that only one authority in five in England and Wales has that service. Is it not time for the Minister, instead of giving glib answers, to reassure men and women throughout the country that she is prepared to invest in a real service and to make the money available for a call and recall scheme for all women at risk?
    Mrs. Currie: The call and recall system is not in itself a screening system, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises. I am also aware that in his own city, Leeds, progress is being made to introduce a full computerised call and recall system. The family practitioner committee is currently computerising its register as the first stage. Until then, a manual system is in operation for recall, which is achieving a commendable 80 per cent. response.
    Dame Jill Knight: Has my hon. Friend any knowledge of when it may be possible to offer regular cancer cervical tests for all women who are calculated by the medical profession now to be at risk?
    Mrs. Currie: It is possible now to offer regular testing, and we recommend that women between 20 and 65 should come in and be tested on a regular basis. The dispute is not about the screening system that is available now. It is about the computerised call and recall systems, and we expect that all health authorities will meet their target of next spring.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister realise that several hundred women in Liverpool have had to be recalled,
    358
    either for hospital treatment or for further tests, because of errors in analysis? What assurances can she give women throughout the country that tests of this kind are accurate? Does she have faith in the present system, or does she believe that these errors can be eliminated in some way or other?
    Mrs. Currie: Yes. I, like many millions of women, have complete faith in the present system. The problems in Liverpool, as the hon. Lady knows, are the subject of an inquiry.
    Mr. Conway: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the substantial progress that the Government have made in this area, but may I draw her attention to the length of time it has taken, particularly in the county of Shropshire, for people who undergo the examination to get the results of the tests? I have a letter from a constituent in the Bayston Hill area of Shrewsbury who has been waiting since January, and we are now in the last day of June. That is quite long enough to wait.
    Mrs. Currie: It gives me no pleasure whatever to confirm that the waiting time in Shropshire is the worst in the country. I hope that my hon. Friend will add these remarks to those made during last night's Adjournment debate in his further discussions with the local health authority.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister tell us when the 56 health authorities that promised to bring in call and recall schemes by 30 March, but failed to do so, will do so?
    Mrs. Currie: The advice that we have received, which we have confirmed once again this week, is that all health authorities expect to have their computerised call and recall systems up and running by next spring. I reiterate that if the hon. Gentleman wants to assist women who might at some stage suffer from cervical cancer he should encourage those who have never been tested to come in for a test. They do not have to wait until they get a computerised piece of paper. The test is available now.

    Diabetics
    Mr. Wallerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when free needles and syringes will be available to diabetics.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): Re-usable syringes and needles are already available on prescription. As I announced on 14 May, disposable syringes and needles will be available on prescription from 1 September. Since diabetics who need insulin are exempt from all prescription charges, they will be free for adults as well as for children.
    Mr. Waller: I congratulate my hon. Friend on making available the resources to bring about an improvement which will be of considerable benefit to many diabetics. Is he satisfied that by September sufficient supplies of the disposable equivalent will be available and that satisfactory arrangements will be made for the safe disposal of used needles?
    Mr. Newton: Yes. It is because I wished to be sure on those two points that the system is being introduced a little later than I had originally hoped, but we have made arrangements which I am confident will be satisfactory.
    Ms. Richardson: Doubtless the Minister is aware that many thousands of carers now have to pay for syringes for

    359
    those loved ones for whom they care. The carers tend to be poor women who cannot afford to pay. Was it not a mean act by the Government to announce at one and the same time the increase in prescription charges and the availability, albeit later, of free syringes? Was not the availability of the free syringes put in as a sweetener, as it were, to disguise the increase in prescription charges?
    Mr. Newton: I am a bit puzzled by what the hon. Lady says. Syringes and needles are already free on prescription, but they are re-usable syringes and needles. We are substituting free provision of the more convenient and comfortable disposable syringes and needles. The hon. Lady's approach is typical of the mean-minded, nitpicking that we have heard from the Opposition recently.

    Pensions
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the value in real terms of the basic retirement pension to (a) a single person and (b) a married couple, as a proportion of average earnings, compared with their value after the November 1977 upratings.
    The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The basic retirement pension was 33·8 per cent. of average net male manual earnings in November 1977 and 29·8 per cent. on estimated April 1987 figures. The corresponding figures for a married couple were 50·8 and 45·3 per cent., respectively.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not disgraceful that, at a time when, for instance, managing directors throughout the country are increasing their own salaries at a colossal and almost unprecedented rate and are telling people who want a slight increase not to be greedy, pensioners should be hard put to it to pay standing charges and television licences? Surely the so-called boom that is going on should not allow that to happen. Was not the last increase of 40p a direct, pitiful insult to the pensioners, and is it not time that the Government did something for them?
    Mr. Scott: If we are talking about pitiful points, the hon. Gentleman secures first prize. What the Government have done since they were elected is to see that the total income of pensioners as a whole—and that is what matters—has risen twice as fast as the income of the population as a whole. We have given pensioners a share in Britain's rising living standards.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my hon. Friend concede that we want no lectures from the Labour party on caring for pensioners? Was it not the Tories who first introduced pensions for the over-80s and who twice restored the Christmas bonus that was snatched away by the Labour Government?
    Mr. Scott: Although I am very tolerant, accepting lectures from those who behaved in the way described by my hon. Friend, those who pledged themselves to link pensions to earnings and then failed to fulfil their promises in government, is a bit thick.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister concede that one of the biggest losses to pensioners during the period of this Government has, of course, been the conscious break with uprating in relation to earnings and that that has led to a severe loss of pensioners' puchasing power? Will he at least
    360
    look at the principle of entering into discussions with the major utilities with a view to trying to abolish standing charges for pensioners?
    Mr. Scott: With regard to those utilities, gas and electricity prices have fallen in real terms over the period of this Government. That fall and the general fall in inflation have helped pensioners. A mistake that is often made in these matters is to refer simply to the basic pension rather than to the total income of pensioners as a whole. Our plans and aims for the future mean that we will widen choice and improve opportunities so that people may receive extra help beyond the basic pension.
    Mr. Steen: I recognise that the Government have done a great job for pensioners, but does my hon. Friend none the less agree that while he was out on the election trail most hon. Members on both sides of the House must have been struck by and concerned about the level and quality of life of people living on nothing but the state pension? When he considers the uprating of pensions, will he see whether the Government can do something for people with no income other than the one pension? Those people cannot maintain dignity of life simply on the current level of pension.
    Mr. Scott: The vast majority of people who receive the basic pension would also be entitled to supplementary benefit and full housing cost benefit. They would also receive help with heating additions, insulation grants and a passport to a free Health Service. It is the duty of all hon. Members to encourage those people receiving the basic pension to ensure that they receive all the benefits to which they are entitled.
    Mrs. Beckett: I welcome the Minister to this particular bed of nails. I sympathise with him, because he obviously has not been with the Department long enough to know just how dubious are some of the facts that he has been fed. The total income of pensioners has risen only as a reflection of the scheme introduced by the previous Labour Government, which the present Government have just emasculated. The figures that the Minister has given show that under this Government the standard of living of a pensioner couple has fallen by 5 per cent., and that rather more reflects reality. How many pensioners do the Government predict will he on income support by the end of the century?
    Mr. Scott: This will depend on the levels of income support and how they move. Incidentally, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her generous welcome. I note that she is fresh from the hustings. I regard this, not as a bed of nails, but as an opportunity to ensure that the vast sums of money that the Government spend and are continuing to spend on social security are targeted increasingly on those most in need.
    Mr. Fallon: Does my hon. Friend recall that at the hustings the majority of pensioners rejected Labour's fake fiver? Does he accept that pensioners understand better than any other group in society the hyper-inflation that would follow from any kind of proposed linkage?
    Mr. Scott: The electorate saw through the blank cheque offered by Labour Members, not least noting the divisions between the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould).

    Child Abuse
    Miss Lestorasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what extra resources his Department is making available to local authorities to deal with the problems of child abuse.
    Mr. Newton: The1987–88 provision for personal social services was a 12·8 per cent. increase on 1986–87, representing a significant increase in real terms. This included additional provision for children's services and for training. Central funds have also been made available for a number of specific projects to improve the training of social workers and others who may be concerned with child abuse.
    Miss Lestor: While in no way wishing to comment on any of the matters that were raised yesterday in a very heated atmosphere, may I point out to the Minister that physical or sexual abuse of children, which is now reported in far greater numbers, is about the biggest theft of childhood that any child can experience and that local authorities, despite what the Minister has said, are hard pushed to meet the demands on them for training in detection and how to deal with children who have been damaged'? Is he aware that we further betray those children if, having encouraged people to come forward and give evidence about these matters, we fail to meet the needs of the children?
    Mr. Newton: I would not entirely agree with the implication of the hon. Lady's remarks. I agree that the problem is not only one of resources, but of skills and expertise, and that is precisely why we have been putting so much additional effort—including, for example, cooperation with Great Ormond street, the National Children's Bureau and the National Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Children—into improving training in those areas. That is important.
    Mr. McCrindle: Quite apart from resources, does the Minister not feel that when doctors, social workers, magistrates and local authorities appear to be approaching this extremely important matter in divergent ways it is urgent for the Secretary of State, together, perhaps, with the Home Secretary, to call together representatives of all the strands of care in this vital area of activity to see whether a more cohesive approach can be created, including updated legislation if that proves necessary?
    Mr. Newton: If I agreed entirely with my hon. Friend my answer would he yes, but the arrangements for proper inter-agency co-operation are working well in most parts of the country. It is clear that in at least one part of the country they do not appear to be working well, and our problem is to make sure that they work well everywhere.
    Miss Mowlam: Will the Minister condemn the outrageous statement made in the House yesterday by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) when he equated the Cleveland social services with the SS?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend referred to a particular case which he said had been brought to his attention and on which I am not in a position to comment—[Interruption.] I am not prepared to comment on the hon. Lady's question this afternoon any more than I was prepared to comment on my hon. Friend's question yesterday afternoon.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Are not such cases always extremely difficul to assess, and does not intervention and help require great skill? Does my hon. Friend agree that social workers require proper training and co-ordination and that procedures between agencies must be properly implemented? Can my hon. Friend offer any encouragement that we shall update the law on child care, making more explicit the rights and responsibilities of local authorities and parents?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that we have published proposals in those respects and that within the next few months we are hoping to put out in a final form the draft guidance that we have had out for some time to make quite sure that inter-agency co-operation, which we all agree is needed, takes place effectively throughout the country.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that often the increase in cases of child abuse occurs most when families are under pressure in areas of deprivation; that, as the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said, some places need an increase in resources; that others, particularly the inner cities, need better co-ordination between the health and social services; and that in all regions the Minister should take a lead in implementing a system of second checks so that the rights of all can be protected at the first stage, because after that it can never be done adequately and suspicion will never be got rid of?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have noted what was said yesterday by the Northern regional health authority in setting up a pilot scheme. We shall obviously want to look at and learn from the experience of that scheme.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister accept from one who has just left the administration of social work training that those directly involved accept that there is a desperate need for additional resourcing in that vital area? All members of the social work profession accept that professionally trained social workers are the best way to avoid problems in society. Therefore, will he give an early indication of when we can expect a statement on the diploma of qualification in social work, to enable schemes on the certificate in social service and the certificate of qualification in social work to progress in preparation for 1991?
    Mr. Newton: With her expertise, the hon. Lady will know that I had discussions with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work a few months ago. It is doing some more work on its proposals in order to refine them, and we shall look at those carefully when we have them later in the year.
    Mr. Andrew Bowden: Does my hon. Friend recall the case of Maria Caldwell, who was brutally killed by her stepfather in my constituency? Surely he will remember that, as a result, a new Act came on to the statute book which altered the balance of the rights between parents and children. In view of the tragic situation that has now arisen in Cleveland, and the new figures produced by the NSPCC, will he ensure that any future legislation continues to keep that balance right, that we do not overreact, and always remember that children's rights must come first?
    Mr. Newton: Having held these responsibilities at an earlier stage, and in a different capacity as well, I am very

    363
    conscious of the fact that the most difficult single problem is getting that balance right. Indeed, that has been illustrated within the past few weeks—by the Kimberley Carlisle case not long ago, on which we shall soon receive a report, and by what is now alleged to have happened in Cleveland. It is an acutely difficult problem, and I am very conscious of it.
    Dr. Godman: Given that most perpetrators of this kind of abuse are men and that the overwhelming majority of victims are young girls, should not the Government, among other things, encourage the recruitment of many more women doctors into the ranks of police surgeons? Police surgeons have an important role to play, and they, too, must be given the right kind of training.
    Mr. Newton: I believe I am right in saying that the number of women doctors generally is increasing. I look to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to confirm that. However, I shall certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that, while women doctors may be becoming more numerous, women police surgeons are not? Even in the House today there is a tendency, which is reflected nationally, for people to bury their heads in the sand and miss the tragedy that is taking place in the nation. More resources are needed to deal with it. Can a social worker do a case conference, enter into multi-disciplinary conferments, and at the same time be on his or her patch dealing with the problems? Does the Minister accept that more resources are needed? Can such resources also be made available to Northern Ireland, or will that have to go to the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference?
    Mr. Newton: I said in my reply to the original question from the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) that there had been a substantial increase in the provision for social services for the current year and that that took account of children's services. Of course, we shall continue to take those matters into account, not least the recent experience, when considering allocations for future years.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that, in view of the stream of horrific child abuse cases in recent years and the current hysteria that does not make for good policy-making, it is a serious failure that the Government have still not formalised guidance for dealing with such cases? As Cleveland is now referring children at a rate more than 10 times greater than the national average, does that not suggest that there are enormous and unacceptable variations in the handling of problems and that there are no agreed medical rules for diagnosing child abuse? Will the Minister therefore convene a national panel of all the relevant professional interests to try to achieve a national consensus on the identification, handling and treatment of a very serious problem that has been underestimated for years?
    Mr. Newton: We already have in hand arrangements to prepare practice guidance for social workers, for health visitors and, in the sense that the hon. Gentleman suggested it, for doctors. As I said yesterday on a different angle of the problem, I frankly think that it would be better for us to get on with that work than to convene a national conference along the lines that he suggests.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will understand why I allowed a fairly long run on that question, but I feel that we must now move on rather more rapidly.

    Cancer Screening
    Mr. Simon Coombsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the national breast cancer screening programme.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Moore): The first nationwide breast cancer screening service in the world is to be established in this country within three years. Regional health authorities are making good progress in planning for their first centres, which will be set up by 31 March 1988. The remainder will follow within the next two years. The four training centres for staff involved in screening throughout the country have already been selected and are now being set up. They will be at Guildford, Nottingham, Manchester and Camberwell.
    Mr. Coombs: May I be the first on the Conservative Benches to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and express the hope that in future he will find it possible to spend more of the nation's resources more effectively on those most in need? May I also ask him to confirm to the House that the Government intend to implement in full the recommendations of the Forrest report?
    Mr. Moore: Yes, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment made that absolutely clear on 25 February when he announced the publication of the Forrest report and the acceptance of its proposals and decisions. While thanking my hon. Friend for his remarks, may I also confirm that what all of us on both sides of the Chamber ought to be concerned about is the effective use of national resources for caring.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in taking on the full recommendations of the Forrest report the Government will make available all the necessary financial resources to achieve immediate implementation?
    Mr. Moore: Comments on resources were made quite clear on 25 February : £6 million in the first year, £13 million in the second year and £22 million in the third year. That will allow, as was also made clear in the statement, not simply for screening but for assessment of the diagnoses and for treatment.
    Mr. Dobson: Is the Secretary of State really satisfied with a breast cancer screening system that will not screen any women under the age of 50 or over the age of 65?
    Mr. Moore: I am satisfied that, unlike some Opposition Members, the Government took precisely the advice that was given in the Forrest report. When it was published in 1986 the Forrest report concluded that
    the effectiveness of screening by mammography has not so far been demonstrated in women under 50 years of age. Out of some 15,000 deaths from breast cancer in the United Kingdom, over 13,000 are among women over 50.
    Therefore, it is quite clear that the Government sought to implement precisely the Forrest recommendations. As for women under the age of 50, the Government have made it clear that research will continue to be pursued not only through Professor Vessey but through the Medical

    365
    Research Council. As for women over the age of 65, they may avail themselves of the service, but it is not specifically geared to them in the first instance.

    X-ray Equipment
    Mr. Frank Cookasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when his Department last conducted a survey of the safety standards of National Health Service X-ray equipment.
    Mrs. Currie: The safety standards of National Health Service equipment are covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and more recently by the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985. It is the health authorities and other National Health Service users of X-ray equipment who are individually responsible for ensuring that these regulations are observed, and it is the duty of the Health and Safety Executive, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, to enforce compliance.
    Mr. Cook: I thank the Minister for telling me what I already knew. I know where the responsibilities lie. Having avoided the question on the Order Paper, will the Minister tell me whether she is aware that medical opinion—and I guess that we must listen to medical opinion, even if there is conflict among it—says that 1,400 serious cancers per year are caused in the United Kingdom by the over-prescription of radiography and by the use of outdated and antiquated radiographic equipment? What does the Minister or her Department intend to do about that parlous state of affairs?
    Mrs. Currie: I am sure that there are many medical opinions that would challenge vigorously the extraordinary statement that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Radiotherapy is one of the most long-established and best treatments for cancer that we have. May I also remind him, in case he had not noticed, that we are in the middle of the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the National Health Service. As part of that programme, in the past five years more than 120 new X-ray rooms have been provided. More than 50 of them were provided last year.

    Board and Lodging Payments
    Mr. Boyesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to abolish the time limits on board and lodging payments to young people on supplementary benefit.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): April 1989, Sir.
    Mr. Boyes: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition greatly condemn these pernicous, punitive and unpopular board and lodging payments and the fact that young people will have to wait as long as 1989 for them to be abolished? Why cannot he for once act in a humanitarian way by announcing an immediate end to this lousy and rotten system that was introduced by the Government?
    Mr. Portillo: From April 1989 unemployed boarders will look to housing benefit to meet their housing costs. The reason for its postponement to April 1989 is precisely because the local authority associations wished it to be that date.
    Mr. Squire: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his elevation to the Front Bench. His appointment will give much pleasure to many of his colleagues. Does he accept that there are links between homelessness and joblessness, and that a consequence of the present system is that a considerable number of younger people are required to move every few weeks?
    Mr. Portillo: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind personal remarks. The evidence from the surveys that we have conducted is not that young people are being forced to move from area to area. Many are remaining in the same area and claiming the benefit at the non-householder rate.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that during the summer months——
    Hon. Members: Look at the hon. Member's jacket.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware——
    Hon. Members: Look at the jacket.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is often worn in tropical countries.
    Mr. Corbyn: Speaking on behalf of those in the hills, is the Minister aware that during the summer months many young people, especially in London, face a particular danger in that their board and lodging accommodation is taken away from them to make way for tourists, who are prepared to pay more money for it, and that consequently those young people are thrown on to the streets? What action does the Minister intend to take to protect those young homeless people in the cities from the ravages of the tourist industry?
    Mr. Portillo: One of the reasons why we have imposed time limits is that we did not want to induce young people into this sort of accommodation. We believe that the levels that have been set for paying these boarding charges are appropriate to the areas in which those levels have been set.
    Mr. Gale: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that no changes to the current DHSS regulations will be made until the changes to the use classes order 1986 have been clarified, to ensure that no further seaside hotels are turned into DHSS hostels by "dole-on-sea" racketeers?
    Mr. Portillo: I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that we are not going back to the bad old days. Under the new system boarders will no longer get special benefit rates over and above those that are paid to other claimants. They will have to meet the enhanced availability for work tests that are being introduced at present. Local authorities will have greater powers to refuse to meet unreasonable charges, rather than greater incentives to do so.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister not realise that if people are staying in the same place it is probably because of the number of times on which the Government's regulations have been ruled to be illegal and, therefore, not operative? Does he not recognise that the exemption system is working very badly, that there is tremendous resentment among those who are forced to move round and that it is particularly stupid that by doing so they cannot even get on to a housing list? Will he reconsider the answer that he has given?
    Mr. Portillo: No. I am not aware of those problems. It appears to me that the system is working well. Twenty five per cent. of youngsters between 16 and 25 are exempt and there is the possibility of applying to the Secretary of State for further exemption. Some 280 cases for exemption have been considered.

    Nurses (Pay)
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects nurses to receive the pay increase which the Government awarded them in April.
    Mr. Moore: All nurses should have received the new rates of pay in their June pay packets and arrears by the end of July. This means that under this Government the pay of nurses in the National Health Service has risen since 1979 in real terms by 30 per cent.
    Mr. Bowden: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that in inner London there are acute shortages of nurses in many departments in many hospitals? Can ways be explored to find the means not only of recruiting but of retaining those nurses in London hospitals?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw our attention to the problems of London, which do affect the employment not only of nurses, but of many other employers in the capital city as well. There are clear problems in relation to accommodation, the environment in which the hospitals are situated, and transport. These are being looked at, because I recognise that there is a particular difficulty with regard to the recruitment and retention of nurses.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why should a highly trained operating department assistant working in theatre earn less than a nurse? Is his or her contribution to the NHS any less, or the same?
    Mr. Moore: If I were to start what I hope will be a lengthy career in this job by trying to decide on the relative differentials of those who are employed in the good, caring National Health Service I would be starting on the wrong track. The Government have sought to ensure that nurses and the Health Service as a whole have received real increases, which was their due, and I was delighted to be able to confirm that in the original answer.
    Mr. Raison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in places outside London, such as Stoke Mandeville hospital in my constituency, there are peculiar difficulties in recruiting nurses due to the high cost of housing and the abundance of other jobs? Will he give careful consideration to the possibility of extending some sort of pay weighting to help offset this?
    Mr. Moore: I do not want to go into the technical details to which my right hon. Friend has referred, but I am aware of the problems of Stoke Mandeville hospital. All of us are concerned to ensure that nurses, who serve us so well, are properly rewarded. We are aware of particular parts of the country where there are problems that are specifically related to accommodation. I will concern myself particularly with the point that my right hon. Friend has made.

    Benefits
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in his review of benefit rates in the tax year 1987–88, he will take account of the increase in average earnings since 1979.
    Mr. Scott: Several factors, including any increase in earnings, may be considered when benefits are uprated, but the statutory obligation is to take account of whether benefits have retained their value in relation to the general movement of prices. We have honoured that obligation.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister acknowledge the fact that had average earnings been linked to pensions a single pensioner would be £7·40 a week better off and a married couple £11·20 a week better off than in 1979? Is it any wonder that pensioners feel abandoned and ignored by this Government? Does the Minister understand that if pensions rose, not only would that give greater dignity in retirement to pensioners, but it would have a good effect on the British economy and on employment, as the spending of pensioners tends to relate to British jobs and services?
    Mr. Scott: Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. He is concentrating entirely on basic pensions. The income of pensioners in this country has risen by no less than 18 per cent. in real terms since we took office. By pursuing a pensions policy for the future that is based on choice and flexibility we intend to ensure that pensioners share in the increased prosperity of the country.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that it is a shameful indictment of the Government's pensions policy that the single pension today in France and Germany is more than 50 per cent. of average earnings, yet in this country under this Government it is only 18 per cent., and falling? Within 20 years, under current policy, it will he less than 10 per cent. Is it not symbolic of this Thatcher Government that the only people in this country who are denied a rise in living standards are the pensioners and the unemployed?
    Mr. Scott: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is still too hooked on the arguments of the hustings to recognise the reality of the matter. We have heard the arguments that are being put forward and of this so-called league of shame. In Europe this country is second only to Denmark on spending per capita on the elderly. That is the essence of our commitment to the elderly in this country in real terms. We make that commitment clear and we are second only on spending on the elderly per capita in the league in Europe.

    Hospital Closures
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received concerning the proposal to close four hospitals in the Liverpool inner city area.
    Mrs. Currie: None, Sir.
    Mr. Parry: May I inform the Minister that any proposals to close the world-famous St. Paul's eye hospital, two specialised maternity hospitals and the women's hospital and to locate them in a Victorian-style royal infirmary will be fiercely opposed by the Health Service trade unions, community health councils, doctors and patients? Is that what the Prime Minister meant when she was talking about Victorian values?
    Mrs. Currie: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the district strategic plan, which was published on 8 June and on which comments are required by 31 August. My cursory first glance at the plan—we received it only a few days ago—revealed that there will be a new development at Broad Green hospital, with new build accommodation for ophthalmology upgraded accomodation at the Liverpool royal infirmary site and a new combined unit for obstetrics and gynaecology. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to Victorian values. Liverpool, like many other cities, is suffering from a surfeit of small, old Victorian hospitals from the last century. The health authority is trying to build a Health Service for the next century.

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mr. Hindasked the Secretary of State for Social Services by how many the waiting lists in the north-west region have been reduced since June 1979.
    Mr. Tim Smithasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he is taking to reduce hospital waiting lists.
    Mr. Moore: In the north-west region between 31 March 1979 and 30 September 1986 waiting lists fell by over 16,000, or 21 per cent. The need to make significant improvements in waiting times is a high priority for the Health Service, supported by the £50 million waiting list fund. I am determined that this drive will continue.
    Mr. Hind: Can my right hon. Friend say what effect the waiting list initiative announced by his predecessor will have on the north-west region?
    Mr. Moore: At this stage the north-west regional allocation will be £2·3 million, which we expect to produce results that will look after an extra 11,240 in-patients and day cases and 7,280 extra out-patients. That is in the first instance.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Does my right hon. Friend think that the waiting list fund constitutes a useful precedent for the official allocation of funds in the Health Service? If he does, will he ensure that it is extended to other areas, so that the most efficient use is made of taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Moore: I am answering a question only about the Health Service and the special fund. My hon. Friend is right. The National Health Service is to be commended for the way in which, in the first year, it has made more effective use of beds and theatres and has enabled 100,000 additional waiting list cases to be treated by the use of the fund. I expect it to do equally well in the second year of the fund with the second £25 million.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. O'Brienasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend is in Brussels for a meeting of the European Council.
    Mr. O'Brien: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a report from his colleague the Government Chief Whip
    370
    about information received during the election campaign in my constituency concerning the shortage of skilled labour in the Yorkshire area? When will the Government do something about generating jobs and employment opportunities in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, where there is a shortage of job opportunities and skilled labour? When are the Government going to do something about it?
    Mr. Wakeham: I did not receive the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but since 1979 the Government have spent £13·5 billion on employment measures and training, helping about 6·5 million people. Our intention is to continue that work.
    Sir Bernard Braine: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new office, which has given infinite pleasure to all his colleagues and, I suspect, to many right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.
    Can my right hon. Friend tell the House why the Government have not seen fit to include in the Gracious Speech any proposals touching the Warnock committee recommendations, at least one of which—experimentation on the human embryo—caused great abhorrence at the time and has caused widespread anxiety ever since? Is my right hon. Friend aware that such experimentation is now taking place without any legal protection?
    Mr. Wakeham: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words. I know the interest that he has taken in this matter. The Government are now considering very carefully responses to the recent consultation document on the range of difficult and developing issues dealt with in the Warnock report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will be making an announcement very shortly about the next steps. I can, however, make it clear that it remains our intention to introduce legislation in this Parliament.
    Mr. Hattersley: Will the right hon. Gentleman now repeat the assurances given by the Prime Minister during the general election campaign that the Government are opposed to the imposition of VAT on food, fuel, children's clothing, children's shoes, new building, books, periodicals and newspapers?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am happy to reaffirm what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign. The Prime Minister said that we had no intention of imposing VAT on food, gas, electricity, young children's clothes and shoes.
    Mr. Hattersley: In which case, how does the Leader of the House account for the fact that Lord Cockfield, the Government's nominee in the Common Market, will tomorrow propose the abolition of zero rating and the imposition of VAT at between 4 and 9 per cent. on all those items which the right hon. Gentleman has now said will not carry VAT?
    Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Gentleman knows better than to say that European Commissioners act as nominees for a Government. Lord Cockfield will do what he thinks to be right. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is Prime Minister of this country, and I can assure the House that the undertaking that she gave during the general election campaign will be maintained.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Leader of the House can absolve himself from the allegation of equivocation and the Prime

    371
    Minister from the allegation of deception by simply saying here and now that the Government propose to veto the Cockfield proposals. Do they, or do they not?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have stated what the Prime Minister said, and reaffirmed it. At present the Prime Minister is in Brussels at the European Council meeting and she will make a statement to the House later this week. It would be extremely foolish of me to say anything more until that time.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend assure the Prime Minister that her attempts to bring common sense into the ludicrous financing of the Community has the wholehearted support of the country? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the rapacious attitude of the Socialist Greek Government is entirely out of accord with the spirit of the Community?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his points well. However, it would be wrong for me to say anything about the European Council while my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is there.
    Mr. Michael Martinasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Martin: In Scotland we have legislation for the poll tax. The financial director for Glasgow has stated that at today's rates in Glasgow it would cost every household member aged 18 and over £292. That means that some families who are the poorest of the poor will have to pay in excess of £1,000. As a former Whip, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that when the English legislation comes up every Tory Member will go into the Division Lobby in favour of the English poll tax?
    Mr. Wakeham: I must say that the revelations of what the poll tax will be in some Socialist-controlled local authority areas relate to the level of spending of those local authorities more than anything else. The community charge will not be unfair, because 69 per cent. of single pensioners and 83 per cent. of one-parent families will be better off. There will be generous rebates of up to 80 per cent. for all those on low incomes. Income support levels will be increased to reflect the average charge. The severely mentally handicapped and old people living in homes and hospitals will also be exempt. That amounts to millions of people.
    Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend recollect the clamour in Scotland when the rating revaluation took place there? Is he aware of the concern that would he aroused in England if rates were continued and a rating revaluation inevitably took place? Will he give an undertaking to the House that the Government will honour their manifesto commitment and give the people of England the benefits of the community charge that have already been given to people in Scotland?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend goes right to the heart of the matter. The existing domestic rating system is unfair and discredited. Local authorities are not properly accountable to ratepayers. Out of 35 million electors in England, only 18 million are liable to pay rates, and only
    372
    12 million pay them directly and in full. As my hon. Friend points out, a revaluation would bring chaos and would not restore accountability.
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lloyd: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the poll tax, when applied, will mean that a working spouse will be legally responsible for the poll tax of the non-working partner? Will he confirm that a married pensioner couple will end up paying two poll taxes? Will he further confirm that the poorest people will end up having to pay some of this disgraceful charge?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have already said that the community charge will be payable by all adults except those who are exempt, for example the severely mentally handicapped and old people living in homes and hospitals. People on low incomes will receive generous rebates and income support will be increased to cover the average charge.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most of us are looking forward to the reintroduction of the Criminal Justice Bill so that when judges pass too soft sentences those sentences may be reviewed? At the same time does he agree that it is important that we reexamine what is the use of reasonable force by people defending themselves, their homes and families against thugs and burglars? Is it not time that the law was changed so that it was more on the side of the victim than that of the villain?
    Mr. Wakeham: The Government will continue to make the fight against crime one of our top priorities. We have already reintroduced the Criminal Justice Bill, which, among other things, will ensure that lenient sentences can be referred to the Court of Appeal. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a note of my hon. Friend's other questions.
    Mr. Ernie Rossasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ross: Will the Leader of the House take time today to end the press speculation rife in Scotland to the effect that the Ministry of Defence does not intend to award the contract that it promised 18 months ago to Scott Lithgow on the lower Clyde? Is he aware that this will not only add to the lengthening dole queues there, but will end Scott Lithgow as a shipyard on the Clyde?
    Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that it is right for me at this Dispatch Box to end speculation, but I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence makes an announcement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to encourage the moderate elements in the teaching profession to raise professional standards? Does he agree that Mr. Fred Jarvis and the NUT reckon to do for education what Mr. Arthur Scargill and the NUM have done for coal?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right in saying that we want a teaching profession which is professional in its standards, is properly paid and meets the challenges of the end of this century and of the next century. We shall introduce a major Education Bill in this Session to deal with many of those matters.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jonesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Lord Privy Seal look at press reports published at the weekend, which showed that NIREX was looking for possible sites to dump nuclear waste in my constituency of Ynys Môn, and in Wales generally? Will he assure the House that there will he no dumping of nuclear waste in any part of Wales, bearing in mind what happened in various marginal constituencies in England just before the general election?
    Mr. Wakeham: I sat for many months in my previous incarnation in the House unable to utter a word about NIREX. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I shall not add anything more to that.
    Mr. Hunterasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hunter: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the recently published London Business School economic outlook, which predicts four years of solid economic growth, a sustained fall in unemployment and subdued inflation? Is this not further proof of the success of the Government's economic strategy?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the report. It is another example of increasing confidence in Britain, bringing greater economic growth and prosperity. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to NEDC later this week, he may wish to refer to the seventh successive year of growth. with gross domestic product at record levels. In 1986, inflation was at its lowest for more than 20 years. Our growth is faster than that of all the major EEC countries, and investment growth has achieved nearly 4 per cent. a year since the 1983 election.
    Mr. Michael Brownasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brown: Do the Government have any plans, if not in this Session certainly during the lifetime of this Parliament, to reform the national dock labour scheme, which is the antithesis of what the Government stand for?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have nothing to say on that subject at present, but I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Safeway Food Stores (Food Contamination)
3.30 pm
Mr. Ron Brown (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the contamination of food in Edinburgh's Safeway stores.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I understand that a small number of items of food and drink have been found to be contaminated in Edinburgh Safeway Stores. Analysis of other suspect items is continuing. The three stores affected are Cameron Toll, Davidson's Mains, and East Craigs. The Lothian and Borders police have instituted an investigation of the circumstances and these inquiries are continuing as a matter of urgency. Two members of the public have required medical treatment.
As this is a local incident, responsibility for the public health interest lies with the director of environmental health at Edinburgh district council. He is in close contact with the police. The company is taking increased security measures at all six of its Edinburgh stores. I strongly deprecate the reckless and irresponsible action which has placed the public at risk. I assure the House that I and the Scottish Home and Health Department will keep in close touch with the police and the environmental health authorities and will take any necessary further steps.
Mr. Brown: Does the Minister accept that, because of the lack of information from the statutory authorities and the police, many people are naturally alarmed about the products being produced for Safeway so that, instead of public co-operation, we have had a boycott? I appreciate that officialdom must do its job, but not enough details have been released about the three stores, the products affected, the type of poisons and what is going on. If the Minister wants public support, he will have to ask his subordinates in Scotland to explain exactly what is happening. We understand that there is a letter, but it may be sub judice and something that we cannot discuss here. More information must be released about the matter involving Safeway, whether it is in Edinburgh or elsewhere. It is a very important issue.
Mr. Forsyth: The provision of information is a matter for the police and the environmental health office at Edinburgh district council. They had to take into account the need to analyse substances. I welcome the joint press conference held yesterday by the police and the director of environmental health to give the facts of the case.
As regards public confidence, the company has endeavoured to minimise any risk, but obviously shoppers should remain vigilant.
Mr. Alastair Darling: Will the Minister assure the House that, in the event of this unfortunate episode recurring either in any of Edinburgh's five Safeway stores or elsewhere, an announcement will be made to the public without delay? I understand that, although a press conference was held last night, the food in question was discovered at the Davidson's Mains or East Craigs stores either on Friday or Saturday of last week. Does the Minister accept that, in the event of those foods being fed to a child or an infirm person, the consequences could be most unfortunate? Whatever may
376
be the understandable commercial concerns of Safeway, will the Minister encourage the police and other authorities to make an announcement to the public quickly so that those members of the public who believe that they have bought contaminated food will know and can return it to the store and otherwise help the police with their inquiries?
Mr. Forsyth: I can only imagine that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. [Interruption.] My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no direct locus in this matter; it is a matter for the director of environmental health of Edinburgh district council. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of that. My right hon. and learned Friend, in common with everyone in this House and elsewhere, is naturally concerned and has arranged for officials to obtain reports on the situation from both the environmental health director and the police.
I am sure that everything possible is being done to bring whoever is responsible to justice. I do not believe that it is in anyone's interest to exaggerate or raise the political temperature in this matter.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is it not unfortunate that the Minister, on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, is continuing with his bad habit of defending the interests of big business? Does he not understand that Safeway has a responsibility in this matter? Its public relations officer was in Edinburgh on Sunday and refused point blank to name the stores in which contaminated foodstuffs had been found. It is an absolute scandal to put the responsibility for the lack of information on the Lothian and Borders police, on the one hand, and the environmental health department, on the other.
Will the Minister change his bad habits and make sure that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has said, if there is any recurrence of this nature in any Safeway or other store in Scotland the interests of the public will be put before the interests of big business?
Mr. Forsyth: May I say that I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman back in the House. May I also assure him that the Scottish Office has every confidence in the judgment that has been shown by the director of environmental health of Edinburgh district council. There has been no suggestion that anything other than the overwhelming interest of the public's health has been considered by the parties concerned.
As regards the conduct of the store, I understand that it has taken a number of measures, including the introduction of uniformed security guards and stepping-up closed circuit television surveillance. It has also ensured that staff are regularly checking the shelves for any signs that foodstuffs have been tampered with. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chose to make the point that he did on a matter of such seriousness.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite disgraceful that Labour Members should seek to use this occasion to gain cheap press headlines in Scotland? Does he also agree that the people concerned will be much reassured by what he has said this afternoon? There is full public confidence in the officials who are handling this matter.
Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the director of environmental health and the police

377
are doing everything possible to remove this problem from Edinburgh. It is not a matter that can be dealt with by instant judgments. One of the difficulties is in obtaining detail on the analysis of the extent to which products have been tampered with. I assure my hon. Friend that everything is being done.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is not the Minister's confidence in the Safeway management's handling of this matter somewhat misplaced in the light of its initial somewhat complacent statement, when the first contaminated products were found, that it thought that it had got to the bottom of the matter? Now that contamination has recurred, what will the Minister's Department do to ensure that public safety is maintained?
Mr. Forsyth: There seems to be an attack of sudden deafness on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Gentleman should have listened to my reply. I assure him that officials in the Scottish Home and Health Department, although they have no locus in the matter, are trying to obtain reports on the situation from both the director of environmental health and the police. We very much welcome the fact that a joint press conference was held yesterday in Edinburgh by the director of environmental health and the police, where the full facts as they were known were given. The situation is developing. It is easy to sit on the Back Benches and snipe at people who are doing their best to carry out their professional duty.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I speak as one whose constituents are involved. Does the analysis suggest in any way how the contamination was carried out? What is the Government's thinking as to the penalties that should be imposed on anyone who is caught?
Mr. Forsyth: Contamination has been found or is still being checked in coleslaw, cottage cheese, natural yoghurt, Safeway's cola and grapefruit juice. I understand that a number of things have been found, including broken glass and small quantities of arsenic, but the products affected are still being tested. The amounts that have been discovered are very low. As we react to the situation, one of the problems is the speed with which it is possible to obtain analytical reports. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that penalties are not a matter for me.
Mr. James Wallace:At the risk of being non-partisan, I congratulate the Minister on his
378
first appearance at the Dispatch Box, although he is there by force of circumstance. Much doubt was put in many people's minds at the time of the original press conference. The police said that they had no firm clues, but they were confident that only four items had been affected, although only two had been found. Many people queried how that information could have been obtained if the police did not have any firm clues. That was combined with the assurance by the police and the company that no other stores were involved. Given that background and the withholding of information for a critical period over the weekend, is the Minister satisfied that all information that can be made available is being made available by the company to the police, the health authorities and the public?
Mr. Forsyth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, but it would not be appropriate for me to comment on a matter affecting the police investigations.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Does the Minister accept that, despite his irritation at having to appear at the Dispatch Box, there has been widespread public alarm about the matter and it is right that it should be aired in the House? Does he also accept that everyone on the Opposition Benches deplores the recent happenings, and that, if it is true, the use of ground glass, paraquat and arsenic, even in very small quantities, is a wicked and irresponsible act, and suggests an unbalanced mind at work?
It is difficult to comment while police inquiries are continuing, but may I reinforce the point made by several of my hon. Friends about the need to keep the public informed? I recognise that the Minister does not have direct responsibility, but he said that he is asking his officials to keep in touch. When he has received the reports, will he consult local authorities about the right balance to be struck between alarming the public, the perhaps understandable commercial interests and the safety that comes with knowledge? Does the hon. Gentleman accept, with me, that, in these difficult matters, to know is to be forearmed?
Mr. Forsyth: Public safety will always be paramount in any decisions that are made either by the police or by the environmental health officers. I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman about the depraved nature of the person who is responsible for carrying out the act, and the police are doing everything possible to bring him to justice.

EEC (Value Added Tax)
3.44 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the indisputable and undisputed fact that Commissioners of the EEC meet tomorrow to consider the extension of value added tax to items that do not at present bear that tax within the United Kingdom. It seems to me and to hon. Members on both sides of the House wholly intolerable that such consideration should take place in Brussels with the intention of making value added tax mandatory in the United Kingdom without the House of Commons being given an opportunity even to comment upon it.
I suspect that, were I to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, Mr. Speaker, you might find that proposition difficult to resist. Were you to accept such a proposition, the issue would be debated tomorrow afternoon, by which time the Commissioners of the EEC would have considered the further imposition of VAT on goods that are presently zero rated in Britain.
My point of order is simple, Mr. Speaker. If you share my view that the House of Commons has a mandatory and automatic right to consider the potential increases in taxation in this country, then the Government should offer the House the opportunity at least to comment on that issue today. I ask you about ways in which that might be pursued.
Mr. Speaker: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that this is a matter that could quite legitimately be raised in the course of the debate on the Queen's Speech. I have no doubt that it will be.

Business of the House
Ordered,
That—

(1) Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely :—

In paragraph (4) the word 'twelve' shall be substituted for the word 'ten' in line 43;

In paragraph (6) the word 'sixth' shall be substituted for the word 'fifth' in line 60; and

In paragraph (10) the word 'sixth' shall be substituted for the word 'fifth' in line 83.

(2) Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 11 th December, 15th, 22nd and 29th January, 5th and 12th February, 15th, 22nd and 29th April, 6th and 13th May and 8th July.

(3) Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government business on 17th July, 13th, 20th and 27th November, 4th December, 19th and 26th February, and 4th, 11th and 18th March and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on Wednesday 1st July, Wednesday 28th October, Wednesday 4th November, Wednesday 11th November, Wednesday 18th November, Wednesday 3rd February, Wednesday 10th February, Wednesday 17th February, Wednesday 24th February and Wednesday 2nd March.

(4) On Monday 14th December, Monday 15th February, Monday 16th May and Monday 13th June, Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence until Seven o'clock and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on Thursday 26th November, Thursday 28th January, Thursday 28th April and Thursday 26th May.

(5) No Notice of Motion shall be handed in for any of the days on which Private Members' Notices have precedence under this Order in anticipation of the ballot for that day.—[Wakeham.]

Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [FOURTH DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [25 June]
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Churchill.]
  Question again proposed.

  Debate on the Address

    Deprivation and Inequality of Opportunity
    3.45 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We all try in this debate to make our first major post-election speech rather than the election speech in which we took so much pride—but I suppose that it is inevitable that memories of the election should hover over this week of Hansard.
    So far as home affairs are concerned, when I think back on the election, I am not really thinking of the curious triangular exchanges in which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and I were involved with Mrs. Williams. I have a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman and his debating powers, but I do not think that any of us were at our best as we hurried from one local television station to another, like members of some demented repertory company trying to memorise our lines as best we could. I believe that the broadcasters need to think of a different form for such exchanges if they want to throw light, rather than heat, on the matters before the electorate. I cast that thought before them.
    I am thinking rather of the dozens of conversations in market places and on doorsteps which, as I imagine every other candidate found, touched and sometimes focused on the question of crime. No one could emerge from this election campaign without a clear impression of the anxiety, and often the anger, which crime and the fear of crime arouse among our fellow citizens.
    The opposition parties made no headway on this front because their analysis was not credible and their recommendations, when different from what we were doing anyway, seemed downright dangerous. It is not credible to make a general connection between the level of unemployment and the level of recorded crime. This is a contention that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends frequently made, but it is not sustained by serious academic research. It ignores the fact that one third of crime is committed by juveniles; it flies in the face of experience in the 1930s; and it flies in the face of the regular experience of the victims of crime. Certainly it is true that in some areas, particularly the most discouraged areas, social conditions have a role in the fostering and in the prevention of crime, and that is a point to which I
    382
    would like to return. But to make a crude general link between unemployment and crime is an affront to the unemployed and incredible to everybody else.
    No one in his senses supposes that there is a simple or single answer to the crime figures. But, after nearly two years in this job, I am clear that there is nothing inevitable about them. Our first task must be to strengthen further the law and order services, to which we have already given a unique priority.
    I turn first to the men and money that are available to the police. The police have received a bigger increase in resources than any other major public service. In real terms, spending on the police in this financial year will be some 45 per cent. higher than in 1978–79.
    At the end of April, police manpower in England and Wales, including both police officers and civilians in support, rose to a record level of 163,500. That is an increase of more than 17,300, including 11,300 extra police officers. This expansion is continuing. We are just about half way through the further programme of expansion that I announced on 20 May last year. I then foreshadowed increases of 3,200 extra police officers and 2,000 civilian staff in England and Wales. The extra civilian staff are expected to free over 1,000 additional police officers for operational duties.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: On the issue of the recruitment of police officers and others, is the Home Secretary satisfied with the incidence of recruitment of women doctors to the ranks of police surgeons, or should not more be done in this regard? In the second Criminal Justice Bill will he continue the objective of diminishing the distress experienced by child witnesses in sexual and child abuse cases?
    Mr. Hurd: I am not responsible for the first matter mentioned by the hon. Gentleman in-so-far as it affects Scotland. However, I shall certainly make sure that the hon. Gentleman receives the information that he seeks and I shall write to him about England and Wales. The Criminal Justice Bill will again contain the provision about allowing children to give evidence through a video link rather than in court. I think that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that provision.
    The position about police manpower is rather different in London. In London there is no problem about authorisation. I have already given approval for an increase in the Metropolitan police establishment of 600 extra officers and 400 civilian staff. The actual strength of the Metropolitan police, though at a record level, has not kept pace with the increased ceilings. The Metropolitan police are now recruiting fast to fill this gap. They know that the authorisation and the money are there and that, other things being equal, I would expect to authorise a further increase in establishment next April.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary respond to people's concern not just by increasing manpower but by seeing that the clear-up rate is improved? As he knows, the real problem in London is that the clear-up rate has got worse and people's perception of the chance of the forces of crime prevention helping the individual to reduce crime is negative and pessimistic.
    Mr. Hurd: I am talking about manpower. The hon. Gentleman asks about the clear-up rate. I want to see the

    383
    police in London and elsewhere being able to concentrate their efforts on the more serious and violent crimes and allowing crime prevention properly to get into action to prevent crimes against property, which constitute the great bulk of crimes. I shall return to that point shortly.
    Mr. John Wheeler: Before my right hon. Friend departs from the clear-up rate of the Metropolitan police, will he tell the House whether he agrees that the Metropolitan police are absolutely right not to do that which is done by many provincial police forces who trawl prisoners and the courts clearing up other offences merely to improve statistically the clear-up rate? Does he agree that the Metropolitan police are right to concentrate on crime prevention and the detection of more serious crimes?
    Mr. Hurd: I am all against purely statistical exercises of the kind that my hon. Friend has mentioned. As he knows, we are trying to harmonise and bring some sort of regularity into the practices of different police forces in the taking-into-account exercise.
    Outside London, I have to match the applications that I receive from police authorities and joint boards with the pace and extent of the expansion programme that I have just mentioned. As most hon. Members know from constituency experience, this is not easy.
    Every police authority and joint board worth its salt can find some special reason why its own force should receive a greater share of the expansion than others. I have, indeed, increased their appetite by putting the percentage of the money that the Home Office finds for police expenditure up to 51 per cent. and with my colleagues altering the grant arrangements so that forces with the biggest establishments get the most grant. I have thus made it easier for police authorities to finance the expansion now under way.
    In making these decisions about the further expansion of the police I shall, of course, continue to rely to a large extent on the professional judgment of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Obviously, I cannot accept the simple proposition that more police officers lead to a decline in recorded crime, because anyone who studies the facts for a moment will see that that is not necessarily so. The case for expansion is rather that there are specific tasks in the prevention and detection of crime, in the maintenance of public order and in the upholding of the law which only police officers can perform and for which they need extra resources. The police are, of course, in competition for those resources with hospitals, schools, and everything else paid for by the public purse. My colleagues have hitherto agreed, on the basis that I have described, that the police should have priority and I am confident that they will continue to do so.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: I have been following the Home Secretary's comments very carefully. When representatives of the West Midlands police force visited the Home Secretary in May and asked for an increase in establishment of about 1,000 officers over the next three years at the rate of 300 a year, why did the Home Secretary feel unable to accede to any part of that request, apart from the provision of more civilians? I am sure that the Home Secretary is aware that, regrettably, the west midlands now has the fastest rise in crime in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hurd: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's point lies in my next paragraph, which contains specific reference to the west midlands and the experience of that force.
    I do not believe that we have come to the end of the possibilities of civilianisation by any means. A civilian working for the police costs about half as much as a trained police officer. It must be right to ask chief officers again and again to consider whether there are jobs that are now being carried out by police officers that could be done by civilians.
    I do not believe that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has grasped the point that civilianisation resulted in the release of 1,000 police officers to operational duties between 1983 and 1985. During 1986 more than two thirds of the extra 893 civilians recruited in provincial forces enabled police officers to be released to operational duties. As the hon. Member for Erdington accurately stated, that is why I have recently approved an increase of 427 in the number of civilian staff in the west midlands. That is expected to release 382 police officers in the west midlands for operational duties. That answers the hon. Gentleman's question. There are more professional police officers entering operational duties as a result of decisions about civilianisation. However, there is more to it than that. In West Bromwich—which is not the patch covered by the hon. Member for Erdington, but is covered by the force operating in his area—there is a particularly interesting experiment going on in an attempt to expand still further the scope of civilian work, including the desk work and paper work which has hitherto been carried out by police officers and which the chief constable believes might be quite properly and effectively carried out by civilians. I am watching that experiment in West Bromwich closely to see how it works out.
    Mr. Tim Rathbone: These matters are not confined to the west midlands, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is aware. The police force covering east and west Sussex has been in touch with my right hon. Friend and his Ministers about manning. There is a pressing requirement for more police officers, even after allowing for the further civilianisation programme to which my right hon. Friend has just referred. As my right hon. Friend has just said that he will consider what force increases are required and where, will my right hon. Friend take account of the special consideration due to Gatwick—I will not rehearse all the arguments on that matter now—and the requirements of the force covering east and west Sussex?
    Mr. Hurd: Sussex will not be forgotten. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, my new colleague on the Front Bench, the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), and a host of powerful right hon. and hon. Friends will not allow me to forget Sussex. The force in Sussex will be treated on the criteria that I have announced and I hope that it will not be long before we can make an announcement about the Sussex force.
    Mr. Ken Maginnis: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he recall his experiences in Northern Ireland, when the civilianisation of certain jobs within police stations went ahead? To my knowledge, not one policeman was released on to the streets to carry out operational duties. Rather,

    385
    there appeared to be little protection from the police against malicious complaints and the extra police who were released were used to investigate those malicious complaints. Would not the Home Secretary be better employed in thinking of ways in which to protect the police, as they go about a difficult task, from the explosion of malicious complaints to which they are now subject?
    Mr. Hurd: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that across the water and here Her Majesty's Ministers have given full support to the police, and that includes putting in place in England and Wales a system for investigating police complaints, which goes a long way to meet the hon. Gentleman's concern.
    Let me pass from the police to penalties; because police, penalties and prisons are the main sectors of society's front line against crime. The Gracious Speech foreshadows the reintroduction of the Criminal Justice Bill. I do not intend to go through its provisions in any detail since they are familiar to most hon. Members. The reform of extradition, the increase in the maximum prison term for carrying firearms in pursuit of crime, the criminal injuries proposals, are simply three of the important reforms which will once again be in the Bill. I am glad that with the Opposition's co-operation we have managed to put on the statute book the proposal for a serious fraud office and work on establishing that is going ahead.
    Let me mention two important topics where we are considering changes in the Bill. We are deeply concerned about the widespread use of offensive weapons. We are committed in our election manifesto to taking action on the sale and possession of items which have no legitimate use but which can be used to injure and maim. I welcome an offer which I have received from the right hon. Member for Gorton to join us in discussing how the law relating to offensive weapons, particularly knives, could be strengthened. I have already set in hand a study of how the law relating to the possession of knives and other sharp-bladed instruments might be reinforced. I look forward to discussing with the right hon. Gentleman whether we can achieve common ground on this urgent matter in the hope that the Criminal Justice Bill will turn out to be the right vehicle for making a change.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is the Home Secretary aware how disturbed public opinion is by the recent publicity, certainly on television, where the police showed how easy it is to buy knives that are clearly offensive, and where, presumably, the only purpose in buying such knives is for criminal acts? I recognise some of the difficulties in drafting legislation, but is it not necessary to make it far more difficult for such knives to be bought?
    Mr. Hurd: There is a difference between objects which can be used only for offensive purposes—for which we have a specific proposal in our manifesto—and knives—the schoolboy with a knife in his pocket; the housewife who has bought a bread knife at the supermarket; the carpenter with a chisel in his bag. That is the problem that we need to discuss.
    Mr. Robin Squire: My right hon. Friend will be aware that police forces have echoed the concern that he has expressed today about the carrying of knives. If he can introduce legislation along those lines, he will also remove an anomaly which may be appearing and
    386
    which is linked with the carrying of firearms, where the proposed legislation will presumably recommend a possible life sentence. Many people would be concerned if they found that there was still no serious sentence for the carrying of knives, which should possibly attract a life sentence.
    Mr. Hurd: The possession of an offensive weapon is a serious offence. The question is how to define it. However, I note my hon. Friend's point, which has validity.
    We are looking again at the problem of the occasional over-lenient sentence which can do so much harm to public confidence. This has a long history. Anyone who listened late at night to the speech made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) in support of clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill, will realise that there was a much better case for the clause than was generally realised. It ran into strong, though contradictory, criticism in this House, and in another place, from those who thought it went too far and from those who wanted it to go further.
    We are actively looking at means by which this original proposal could be strengthened. My own reservations. like those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney, about giving the Court of Appeal the right to increase a sentence have been practical rather than based on principle, although I recognise that there is principle here which is of great concern to many hon. and right hon. and learned Gentlemen in all parts of the House. My concern has been with the effect on the prison population and with the practical effect on the burdens of the new Crown Prosecution Service, which is still in its infancy. However, I am impressed by the need to go further than we originally proposed and I set in hand work to this effect before the election. The Bill will be republished tomorrow and will contain the original clause, but it can, and I hope will, be amended on its passage through Parliament to reflect the results of the policy exercise now under way following the debates on the Floor of the House, upstairs in Committee and in another place.
    I must refer to the prisons, because this is, at present, the single most difficult responsibility which we carry in the Home Office. On 26 June, the prison population stood at 50,073 with an additional 506 prisoners locked in police cells. The system is designed to hold around 41,700 prisoners. This strain inevitably places tremendous difficulties on the capacity of the staff and system to cope. We are witnessing, month by month, a dangerous race between the rise in the number of prison places as the result of our prison capital building programme and the rise in the number of those sent to prison by the courts.
    In the short term we are doing all we can to squeeze the greatest possible number of places out of the prison estate. Three detention centres have been converted into youth custody centres and another two to adult male prisons to improve the match between the accommodation available and the composition of the prison population. Other changes are planned, including the conversion of a category D prison, Ashwell, to a category C prison later this year with a net gain of 350 places, and of another detention centre to an adult female establishment.
    In the longer term we remain committed to improving conditions for prisoners and staff by reducing overcrowding. This is not a luxury but a necessity, as anyone familiar with our prisons knows. The prison building programme includes a total of 20 prisons, providing 10,500 new places

    387
    by 1995. Alongside this the refurbishment and maintenance programme will produce a further 6,900 new places over the same period as well as providing significant improvements in conditions.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is there any progress in the right hon. Gentleman's thoughts on the need for a forensic science laboratory such as was suggested by Dr. Brian Caddy? I understand that Mr. Gordon Wasserman of his Department is chairing some kind of committee into that problem. In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's experience on the question of the Birmingham six, into which I do not wish to drag him, could we have some assurance that thought is being given to independent forensic science advice?
    Mr. Hurd: I am expecting no fewer than three reports in July on the future of the forensic science service. I am not sure whether they will touch upon the hon. Gentleman's constitutional point, but I hope to announce decisions about the future of the forensic science service as quickly as I can.
    Mr. Richard Holt: Before leaving the subject of new prisons, can my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department has written to all the local authorities in Cleveland, asking them whether they have a suitable location for a new prison? Is it not the case that because they are all Socialist-controlled authorities none of them will agree to that? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department will not be overridden by the local government Labour party but will put a prison in Cleveland, where it is obviously needed?
    Mr. Hurd: I hope that local authorities will take account of the clear national need for prisons. My hon. Friend knows that at the end of the day I have planning powers, but I would much rather proceed with cooperation. However, that assumes some understanding of the national interest by those concerned.
    The size of the remand population is part of the problem. There has been a surge in recent years and about one fifth of those now in prison are on remand. We must take practical steps to relieve that pressure. The steps include the increase since 1979 of over 300 in the number of places in bail and other hostels, and various schemes which are helping courts to take more informed decisions about the granting of bail. Practice varies a lot across the country, and we are asking magistrates to examine the reasons for that.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: While the Home Secretary is examining the problem of remand prisoners being held in prisons, will he also examine the increasing use of custodial places for holding people under the immigration law, and will he ensure that in future they are released on temporary admission rather than being held in remand centres, often for long periods?
    Mr. Hurd: As the hon. Gentleman knows—although I do not think that he approves—I have recently taken steps to provide specific detention accommodation for the type of people to whom he refers on the Earl William, thus removing the need to put them in prisons. They are not prisoners; they are not on remand before a court. The more that we can provide for them separately, the better.
    Mr. Corbyn rose——
    Mr. Hurd: I really must get on. I have been quite liberal in giving way.
    I turn now to crime prevention, which I believe holds the key to improving the general crime figures. We need to look at the portrait of crime in Britain. Less than 5 per cent. of it involves the use of violence against the person. The most serious offences make up one third of 1 per cent. of recorded offences. We are not alone in experiencing the changes that we have unfortunately experienced. International comparisons are difficult, because the Interpol figures lag behind events, and comparisons are bound to be imperfect. But looking at the increase in recorded crime in England and Wales between 1979 and 1983—the last available date—we find that it was roughly the same here as in West Germany, while France and the Netherlands showed increases of 50 per cent. to 60 per cent., roughly double ours, and Spain of over 100 per cent.
    Let us look at the components of that situation. Our figures for homicide in 1984 were 2 per 100,000, compared with 4·5 per 100,000 for Germany and 4·6 for France. Our figures for rape were 2·4 per 100,000 compared with 9·7 for Germany and 5·3 per 100,000 in France. These are horrible crimes, and each example of them is one too many. But in these types of violent crime our record, although far from good, is better than that of our neighbours. Where we do much worse is at the lower end of the pyramid—the great mass of crimes against property—for example, burglaries, theft of cars or theft of possessions from cars, where our figures have deteriorated sharply.
    These crimes against property are in general much easier to prevent than do detect. The prevention of crime is not a matter for the police alone. It is a matter for all of us, for Government Departments, for companies and trade unions, for voluntary agencies, for schools and social services, for the media and for each and every parent. There has been an outburst of activity on this front which we have welcomed and stimulated. The Home Office has sponsored five pilot projects in Bolton, Croydon, Wellingborough, Tyneside and Swansea, which have brought together the various local agencies and individuals to identify the problems of local crime and to seek solutions to them. I want to bring that sort of cooperative approach increasingly to bear on tackling the crime problems of the inner cities.
    Even more remarkable are the 30,000 neighbourhood watch schemes which have sprung up, not because the Government have decreed or subsidised them, but out of the concern of individual citizens to achieve safer homes and safer streets. The time has come to take a further step forward. We intend shortly to start consultations with interested groups for the setting up of a new national body for crime prevention. I want this new national association for crime prevention to co-ordinate, stimulate and support local crime prevention activity. It will provide an umbrella organisation for neighbourhood watch schemes and crime prevention panels. It will, I hope, link with schemes for the unemployed through the community programme, and with the work of organisations such as NACRO.
    There is a clear and close link between the efforts of the Home Office and the police to encourage the prevention and detection of crime and the policies that the Government propose for our cities as a whole. The Home Office is keenly involved in these proposals, partly because of our interest in the struggle against crime and partly because of our responsibility for community relations.

    389
    Good relations between the communities in our cities is obviously crucial to the harmony of those cities, and such good relations depend in turn on a system of immigration control that is firm and fair. The Gracious Speech referred to the Bill that we shall be bringing forward to make our immigration control operate more effectively, and to close a number of loopholes that have become apparent since the passage of the Immigration Act 1971. The Bill will deal with the problem of overstaying, with the problem of polygamous settlement and with the problem of those who come here claiming British citizenship without first having established that claim overseas. We intend to repeal section 1(5) of the 1971 Act, which gives a special position to the wives and children of those settled here when the Act took effect. A man who at present benefits from this provision will still be able to be joined by his wife and children but, like the families of other people settled here, they will have to meet the normal requirements of the immigration rules. In particular, husbands will have to show that they can maintain and accommodate the wives and children whom they intend to bring. I believe that that is perfectly sensible, and that the provisions of this Bill, when published and debated, will be accepted as common sense.
    Mr. Andrew Faulds: Who is going to make this massively subjective judgment on the suitability of the husband to receive his family?
    Mr. Hurd: It will be made by exactly the people who now make it in respect of the great majority of people who try to bring dependants here. We are talking about the distinction which the law at present makes between those who were already settled here in January 1973 and those who have brought dependants here since then. I do not believe that that distinction is any longer justified, but the people who make the decisions will be exactly the same as those who do so now.
    Mr. Corbyn rose——
    Mr. Hurd: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have already done so once.
    Our policy of firm and fair immigration control needs to be seen against the background of our general policy for wider opportunities—a policy which is just as important for the ethnic minorities who live in our cities as for anyone else. Twenty or 30 years ago, many immigrant families settled in the hearts of our cities because housing was cheap and jobs were available. Now many of them find themselves trapped, with their families, in a cycle of deprivation. I am delighted that we have made some progress over the last decade in changing attitudes. It must be good news that there were no National Front candidates running in the last election.
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: We did not need any.
    Mr. Corbyn: Look behind you.
    Mr. Hurd: It must be good news—I am now answering the giggles on the Opposition Benches—that the problems of immigration and race relations were discussed in a peaceful and reasonable way at the election. Many conversations that took place during the election demonstrated that Asian and black electors are increasingly casting their votes in line with their judgment of the issues, and not according to someone else's racial stereotypes. The effort that the police are now investing in
    390
    dealing with racial attacks is more clearly recognised. The recruitment of black and Asian Britons to the police service is making progress, although the total figure of just under 1,000 is still much too low. I believe that gradually, step by step, city by city, we are showing that the ladders of opportunity in our professions, in our industries and in our public sector, are open for all to climb.
    It is clear what the Opposition are about from their choice of theme for today's debate. They are simply continuing the argument about deprivation and inequality that they lost during the election. They are trying to represent the Conservatives as a party concerned only with the comfort of its supporters. But, if that were the position, we would not be putting forward the proposals in the Gracious Speech.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) made the point eloquently in the House yesterday, and in a newspaper today. If we were simply concerned with the comfort of our supporters, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education would not be concentrating, as he is, on enhancing the quality of state education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would not be concentrating, as he is, on housing plans to improve the opportunities of council tenants. My right hon. Friends in other Departments would not be concentrating, as they are, on stimulating job opportunities in our cities.
    We believe in individualism. We believe in the right of the individual to pile up a good standard of living for himself and his family; we believe that that is natural, right and necessary. But we do not believe that it is enough. We look beyond that to the role of the active citizen—black, Asian or white—who uses his time and energy to improve the community in which he finds himself. We are looking to the active parent to work alongside teachers in correcting the defects in our schools. We are looking to the active tenant to help to put right what is wrong on the huge housing estates. We are looking to the active citizen to work with his or her neighbours and the police in neighbourhood watch schemes and crime prevention panels to defeat crime. We are also looking to the active business man and to the active voluntary sector to stimulate enterprise and jobs in the discouraged areas.
    We do not abandon or renounce the role of the state or of public institutions, but we are clear that the problems that we see—and I think that we see them clearly—are best tackled not just by multiplying the powers and resources of the state and local government but by adding to the public effort the ingenuity and the generosity of the active citizen. That is clearly the spirit in which the Gracious Speech was conceived. I believe that it will commend itself to the House and to our fellow citizens as the plans in it mature and are brought to success.
    4.20 pm
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: It is as well to remind the House that the theme of this debate, as announced by Mr. Speaker, is deprivation and inequality of opportunity in Britain. Until the last minute or two of the Home Secretary's speech one could never have guessed that; instead, what he tried to do—with great success—was to dull the House with an overdose of tranquillisers. At least he was wise enough not to repeat during his speech his invitation to the leader of the Social Democratic party to join the Tory party. Perhaps on reflection the Home Secretary realised that if the right hon. Member for

    391
    Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) were to join the Tories, his own hopes of becoming party leader would be outflanked from the Right.
    We note that the leader of the SDP is present, taking time off from turmoil in toytown. His predicament is best summed up in the words of that haunting song from the appropriately named musical "Bells are Ringing":
    "The party's over
    It's time to call it a day
    No matter how you pretend
    You knew it would end this way."
    The song contains the sage advice:
    "It's time to wind up the masquerade."
    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now do that and take part in his retreat to Devonport les Deux Eglises.
    The Home Secretary's speech today was only the latest of a series of ministerial pronouncements that demonstrate their total insensitivity to the problems of the deprived areas. Last night we listened to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He was put up at the Dispatch Box no doubt because he is the Cabinet Minister with the most northerly seat in England—nearly 100 miles north of London. We have heard the ineffable Lord Young attacking elected local authorities—pretty rich from someone who has never been elected to anything—and being reproved for his ignorance by the director of the Merseyside chamber of commerce.
    There has also been the Secretary of State for the Environment, a person to whom we are advised to pay serious attention. According to an imaginative writer in the Financial Times, the Secretary of State for the Environment is
    "emerging as the Tory party's thinker on the regions."
    Lately, we have been treated to some of the right hon. Gentleman's most profound thoughts. He told us that there were no golf courses for Japanese inward investors in the north of England, a part of Britain where it is almost impossible to move without breaking an ankle through stepping into a golf course bunker. He announced, with that elegance for which he is famous:
    "There has bloody well got to be a golf course,"
    and added :
    "There ain't no room for prejudice".
    If the Secretary of State for the Environment does not know much about golf courses, he is certainly an expert on prejudice.
    About my own part of the country, Manchester, the Secretary of State declared :
    "An American executive doesn't want to live in a council house somewhere in the back of Manchester."
    With my right hon. and hon. Friends, I represent "somewhere in the back of Manchester," a city which, like so many other towns and cities in England, Scotland and Wales, three weeks ago booted out its last remaining Tory Member of Parliament. I can tell the Secretary of State for the Environment that, whatever the wishes of American executives may be, thousands of my constituents would dearly like to have the chance of a council house. However, because of this Government they cannot have one. They cannot have one because the Secretary of State for the Environment has wiped out completely Manchester's housing subsidies. He has cut our housing investment allocation by 74 per cent., and he has reduced our housing programme from 2,200 a year to 77.
    392
    What is most significant, though, is the implication, from the remarks of the Secretary of State for the Environment, that the only way that we can have employment in Britain is through inward investment from foreign controlled multinationals. What an insult to British invention, innovation and enterprise.
    An even bigger insult is, of course, the appointment as Secretary of State for Wales of an absentee landlord, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). Just because the right hon. Member for Worcester can afford to buy Wales does not mean that he has the right to rule it. The Secretary of State for Wales is just a satrap of the Queen Empress herself, the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister. The main headline in The Daily Telegraph on Friday announced with due pomp that the right hon. Lady is to set out on a royal progress of her outlying dominions. The front page streamer headline in The Daily Telegraph marvelled at it and said:
    "Thatcher visit to 'front line' inner cities."
    It is, of course, an unprecedented move for the right hon. Lady to come to places such as we represent, and it exposes her to a certain amount of risk.
    In an interview in the Sunday Telegraph the right hon. Lady likened her fellow citizens in our great cities, which have voted in Labour councils, to, as she put it :
    "Bacteria on a culture controlled by inner city socialists."
    The Prime Minister says that she wants such people to be regarded as
    "individuals to be treated with respect."
    On her anthropological safaris, I hope that she will do that. I hope that she will regard these visits, not as fleeting photo-opportunities, but as chances to talk to people and hear their problems. I hope that she will go to Dumbarton road in Glasgow, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and talk to the pensioners who, day after day, queue outside a bakery to buy yesterday's bread, sold at half price.
    I hope that the Prime Minister will visit the centre in Glasgow where teenagers are awarded certificates for skill in filling out job application forms, even if they rarely get the jobs for which they apply. I hope that she will meet the Manchester housewife who told me that her 13-year-old daughter had said to her, "Mum, when I leave school, how much do you want for my keep out of my dole money?" That is the kind of ethos that the Government are inculcating into the areas that we represent.
    In her interview in the Sunday Telegraph the Prime Minister said :
    "This country can never be strong unless the most able are allowed to contribute to the full."
    I agree with that. I hope that before her visit the Prime Minister will brief herself about deprivation and division in our society and about how millions of able people are being prevented, not only from making their contribution to the full, but from making any kind of contribution at all to our society.
    In the deprived areas of Britain—inner-city areas and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) said yesterday, in other areas, too—disadvantage starts right at the beginning of life, at birth itself. One of the most telling indicators of deprivation is low birth weight. Birth weight varies significantly, according to region. Babies weighing 2,500g or less at birth are classified as having a low birth weight, and in pretty well every inner-city area there are far more babies in this category than in the nation, averaged as a

    393
    whole. Sandwell, Newham, Nottingham, Hartlepool and Wolverhampton provide especially shocking figures, but dozens of other deprived areas have a similar story to tell.
    Low birth weight carries risks of poor health, handicap and possibly early death, so it is not surprising that there is an alarming regional differential in perinatal mortality. All southern areas have below average perinatal mortality, but the north, Yorkshire, the west midlands, Merseyside, the north-west and Wales have above average perinatal mortality rates. In the most deprived areas of Britain babies simply have less chance of surviving into infancy. If they do survive, they live less long. Life expectancy in deprived areas is significantly lower than in the rest of the country. It is 32 per cent. lower in Burnley, and 23 per cent. lower in Blackburn and Middlesbrough. That is because deprivation often leads to chronic ill health.
    The poorer one is, or the lower one's wage, the greater one's chance of being the victim of chronic sickness. The update of the Black report, published only this year, shows that that gap has widened. That update compares 1971 with 1981 to 1983 and shows
    "A widening gap in all cause death rates between manual and non-manual classes".
    The Black report puts it this way :
    "A child born to professional parents … can expect to spend over five years more as a living person than a child born to an unskilled manual household".
    Death from heart disease, for example, is much higher in the north, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside, the west midlands, Scotland and Wales than in the rest of Britain. Workers in manual occupations face considerable risks of disease and death. In 1984, 432 manual workers were killed at work and another 12,246 were seriously injured. Another 1,068 died of industrial diseases. No one ever got injured at work in the City of London, except perhaps from a bruised elbow shoving someone else aside.
    Chances of getting a job are adversely affected by Government policy. One way of obtaining a decent well-paid job has traditionally been through obtaining an apprenticeship, but under this Government the annual number of apprenticeships has fallen from 155,000 to 64,000. Another way to rewarding employment is to get qualifications through higher education, but the chance of obtaining higher education depends very much on the would-be student's station in life. Among 17 to 19-yearolds, of those with fathers in the professions, 72 per cent. are in full-time higher education. Of sons and daughters of semi-skilled or unskilled workers, the proportion in full-time higher education is not 72 per cent., but 27 per cent. Of those accepted into British universities, 70 per cent. come from the top two social classes, 6 per cent. from the semi-skilled class and I per cent. from the unskilled social class.
    The system of divide and rule fostered by this Government reduces opportunities all along the way. The Government's own figures show that the chances of getting a job are worst in the west midlands, the northwest, the north, Wales and Scotland. Chances of losing a job are highest in Yorkshire and Humberside, the northwest, Wales, Scotland and the north of England. No wonder that unemployment is worst in the deprived areas.
    The programme and partnership authorities in England and urban areas in Scotland account for 33 per cent. of the economically active population, but contain 46 per cent. of those who are unemployed. The Secretary of State for Education and Science smugly prates on about choice, and
    394
    we got it again from the Home Secretary today. I should like the Secretary of State for Education and Science to explain exactly what kind of system of choice gives one of his constituents in Mole Valley eight times the chance of getting a job compared with the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). Of course such a glaring inequality is not an example of proper choice, but it is a precise example of Tory choice.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman is entertaining the House to a most interesting sociological tour which rather implies that problems that have been known for at least a century—and which have been disclosed in virtually every serious sociological analysis in this country and in virtually every other Western democracy for at least 100 years—are somehow unique to the present Government. How can he possibly sustain such an argument?
    Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman can spare me time at the end of this debate, I shall take him through the material that I have here showing that the gaps have widened during the period of this Government.
    Just to make sure that inequity is maintained in employment as well as in unemployment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moves in and imposes the most glaringly unfair differential taxation. In income tax, national insurance, VAT and rates, a married man with two children on 75 per cent. of average earnings is paying £17·97 a week more than when this Government came to office, whereas a man with the same family responsibilities, but with 10 times average earnings, is paying £46·57 a week less in taxation. No wonder that there is a marked regional maldistribution in ownership of the material possessions in life which this Government exhort everyone to buy—and by those possessions they test their worth in society.
    No wonder that people in the north, Yorkshire and Humberside, the east and west midlands, the north-west, Scotland and Wales are less likely to have telephones or to own deep freezers than are those in the rest of Britain. No wonder that under this Government the number of low-paid employees has risen by 1 million, that the number living in poverty has risen by 4 million and that the number living on supplementary benefits has risen by 6 million. No wonder that our nation is so wretchedly ill-housed, with a backlog for repair and renewal of £20 billion in the public sector and £30 billion in the Government's much-vaunted private sector, including the owner-occupied sector, where the Government boast about the increase in owner-occupation but do not tell us about the unavailability of improvement and repair grants for people who own houses and who would like them but cannot get them because of cuts in the housing investment programme.
    This Government's answer is not to help, but to harm. Two weeks ago Mr. Peter Kegg, president of the Institute of Housing, drew attention to the terrible scourge of homelessness and bad housing. He pointed out that 25,000 people are living night by night in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Mr. Kegg said:
    "Most will be suffering the most squalid conditions".
    He pointed out that last year 250,000 were accepted as homeless by local authorities, and that Britain spends the lowest amount on housing, both in the public sector and private sector, of any country in the developed world.

    395
    This Government have cut housing subsidies to the deprived areas by 65 per cent., and housing investment programme allocations for the deprived areas by 77 per cent.—far above the national average cut of 60 per cent., which is deplorable enough.
    Mr. Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only solution the Government have for rented accommodation is to bring in a form of market rents and to decontrol more or less along the same lines as the notorious 1957 Rent Act? Is he aware that the House Builders Federation—no friend by any means of the Labour party—has produced figures to show that in the south-east market rents in the private sector would be £90 against the £80 which on the whole owner-occupiers would be paying in mortgage repayments? Does that not demonstrate that the people about whom my right hon. Friend is speaking, who are in desperate need of rented accommodation and who cannot afford a mortgage, will certainly be unable to afford market rents in any deregulated private sector?
    Mr. Kaufman: I shudder to think what will happen when the private landlords are let loose on rented accommodation. Knowing that in my own constituency people living in private rented accommodation in one room, sharing a bathroom with seven others, are paying £50 a week, I can only imagine what it will be like once the Secretary of State for the Environment gets his way with the free market.
    The Government's own index of deprivation—and that includes housing deprivation—shows shocking numbers of people affected by multiple deprivation. That kind of deprivation is at its most grinding, according to the Department of the Environment's own figures, in places such as Hackney, Islington, Lambeth, Manchester, Newham and Southwark. No wonder that these most deprived areas are the ones that have suffered most fearfully from the Government's cuts in the rate support grant, with a cumulative loss of £1,400 million for the partnership and programme authorities in England and their equivalents in Scotland. That is Thatcher's Britain in 1987.
    What do the Government intend to do about it? The Gracious Speech contains a curious medley of measures. It tells us that there is to be a Bill to give greater flexibility in licensing hours. The Home Secretary reminded us that the Government intend to introduce a Bill to tighten up immigration control. The Government intend to withhold benefit from school leavers under the age of 18 who refuse a place on the youth training scheme.
    Changing the licensing laws sounds innocuous, but the Government have simply not thought through the problems that are involved in increasing the availability of alcohol, when all who are knowledgeable about such matters—the Royal College of Psychiatrists has made a recent statement about them—point to the alarming excessive use of alcohol in much violent crime, including wife battering, rape, child abuse and murder. Will the Government change the licensing laws without thinking through what the change will mean in terms of crime?
    Tightening up the immigration laws, to which the Home Secretary referred, will have little effect on the level of immigration into this country, but it will cause great hardship to the lives of the small number of people who
    396
    are already resident here. An immigration Bill will make the ethnic minorities feel even more oppressed and discriminated against than they are already.
    Last week we had the disturbances in Chapeltown in Leeds. I know that area well, because I lived there for 20 years from early childhood. I saw successive waves of immigrants—Jews, Poles and Afro-Caribbeans—move in. My home was in the street next to that in which last week's disturbances took place.
    I condemn riots and unlawful disturbances wherever they take place, but the Government must be aware of the problems in deprived inner-city areas such as Chapeltown, where there is 50 per cent. unemployment among young blacks. Some 93 per cent. of 16-year-olds in the Asian community in Bradford are unable to find work. That statistic was quoted the other day by Mr. Lawler, who lost his seat in Bradford as a result of it. I warn the Government that the more they exclude young people from opportunities within the community, the more such young people will feel excluded from it. I warn the Government that more such young people, whether they be white, Asian or Afro-Caribbean, will feel that they owe no obligation to a society that accepts no obligation to them.
    That is why the Government's decision to withdraw benefit from young people who refuse a YTS place is not only vicious, but dangerous. If up to 100,000 young people are deprived of income, the Government must not be surprised if some of them turn to crime. Already crime in the deprived areas is far worse than in the country as a whole. Already the pressure on the police is such that crime clear-up rates in the deprived areas are even worse than the low clear-up rates in the country as a whole.
    Yet the Government are introducing policies that will make crime worse. Ten years ago the Prime Minister, when she was Leader of the Opposition, said:
    "I hope to be Prime Minister one day and I don't want there to be one street in Britain I cannot go down."
    She also said:
    "I don't intend sitting on the sidelines while crime in our cities goes the way of New York."
    There is now more crime in London than there is in New York, and the Prime Minister has presided over that. No doubt that is why in her speech last Thursday she did not once dare to mention crime or law and order. The Prime Minister dare not be reminded of her empty and broken promises, but I tell the right hon. Lady that if she goes on her outings to the inner cities she will hear a great deal about crime and the fear of it. She will hear a great deal about other profound problems as well.
    In the deprived areas of Britain, babies have less chance of surviving to infancy. If they do survive, they have a higher chance of contracting congenital diseases. They have less chance of being brought up in a sound and secure home. They have less chance of getting an apprenticeship, less chance of further education, and less chance of a university education. They have less chance of any job, less chance of a well-paid job, less chance of keeping their job, and more chance of being made redundant if they get a job. They run greater risks of industrial injury and disease and of dying of such injuries and diseases. Their chances of hospital treatment are reduced by long waiting lists. They are more likely to be victims of crimes, and they have less chance of getting criminal injuries compensation. They often retire on pittance pensions and are sometimes unable to afford winter fuel. They tend to die earlier than their

    397
    fellow Britons, and when they die their survivors may have difficulty in affording them a dignified funeral because of the Government's abolition of death grant. From cradle to grave, millions are victims of Thatcherism.
    In this debate last Thursday the Prime Minister claimed :
    "People … have a higher standard of living than they have ever had before",
    as a result of
    "economic strength … that we have never had before."—[Official Report, 25 June 1987; Vol. 118, c. 53.]
    Mr. W. Benyon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Kaufman: Not at this stage.
    A sufficient number of people believed the Prime Minister on 11 June to re-elect her to office, but the Prime Minister should never forget that 10 million people disbelieved her and voted for the Labour party. The Prime Minister should always remember that it is her duty to be Prime Minister of those 10 million people as well as of her own 13 million supporters.
    For eight years the Prime Minister has behaved, not as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but as the Prime Minister of the Conservative voters. She excludes from her consideration all the millions who disagree with her. That is why, whether the Prime Minister realises it or not, she is detested by non-Conservatives as few British Prime Ministers have ever been detested.
    In her remaining period of office the test for the Prime Minister will be whether she can break out of her own prejudices to become the Prime Minister of the whole country. If she can, all of us will welcome that change. If she refuses to do so, the consequence will be an alienation and a division that could split the kingdom.
    As a result of the right hon. Lady's electoral victory earlier this month, the future of the country rests to a great extent in her hands—to a great extent, but not exclusively. In this newly elected Parliament the Labour party will fight in every way that it can for a proper, decent and dignified place for all our people in a truly United Kingdom.
    4.48 pm
    Mr. John Biffen: The debate on the Loyal Address in reply to the Queen's Speech is always an entertaining occasion, not least because it proceeds under the splendour of the pageantry in another place and because it is also anchored to the discipline of the proposals in the Queen's Speech. What we have before us now suggests that as the excitement of these few days begins to lengthen into the more measured experiences of the weeks and months we have a formidable programme ahead of us.
    On this occasion the matter is enlivened by the fact that we have just had a general election. That could reasonably be inferred by listening to some of the speeches over the past few days. The point that I should like to make is that it reinforces the quixotic nature of our electoral system, whereby the number of votes that are properly secured do not have a necessarily close relationship to seats in the House. We have acquired the subtleties to deal with this over the years. Governments on the whole know that they rely upon consent as well as the mere arithmetic virtues of the Patronage Secretary to ensure the passage of legislation. From time to time that position passes from a
    398
    point of observation to where, although a principle is not breached, some new considerations are called into question. One would not wisely set aside what happened in Scotland in the election.
    Of the 72 hon. Members who represent Scotland, 10 support the Government. That is not enviable for the Government. The question is whether we are most able to deal with that challenge by maintaining, broadly speaking, the "business as usual" stance which is apparent to some extent in The Times and in the Chamber. I understand that, but we must move away from the recent certainties of the Smith square election press conference sessions to the more anxious doubts that we must entertain when we consider the problems that face us now rather than as presented in the more exuberant atmosphere of the last few week. I have to say that I do not easily entertain the prospect of going through this Parliament assuming that we shall continue the present basis for Scottish affairs without consideration.
    I do not for one moment suggest that any movement from the status quo would necessarily provide any benefit. I understand those who would prefer matters to be contained within the status quo, but I do not believe that it is appropriate for English Members to assume that Scottish affairs can be put to one side. We cannot be expected to carry on and manage as we have hitherto, accepting that a minority party in Scotland is the effective governing party in relation to Scottish business.
    I have lived long enough to share with the Leader of the Opposition a deep desire not to retrace our steps to devolution and not to open up all the old arguments about what might be secured by new constitutional arrangements, unless there is a real certainty that they will lead to a conclusive judgment.
    I am conscious that "Scotland the nation" is not an empty slogan. Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom with a historical tradition and national identity. I judge that Scots have been happy to be merged with fellow citizens of the United Kingdom to provide a Government, but we must remember that the future direction and debate of a country with such a history cannot be taken for granted.
    I have no wish to suggest that we are on the threshold of seeking to re-open the separation argument but. I have a modest comment to make to show that every English Member should think about these things. It would be no bad thing, just a gesture—gesture politics—to ask the Procedure Committee when it is established to take a comprehensive view of how we manage Scottish affairs in the House both in terms of general business and of legislation. I leave that modest thought with those who are in a position further to judge it and present the arguments to the House.
    Mr. Dalyell: We were made the guinea pigs for the poll tax or community charge. As a former Leader of the House, how does the right hon. Gentleman fancy finding the time for the 90 statutory instruments which the Lothian director of finance says will be necessary? How would he find the money for the 70 full-time canvassers in Lothian region who each month will have to update the register which is to be kept separately from the electoral register? Is this not a classic case of someone saying, "Who will rid me of the rates? Find a way."? Junior Ministers have scurried away and come up with this.
    Mr. Biffen: I remember when the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was famous for his monosyllabic interventions. There are many uncovenanted benefits of sitting where I now sit and the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned a further 90 of them.
    A formidable programme has been assigned to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. He is a privileged Member of the Conservative party to hold that portfolio at this time. On occasion the Tory party needs the regeneration of its performance in social terms and in social direction. The education plans outlined in the Queen's Speech, and in subsequent statements, imply a major departure in social policy. This is the authentic voice of Tory social policy looking back for inspiration to people such as Rab Butler or Balfour at the beginning of the century. That has my wholehearted support.
    I should like to make a few uncomfortable supportive judgments. First, I hope that we shall always remember that, however important is the private sector, it is state education which is the particular responsibility of the House. The collective tradition in education goes back to before the Education Act 1870. Since then that collective tradition has been identified with politics and the decisions of this House. I hope that it will be clearly understood that the proposals are designed to reinforce that collective tradition of maintained education and that they are not intended to be some oblique form of privatisation.
    Secondly, we cannot disguise from ourselves that the proposals will almost certainly impinge upon the authority of local government. I cannot see how the foreseen transfer of powers can do other than enhance schools as entities to the detriment of the existing authorities. I accept and even welcome that, but we must act with as good a spirit of goodwill as we can. Some gesture must be made to the local authorities in their relationship with Government which will enable them to proceed more happily.
    I hope that there will be a relaxation in the arrangements for capital receipts. I accept that local authorities are not all the same but we cannot draw the potential poison unless we take a more relaxed view on capital receipts.
    Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Biffen: There, from the heart of Birmingham, comes Chamberlain Toryism. I am the modest rural variety.
    Available resources always cause difficulties. Every Tory has in his diary the glorious 12th, with the slaughter, carnage and excitement that goes with it. The dry run for the Tories is the start of the public expenditure round. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a speech in his constituency at the weekend. One does not need much of a decoder to work out that someone in the Department said, "Something must be done and damn quick. There's no better place than your own back garden."
    In that speech we were given the affirmation that the strictest lines will be taken in public spending, and that includes education. I think that that is a very unwise way of setting about these proposals. We cannot have education reform on the scale and with the intensity and comprehensiveness indicated in the Queen's Speech unless we are prepared to back it with adequate resources. Anything less than that would undermine the policy itself.
    400
    I wish my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench great and signal success in the execution of the policies contained in the Queen's Speech. It is a magnificent and radical document and I am delighted to support it. Furthermore, I have a suspicion that at the end of the Session my record will look much more amiable to the Patronage Secretary than those of some of my hon. Friends.
    Our economic policy is supremely successful and I welcome especially the commitment to continue the fight against inflation. However, in all of these matters there is a balance to be struck between what can be secured by a successful economic policy and a commitment to a social policy. Such commitment is best exemplified in the education proposals. I am certain that those proposals will be considered generously by the House and supported by Conservative Members. This will be an exciting parliamentary Session and I am glad to be around.
    5 pm
    Mr. Ken Maginnis: Like the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), when I heard the Home Secretary speak I wondered whether he had forgotten that the theme of today's debate is "deprivation and inequality of opportunity" or whether, not having been a frequent visitor to the House for some time, I had perhaps arrived on the wrong day. None the less, I was glad to have a reassurance in the last few sentences that the right hon. Gentleman was aware of what he was meant to talk about to the House today.
    As the House knows, I come from an area which has most felt these eight years of deprivation under the Tory Government. The past eight years have seen a steady decline in most aspects of Government in Northern Ireland. That means that when I come here, irregularly as I have of late, I do not come with the blind faith in parliamentary procedure that my right hon. Friend Mr. Enoch Powell felt and expressed when he came to the House. I must pay tribute to Enoch Powell today. He told me that this House was responsible to the nation and that it would not sell the nation short. He said that no Government could overcome the authority of this House. While I recognise Enoch's kindness to me, I am not convinced by his argument, especially after my experiences during the past four years.
    I live in a part of the United Kingdom which the Home Secretary did not see fit to mention today when he mentioned other regions in the United Kingdom. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Gorton also failed to mention Northern Ireland in his speech. The situation in Northern Ireland is such that those of us who represent constituencies there honestly feel that a great deal of our time in the House is wasted.
    I am glad to speak early in the debate because I want to warn hon. Members that I do not wish to hear them express their pleasure at the presence of Ulster Unionists in the House. That happens from time to time but I do not want to hear those hollow words. If there is to be any healing of wounds during this Session of Parliament, that healing of wounds must come about because we are made welcome. We certainly shall not be made welcome, or feel that we are being made welcome, if we are ignored as we have been in the past and if the government of Northern

    401
    Ireland continues to be a matter of arrangement between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and a Minister from a foreign jurisdiction.
    I found it sad that less than a fortnight ago I had no choice or option as an elected Member of this House—I suppose elected by a much larger percentage of the electorate than the average Member—and that the only way in which I could properly represent the feelings of m' constituents was deliberately to disobey the law, allow myself to go before the courts, to state before the magistrate that I was not prepared to pay a fine for my misdemeanour and that I should be obliged to go to prison. Indeed, I went to prison. Anyone who believes in democracy and who is almost 50 years of age can take little pleasure in having had to go to prison, and can take even less pleasure in knowing that he is bound to go back again and again because his democratic rights have been taken away. The greatest deprivation that anyone could suffer is to have his democratic rights taken away and to find that the only way in which he can express himself is by going to gaol in opposition to the joint sovereignty of his part of the United Kingdom.
    I know that many hon. Members wish to speak and I shall not be able to cover many of the points with which I should have liked to deal. However, I could not take part in a debate on deprivation without alluding to the serious state of the Health Service in the part of the United Kingdom in which I live. We have been deprived of resources to the extent that the lives of the people whom I represent are being placed in serious danger. Indeed, lives may be lost. We all know that the Government's security policy has been responsible for the loss of many lives during the past 15 or 16 years. A list of the dead in Northern Ireland runs to many pages. Those deaths are easily defined, if hard to accept.
    However, those who die in our hospitals because we are deprived of resources are more difficult to identify. I find it strange that, with direct rule, those who should be fighting hardest to see that extra resources are made available are forced to defend their Government's record on health.
    Recently, I criticised the Government, the Northern Ireland Office and the Department of Health and Social Security about the dreadful circumstances which exist in one of the hospitals in my constituency. It was not anyone from those areas of Government who defended the Government's record, but the general manager of the local regional health board who said that his board rejected what I had said. I was talking about the fact that, in the event of an electricity breakdown in the hospital, there is no automatic switchgear to bring in the auxiliary generator. For 20 minutes, half an hour or longer if it proves difficult to find an electrician—we do not have them on standby because we cannot afford it—the surgeons in the operating theatre must work by the light provided by a car battery.
    On one occasion, when a man was having a serious thigh injury set and pinned, the surgeon had to put in the pins by feel as the X-ray machinery was not available. On another occasion a patient was anaesthetised for an operation but had to be brought round without the operation being performed because a lady from the delivery ward who needed a Caesarian section was in danger of losing her life and that of her child. That is the wing and a prayer situation under which the hospitals in my area must operate.
    402
    Recently, a seriously injured patient had to be transferred to the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast. I am led to believe that the only anaesthetist available had to travel in the ambulance with the patient, who was on a life support system, and that if a shooting, bombing or serious car accident had occurred there would have been no one to anaesthetise the injured. Lives would have been lost. We have no one on standby between the hours of 12 midnight and 8 in the morning in the ambulance room of that hospital. We have to hope that an ambulance can be summoned from somewhere else if the one ambulance on duty is already involved in transferring patients to or from the hospital to Belfast or Craigavon. That is the position that a public servant is defending on behalf of the Government. Why do Ministers not stand up and tell us why they are putting the lives of patients in my constituency at risk?
    I am glad to see the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) sitting on the Bench and I notice that he has been transferred to the Department of Health and Social Security. He will be an excellent man for the job because he has expert training in what is required during his term in Northern Ireland. The House will be aware that he spent many years covering up the Government's inadequacies on the security front and covering up the increasing death rate in Northern Ireland. Obviously, with what is happening in health and social services, his talent to cover up will be more than required. I am sure that before he leaves the post he will be known as Dr. Cover-up. I hope that he will not be called Dr. Death.
    I can never rise in this House and ignore the Government's failure on security. A few days ago, Jim Nicholson, an ex-colleague of those in the House last Session, was dealing with constituency matters. By chance, I happened to be with him. We had not been long about our business when the police arrived to tell us that his wife and two young children had been attacked by terrorists. Fortunately—no thanks to any steps that had been taken to prevent such a situation and no thanks to the terrorists—Mrs. Nicholson and the two children escaped. Again, the record of the Government was well manifested on that occasion.
    Everyone knows who the gunman was. Over the past few days the newspapers have done all but name him. He has been responsible for almost 20 murders and has served prison sentences, but he has been released to commit more murders. His victims have been people not unlike Mrs. Nicholson, and a 72-year-old lady was his last Protestant victim. But recently he had a personal score to settle arid was responsible for killing one of his colleagues—his last victim. That murder is well known, but it has not yet come into the public domain.
    Immediately after the murder attempt on Mrs. Nicholson, the terrorists left the scene and drove three quarters of a mile back to the house where they had held some people prisoner overnight to return the car they had hijacked from the house, to rip out the telephone and to make arrangements for their escape. They then disappeared. They certainly had no fear that there might be a helicopter flying over the scene, because they knew that no helicopter was available to the police, despite the promises that I have had again and again from the Government Front Bench. Resources are not being made available for the security forces to hope to be able to deal with the level of terrorism that exists in Northern I reland.

    403
    I shall touch only briefly on the Government's promises that concern hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies and I hope that we shall have other opportunities to elaborate in more detail on the unbearable deprivation and inequality of opportunity that exists. For most of us, deprivation in Northern Ireland means the deprivation of life to the people who live there and inequality of opportunity means the inequality of opportunity to live and make political and social progress with one's neighbours. There are those with whom I should like to share responsibility in Northern Ireland. They are those who from time to time have come to this House belonging to a different party and who have said that they feel underprivileged. I do not want them to feel underprivileged, but if they wish to work in co-operation with my colleagues and myself, those people will have to face the reality of political life. They must realise that it is not enough to say, "We deplore violence and want it to end," and then go out and fight elections, as they did in South Down, on the basis of "getting rid of the Prod."
    It is a pity that no SDLP Member is in the House today, but I dare say that they will hear my words. As a result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the SDLP can win seats only where there is a vast sectarian vote on which to call, such as in Newry and Armagh and South Down, and where they can go forward under the slogan, "Let's get rid of the Prod." They cannot deal with the opponent which the Anglo-Irish Agreement was designed to help them to defeat—Sinn Fein. It is significant that, in West Belfast, if we combine the votes of Joe Hendron and Gerry Fitt, the SDLP was roundly defeated by Sinn Fein—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I draw your attention to the Minister for Social Security, The hon. Member for Chelsea, who has the unfortunate habit of laughing at the wrong time. He did it when he had responsibility for the fiasco of government in Northern Ireland. It would serve him well to learn from his mistakes, for which we have paid.
    Mr. Richard Ryder (Mid-Norfolk): Get on.
    Mr. Maginnis: I will get on, but it would do all members of the Front Bench, including the hon. Member for Chelsea, good to listen to what I have to say. The hon. Gentleman does not have to come here, as I have said before, and say that 32 of his constituents have been murdered by terrorists during the life of the previous Parliament. I do.
    Unless the Government develop a sense of reality during this Parliament and realise that the vast majority of people are not impressed by a failed Anglo-Irish Agreement or by a triumphalist SDLP, whose only successes have been in constituencies where it was bound to win because of the massive sectarian vote on which it can call, there will be no point in people like me and my colleagues coming here to try to give the Government another chance to right the great wrong that they have done to the people whom we represent.
    5.23 pm
    Mr. David Porter: In thanking you for calling me to address the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do so with a proper sense of my position, rising to speak for the first time. My main reason for rising to speak so early in my parliamentary career is that my constituency
    404
    stands to benefit especially from the policies outlined in the Gracious Speech. I open with those words because they are close to the words used by my predecessor, the right hon. Jim Prior, when he made his maiden speech in November 1959. I pay tribute to his work as a Member since then. He achieved respect across the Chamber, and outside the House he achieved recognition across the nation.
    The constituency of Waveney was called Lowestoft in 1959. Then, the new Member spoke about the appalling roads, about the need to ensure help—but if not help, certainly not discouragement—for fishing and farming, and about an unemployment rate of 8 to 10 per cent. Today, we have moved on a generation. Unemployment is 15 per cent., but falling—only six months ago it approached 19 per cent.—and Waveney district council, in conjunction with neighbouring Great Yarmouth borough council, made a joint submission for assisted area status to the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. That application still stands.
    There is no doubt of my support for the proven policy of allowing enterprise to stimulate economic growth and for selective help to come into the regions, but we should remember that one region's selective help may be another region's unfair competition. For instance, Waveney is trying to compete nationally to attract new jobs. Equally, with farming and fishing, competition is the watchword, but it must be fair. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will know of the feelings expressed by some of our farmers when they hear about the Italian dairyman who still has not translated the word "quota", and when Dutch quality controllers of eggs appear to be employed for their inability to see the eggs.
    In 1959 Jim Prior spoke about grants and loans for building new trawlers and drifters. Since then, the Lowestoft fishing industry has reached rock bottom. Fishermen were told to stop feeling sorry for themselves, to stop crying about the Dutch competition, which brought the industry to its knees, and to modernise the fleet to compete. That is exactly what they did, investing millions of pounds to buy modern beam trawlers. Recovery is beginning, with a new 1·5 million fish market being built at Lowestoft, but until we have a system of licences, by-catches, engine sizes and vessel lengths that recognises that British fishing must be at least equal to that of other nations, the industry will not be the success story and the engine of economic growth that it should be. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall return to that subject in a more appropriate debate.
    No Conservative Member would argue with the need to address the problems of the inner cities, but there is a point of support for the cities beyond which people in the rural areas and the towns will not go willingly. Those of us from the shires, where county and district councils have been prudent, to the extent of making prudence an art form, will be looking carefully at the community charge and the uniform business rate with a view to saying that the cities are a priority, but that they are not the only need. I say this speaking for Waveney, which is at the very eastern edge of East Anglia. East Anglia is enjoying rapidly increasing prosperity, but that prosperity has not yet reached Waveney. In all the regions there are pockets of need and areas of prosperity. We cannot generalise on the regions, and we cannot lump all of East Anglia with the so-called prosperous south-east.

    405
    The House has days for debating Scottish issues and Welsh issues. Why—or rather when—will we have a day for debating East Anglian issues?
    Until recently our road network was established on an entirely north-south structure, but population, development of business, the proximity of Europe and an increasing tourist industry have highlighted a need to develop a road network that takes us into the 21st century. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), to recognise the need to put East Anglia in general, and Waveney in particular, on the road map.
    In 1959 Jim Prior said that East Anglia was the Cinderella of the country's communications system. If we look at any other region, we can see that that is still so. Environmentally vital strategic non-primary routes such as the Halesworth relief road in my constituency have been awaited for these past 30 years. The third river crossing at Lowestoft, without which no significant economic development is possible, and without which the quality of life remains intolerable, has been awaited for these past 70 years.
    The Government have largely won the arguments on defence, freedom of choice, trade union reforms, wider ownership, and, to some extent, jobs. Now they must win the health, pensions and education arguments. They will have my support. But taking out strategic schools, such as the Reydon area schools in Waveney, will restrict, if not completely deny, parental freedom of choice. In this Parliament, as well as debates on education and finance, schools deserve the benefit of community and social debate in considering their future, especially in the rural areas.
    Waveney is an attractive coastal community. It is attractive to young and old alike, to the recently retired, and to television film crews. The market towns of Southwold, Halesworth, Beccles and Bungay are delightful compromises between old and new, between the developed and the conserved. I am confident that the thrust of the proposals that have been made to the House will further improve the lifestyle of the 100,000 people living in Waveney. We want a lot from those proposals.
    I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in permitting me to serve notice that East Anglia, that Waveney, that Cinderella wants to go to the ball of prosperity which so much of the country has already enjoyed and which the rest will now enjoy during the lifetime of this Parliament.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. John McAllion: As a new Member, may I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in this debate.
    I am extremely happy to begin my maiden speech by paying tribute to my predecessor for Dundee, East, Mr. Gordon Wilson. Gordon Wilson held Dundee, East for 13 years and through four different elections. That was no mean feat for a nationalist in an urban Scottish seat. He was very much a politician of the centre right as well as a separatist arid I fundamentally disagreed with his political approach. However, Gordon Wilson had a deserved reputation as a hard-working constituency Member and I willingly acknowledge and pay tribute to him for the great deal of hard work that he put in on behalf of the people of Dundee, East in the past 13 years.
    406
    May I also take this opportunity to mention Gordon Wilson's predecessor, George Machin, as Gordon failed to do that way back in 1974. George Machin is a fine Socialist and a great trade unionist. He was an excellent Member of Parliament for Dundee, East and it was extremely sad that the work that he had put in on behalf of Dundee, East was not recognised way back in 1974. I hope that, this afternoon, the House will recognise and help to redress the wrong that was done to George all those years ago.
    I am extremely conscious that, in common with Gordon Wilson, George Machin and even George Thomson, I rise for the first time in this House from the Opposition Benches. However, I must confess that. coming to this House as a new Scottish Member and in the wake of the 1987 general election result, it does not feel like arriving as a member of a defeated Opposition. In Scotland my party was not defeated. We had a marvellous victory and returned 50 of our country's 72 Members of Parliament. We received a clear mandate from the Scottish people for the policies that we put to them in the recent election campaign, including our policy for creating a directly elected Assembly in Edinburgh.
    It is certain that, in the course of this Parliament, we shall return again and again to the Scottish question and to how to resolve the political crisis caused by the general election result in Scotland. Ministers must be brought to realise that they face a political crisis in Scotland. In my country there is no mandate for any of the policies contained in the Gracious Speech. The Secretary of State for Scotland will not make the crisis go away by trying to pretend that it does not exist or by blindly refusing lo accept that 11 June ever happened in Scotland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot bury his head in the sand and wish away the rout of the Tories in Scotland—he must face the consequences. The consequence is that the Government cannot force unwanted policies upon an unwilling people. They will not be accepted in Scotland.
    One of the subjects covered by today's debate is the Government's failure to regenerate Britain's cities. I would like to focus on one aspect of that failure—how it affects the unemployed of my constituency. Officially, there are 7,653 registered unemployed in Dundee, East—the highest number of unemployed of any constituency in the north-east of Scotland. The unofficial, and therefore more truthful and accurate, figure is, of course, much higher. According to the unemployment unit there are in fact 9,317 unemployed, almost 23 per cent. of the adult work force of the constituency. For those men and women, nothing in the Gracious Speech offers any hope. Those people will remain wholly unimpressed by the high-sounding phrases in the Gracious Speech about "sound financial management", the promotion of enterprise and the reduction of inflation being the keys to solve unemployment. They have heard it all before in every Gracious Speech since the Government came to office eight years ago.
    Eight years on from those first promises to cut the dole queues and to create a climate of enterprise, the unemployment levels that still persist in Dundee, East are more than twice as high as they were when the Government first came to office.
    Yesterday, one Conservative Member referred to the problems of the north-south divide as being all in the mind. He could not be more wrong because, above all else, the north-south divide can be found in the levels of mass poverty and its bedfellow, mass unemployment, that

    407
    persist today at unacceptable levels in various areas of our country. If Ministers are truly concerned to understand the rout of the Conservative party in Dundee, Scotland as a whole, Wales and many areas in the north of England, they should realise that it stems primarily from the Government's abject failure to deal effectively with the evil of mass unemployment.
    During my time in the House, what I would most like to do is to alert and persuade Conservative Members of the seriousness of unemployment in areas such as Dundee, East. I want to make them understand that the unemployed want work, not words, from the Government. They want initiatives to secure existing jobs and to create new jobs. The Dundee unemployed certainly do not want the phoney restart programme or the different varieties of temporary employment schemes. Above all, they do not want the new and insidious work are projects, such as the job training scheme. They certainly do not want the prospect of compulsory training for the young unemployed. They want full-time, permanent and decently paid jobs. Surely, in this day and age that is not too much to ask, especially when the unemployed of my constituency only want one job each, while some in this House can enjoy more than one job, and are more than decently paid at that.
    I believe that it is not even beyond the wit of this Government to begin to help to provide the opportunities for employment for the unemployed of my constituency. However, I fear that the political will to do that does not exist on the Conservative Benches.
    In the Gracious Speech we were told :
    "Measures will be introduced to provide further competition in the provision of local authorities' services."
    However, only last Friday, at a meeting in Dundee, the chairman of the Scottish branch of the Association of Direct Labour Organisations warned that privatising council services could mean up to 500 redundancies in a city such as Dundee. How can anyone square that scenario, painted by someone close to the local scene who knows what the local effect will be? How can that be squared with the Prime Minister's boast of last Thursday of steadily growing job opportunities for all? We must ask, "All of whom?" for it is certainly not those who live in the northern half of an increasingly divided and critically weakened kingdom.
    The failure of the Government to understand or to appreciate the local dimension is one of the most disturbing aspects of their performance over the past eight years. They rule from afar and have no sensitivity to the sentiments and needs of the localities. Let me give the House an example. Dundee is the gateway to the northeast of Scotland and to an immensely important area, not only in terms of population, but also in terms of economic importance. Manufacturing industries, agriculture and advanced centres of education and research and development are all located throughout the Tayside and Grampian regions. However, we remain at a disadvantage because of our relative geographical isolation compared with other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom.
    My part of Scotland desperately and urgently requires effectively improved communications—not just by road, air and sea, but especially by rail. However, the Government have chosen to stop the electrification of the east coast line short at Edinburgh. The Government have
    408
    closed down the freightliner depots at Dundee and Aberdeen, thereby throwing an additional 10,000 freight movements a year on to our already hard-pressed road network. We learned only last week that the Government threaten to downgrade Dundee's railway centre by closing the train crew depot and transferring more than 100 administrative and manual jobs out of the city.
    No one of any political persuasion locally in Dundee would agree with any of those Government decisions or proposals. It is not a matter of Labour-Tory or Left-Right divisions. Across the political spectrum in Dundee we want improved railway communications, yet we are being denied them by a remote, out-of-touch, authoritarian and over-centralised Government in Westminster. It is time that that Government began to listen to the voices of the localities elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
    Dundee has not been without its employment successes over the past eight years. I willingly acknowledge the success of the Dundee Project in particular, which brought together local authorities, the Scottish Development Agency and the private sector in a productive partnership. But the work of that project has simply not been enough—nowhere near enough—because throughout its lifetime unemployment in Dundee has gone on rising. That is because of the disastrous collapse in manufacturing employment across the spectrum of that sector in our city.
    I should like to refer to one incident in the jute industry, which still employs around 1,200 people in Dundee and Tayside. The survival of that industry is seriously threatened by cheap imports from Asia that are being dumped in the United Kingdom market. In my previous role as convenor of Tayside regional council, in January this year I led a delegation of employers and trade unionists to the Scottish Office in Edinburgh to lobby the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), who as Under-Secretary of State then had responsibility for Scottish industry. The Minister sympathised with our case for a system of quotas on certain classifications of jute products. He agreed with the seriousness of the threat to the very existence of the 1,200 jobs in our area, and promised to take up the matter with the Department of Trade and Industry as "a matter of urgency"—those were his words. Yet despite several telexes and telegrams since then to elicit a response from the Department of Trade and Industry, we still await a reply to the pleas of management and unions in my area to save 1,200 jobs.
    The careless neglect and offhand treatment involved in that incident speak volumes about the Government's incapacity to appreciate or support the role of manufacturing industry. It is also one of the main reasons why unemployment is so high in my and many other constituencies.
    Scotland cannot afford another four or five years of the same policies that we have endured for the past eight years. That is why Scotland voted overwhelmingly for change two weeks ago. If the House really is the mother of Parliaments and the seat of democracy, it will recognise the democratic decision of the Scottish people on 11 June and deliver to my country the changes that it so clearly desires.
    5.42 pm
    Sir Bernard Braine: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on their admirable maiden speeches, in which

    409
    they referred generously to their distinguished predecessors, paid customary tributes to their constituencies and showed a clear grasp of the problems of the people whom they represent. It was a good beginning for both of them, and I can say confidently that we look forward with pleasure to their contributions to our future debates.
    I was greatly moved by the speech of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). With him, I hope that the House will have an early opportunity to discuss the problems of Northern Ireland and that we shall then heed the wise and magnanimous words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) about Scotland. I hope that we, particularly on the Conservative Benches, will show a full awareness, sympathy and understanding of the fears, hopes and above all the sensibilities of our fellow citizens in Ulster and Scotland.
    I am in broad agreement with the greater part of the Queen's Speech. Given the Government's determination to encourage the development of a freer, more confident, yet more responsible, society, and given the evidence of a reviving economy, I find most of the measures proposed acceptable and necessary. However, I must say with great sadness and, indeed, puzzlement, that I note the inclusion in the Gracious Speech of a Bill to permit all-day drinking in public houses. I wish, therefore, to address myself to that subject, on which I agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
    We are told that this Bill will give greater freedom of choice to the consumer. Perhaps. It will certainly boost the sales of the drinks industry, although, interestingly, it is not welcomed by all licensees. But it finds no favour whatever among the bodies concerned with the health and social welfare of the nation. It has no support from the medical profession or the specialist and caring organisations that have to deal with the consequences of alcohol abuse, such as Alcohol Concern and the Scottish Council on Alcoholism, which, ironically, were created and are funded by the Government.
    I have just received a letter from Dr. John Havard, secretary of the British Medical Association, in which he asks me to make it plain to the House that the association is opposed to any extension of the licensing hours. He writes:
    "There is no conclusive evidence that a change in licensing hours would decrease the health and social costs of alcohol abuse and every reason to fear that it would exacerbate an already deteriorating situation."
    It is not as if the proposed Bill will receive unqualified approval from the drinks industry. Indeed, a campaign is already under way to extend all-day drinking to Sundays, with the object of extending the sale of alcohol still further. I have to tell the House that, assuredly as night follows day, the greater the availability of alcohol, the greater the harm that we can expect.
    The World Health Organisation has been so concerned about the levels of consumption worldwide and the related harm to which they give rise that it has called upon all nations, including Britain, to reduce consumption by 25 per cent. by 1995. No wonder Dr. Havard asks this question in his letter:
    "Why, when other countries are desperately tightening up on the availability of alcohol … are we taking up parliamentary time relaxing it?"
    Why indeed? Those of us who have worked in the field of alcohol abuse and who know the facts have witnessed,
    410
    since the last reform of the licensing law of England and Wales in 1960, an enormous increase in the availability and consumption of alcohol, as the balanced system of controls that once helped to make this country one of the most sober in Europe has been dismantled stage by stage.
    The measure proposed by the Government is one further step in that process, which has already resulted in the misuse of alcohol becoming one of the principal causes of premature death and avoidable illness, and the running thread linking a wide range of otherwise disparate social problems, such as carnage on the roads, violent crime, public disorder, marital break-ups and industrial absenteeism. There is no question but that the misuse of alcohol poses a profound and still-growing threat to the health and wellbeing of our society, compared with which the impact of illicit drugs, dreadful as it is, is relatively small. I speak as the chairman in the previous Parliament of the all-party committee on the misuse of drugs.
    One would have thought that a new Government, determined as they are to build a new, confident, bustling but fair society, and knowing the problem and its impact on other comparable countries, would regard the control of alcohol and its misuse here as a priority. Not so. The Government are failing to see the problem in the round. They are determined to wage war against crime, yet there is a close link between alcohol and crime, especially violent crime, as every police officer knows. The Government are determined to tackle the problems of the Health Service and to help it cope with the enormous demands placed upon it, yet they seem oblivious to the fact that up to one in five hospital beds is occupied by a patient with an alcohol-related illness. The Government are determined to improve the education and training of young people, yet so far they have done nothing about the alarming increase in under-age drinking, reported by every newspaper in the land.
    Mr. Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Bernard Braine: I have much to say. I would normally give way, but I want to stick to my single theme and leave my message with the House and, in particular, with the Front Bench.
    The Government are determined to continue their drive to increase the efficiency and productivity of the economy, yet they must know that alcohol misuse is a cause of industrial absenteeism and inefficiency. Those are more than sufficient reasons for a determined assault to be mounted on the problems of alcohol control and misuse, and for that to be done before permitting any increase in drinking hours.
    We might have expected, therefore, that a Government fresh from the hustings would have announced their intention of launching such an assault, following the example set by other countries. How ironic and how sad is the recent news from New Zealand, a country whose people are so closely related to ourselves, of a report presented to the Ministry of Justice in Wellington. The report came from a committee, presided over by a distinguished High Court judge, which had examined the association between alcohol misuse and violent behaviour. It recommended a period of closure of public houses in the afternoon, and the House will be interested to hear the reason given :
    "Many English pubs are required to observe an afternoon closure and that must be regarded as one of the significant

    411
    factors which enables English pubs to maintain a favourable image far removed from that of their New Zealand counterparts."
    Precisely when that appeared, the Government's answer here is a short little Bill ending the afternoon break and keeping the pubs open all day—a proposition which, in the face of the facts, is quite extraordinary, suggesting as it does an attitude of supreme complacency, if not flippancy, towards one of the major social problems of our time.
    It may not have been intended—I am sure that it was not—but the message for the young is appalling: their drugs are dangerous, but the most widely abused drug of all, which kills vastly more people than heroin, can safely be given freer rein. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has presented alcohol misuse and licensing hours as two entirely separate issues. They are not. Indeed, that view is wholly at variance with what the Government have said previously on the subject. The DHSS publication "Drinking Sensibly" remains the only comprehensive statement of Government policy on alcohol control with which we have been provided since 1930, more than half a century ago. That document reviewed the Scottish experience and concluded :
    "The sharp increase in alcohol related harm in recent years might suggest that our licensing laws ought, if anything, to be tightened."
    The harm since those words appeared in print has increased, not diminished.
    My right hon. Friend's decision to go galloping off in the opposite direction is surely a classic example of the left hand of the Government—the Home Office—not knowing what the right hand—the DHSS—is doing. In doing so, they are giving the impression that they do not even care.
    The Government, in justification of their untimely and retrograde proposal, seem to suggest that they intend no more than a modest tinkering with one limited aspect of the licensing laws which would be unlikely to have any adverse effect. The point is that we have had a quarter of a century of tinkering, and the cumulative effect has been adverse in the extreme. What is needed now is not another tinkering measure, but a coherent, co-ordinated strategy for the prevention of alcohol misuse, which is concerned not merely with pub opening hours, but with the whole issue of legal availability, fiscal policy, health education, advertising, and drinking and driving. Nothing less than that will do. It is simply not good enough for my right hon. Friend to say, as he did last week, that the Government are aware of the problem of under-age drinking and that they are
    "sensitive to the effects of alcohol misuse on health and of its connections with crime",
    while introducing a measure that will certainly have the effect of making those problems worse.
    If the Government are determined to press ahead with further liberalisation, the least they can do is, first, to introduce additional measures to mitigate present problems. According to the Government's own survey, conducted by the OPCS not long ago, with the licensing laws as they are now—not as they may become—one in five 16 and 17-year-old boys drinks well above the so-called upper safe limit for a mature man, and they drink mainly and illegally in pubs.
    412
    The evidence shows that even 13-year-olds are getting drunk in pubs. Teachers are complaining about pupils returning to school under the influence of alcohol. There is evidence, too, of drunken teenagers causing trouble in the streets.
    The drinking and driving problem is similar. The most obvious feature of the pattern of drinking and driving accidents is their close relationship to licensing hours. Alcohol-related accidents begin to occur significantly at midday, about an hour after the pubs open, and then increase steadily throughout the rest of the day, reaching a peak just after the pubs have closed at night. The obvious danger of the Government's proposal for continuous afternoon drinking is that peak accident times will begin earlier in the day, during the late afternoons, when schoolchildren and other especially vulnerable road users are about. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that his Bill will contain provisions for averting that danger?
    I serve notice now that unless the Bill—when it comes before us—contains proposals for checking alcohol abuse it will be vigorously opposed by hon. Members in all parts of the House, who, in turn, will be strongly supported by the medical profession, by magistrates and teachers, and by all who care about the health and social well-being of our nation.
    There is still time for my right hon. Friend to set up the same sort of co-ordinated machinery that exists for drug abuse—an effective inter-departmental committee. I pay the warmest tribute to the Minister of State who chaired that committee. The Government's action on hard drugs has been excellent and productive of results. Why ignore the most serious drug of all? There is still time for my right hon. Friend to end the contradiction between his own Department's view that there is no connection between licensing and alcohol abuse and the more realistic line that is taken by the DHSS, which has to fund the cost of ill health, and by the Department of Transport, which valiantly mounts costly campaigns to reduce the carnage on the roads—carnage that will most certainly be increased by any step to end the afternoon break and increase drinking hours.
    My advice to my right hon. Friend—I say this in the kindest fashion, because I have great respect and affection for him—is to pause, reflect and study the wise advice of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which told us not many years ago:
    "Society has in many ways tried to have its pleasure, deny its responsibilities and hand the problem over to the courts or the caring agencies. We believe that an undoubted message for the future is that prevention has to be strengthened, and that this will eventually mean all of us drinking somewhat less."
    5.58 pm
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I start by congratulating the two hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches in the House this afternoon. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) particularly impressed me with his recognition that, even in an area that is regarded as fairly prosperous, there are pockets of unemployment. I am sure that we shall hear from him again, and I hope that we shall hear more from him on that point.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) made an excellent and robust speech in defence of the people in his area which, like my own, suffers not from pockets of deprivation but from multiple deprivation

    413
    on a large scale. My hon. Friend made that point clearly and he will be an admirable voice for the large Scottish Labour contingent which I, as a Merseyside Member, am pleased has joined us in the House of Commons. I look forward to many such speeches and to collaboration with my hon. Friend on future occasions. He made the point that, in Scotland, the Government certainly did not win the general election; and that there were many regions of England, too, where the election was grossly lost by the Tory party. Labour now has as many Members of Parliament in Liverpool as the SDP has Members in the entire United Kingdom. I hope that that will gain us a little bit of preference now and then in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the eye of Mr. Speaker.
    In my constituency there was a 9·5 per cent. swing to the Labour party and instead of a majority of 11,8001 now bask in a majority of 20,486. That is despite losing 2,000 electors, mainly council house tenants, and gaining about 1,000 owner-occupiers. Contrary to the popular myth, I am glad to say that those owner-occupiers are overwhelmingly supporters of the Labour party, and I am sure that they will stand by us in future.
    The people of Liverpool and most of Merseyside support the Labour party, because they have been made to feel aliens in their own country. They resent what happened in the general election because they see no hope in a Government who have torn to shreds any ideas of local democracy giving anything to the people in that very deprived area. Following an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) last Thursday, the Prime Minister said :
    "I hope that one day Merseyside will welcome the private sector within Liverpool".
    Really, who does she think built the 4,000 council homes and the five sports centres that were provided as a result of the policies of the Labour-controlled Liverpool city council if it was not private firms? Who does she think benefits from the contracts that local authorities put out to tender as a result of being able to spend more money on all those necessities of life in areas such as the one that I represent?
    The Prime Minister quoted the former Member of Parliament for Knowsley. North, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk. Hon. Members may recall that he hoped that within 15 years of entering the House he would be the Prime Minister. That gives us another two years. Mr. Kilroy-Silk put Liverpool's troubles about job creation down to the Militant Tendency. I am no friend of the Militant Tendency. We have been able to solve some of our problems in Liverpool without the help of the Tory party.
    The tremendous result of the Labour party in Liverpool in obtaining 155,000 votes as against 47,000 for the Tory party, is far and away in excess even of the very good result that we had as recently as 7 May in the local government elections. That result is attributable to the fact that in the town hall in Liverpool there is again a Labour administration admirably led by a progressive and effective former deputy leader of Merseyside county council, Councillor Harry Rimmer. I am sure that the House will hear much more about that Labour council in the years ahead as Labour is returned with increasing majorities year in and year out.
    One cannot put the problems of Liverpool and the decline of the port and of industry down to the three and a half years during which time Militant had some hegemony on the Labour group. Between 1961 and 1971,
    414
    there was a Tory city council in Liverpool. Liverpool has no Tory MPs and next year it is likely to be the first major city in the United Kingdom without a single Tory councillor. That is very much in prospect. Between 1961 and 1971, about 80,000 jobs were lost in Liverpool. About 28,000 were lost in the port, the railways, the construction industry and utilities, 21,000 in retail and wholesale distribution and 31,000 in manufacturing industry.
    There is no point in the Prime Minister saying that the difficulties in Liverpool are not the fault of the Government. The Government attempted to strangle local democracy, first by abolishing the county council and then by making attacks on councillors on Liverpool city council. To a large extent, the Liberal party has taken the place of the Tories in more ways than one on Liverpool city council. When the Liberal party under Sir Trevor Jones was in charge of the city, we lost jobs from Dunlop. British Leyland closed its plant, Meccano and Lucas of Broadgreen closed and the Tate and Lyle factory closed.
    It is rather interesting to note that, during the last three years, the Ford Motor Company, which has a very important plant at Halewood, has increased its investment. The vice-president of Ford in Europe, Bill Haydon, has said that industrial relations at Ford in Halewood are much better than they were some years ago. As I have said, Merseyside county council was abolished by the Tory Government. Far from turning its hack on private industry, that council positively helped it. In her speech during the debate on the Address the Prime Minister said :
    "If we want more jobs on Merseyside, Labour-controlled local authorities will have to welcome private enterprise within their borders."—[Official Report, 25 June, 1987; Vol. 118, c. 53.]
    I was the chairman of the economic development committee of Merseyside county council. It improved county help for the active small enterprise scheme, which gave grants on a large scale to small private businesses as well as to worker co-operatives. Over 9,000 jobs were generated on Merseyside as a result of our efforts and I am proud of the fact that we were able to introduce some of those small business men to the export market. We took them to the Hanover trade fair in order to introduce them to wider horizons.
    We set up an enterprise board on Merseyside consisting of business men and trade unionists and within that board, largely because of the work of two directors of British Insulated Callenders Cables, that the first technical feasibility study was carried out about the possibility of a Mersey barrage scheme. All this was done under the Labour-controlled Merseyside county council. Tourism benefited and last year on Merseyside, largely because of the work we carried out on Merseyside tourism committee, £233 million was invested in Merseyside and helped to maintain 14,000 jobs. They are largely private enterprise jobs, but they were maintained largely as a result of the efforts of a Labour-controlled council.
    The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) created a little bit of a myth when as the Minister for Merseyside, as he was called, he introduced a number of schemes. Nobody would decry the investment that has gone into the Albert dock scheme, which had the cooperation of a Labour-controlled county council when it was introduced. Nobody would decry the international garden festival. But does anybody think that anything came from the busload of business men that the right hon.

    415
    Gentleman spoke about in his recent writing entitled, "Where There's a Will"? If anybody believes that anything came from that, he can forget it. The jobs that have been generated and which have stuck on Merseyside are those that were created by the county council under both Tory and Labour administrations and to some extent that were created by the Liverpool city council in the more recent past.
    The right hon. Member for Henley referred to the Waveney technology park in his book. He said that it was
    "an experiment to prove that where dereliction is far advanced and there is negative value to be removed from a site before anything can be done with it, public money is the essential factor that can produce the first growth."
    Opposition Members have been trying to get that message across to the Government. If we want to generate private investment in Merseyside, Glasgow or other deprived areas, that investment must be oiled and motored by public investment. Even the hon. Member for Waveney, in his admirable maiden speech, said that there was a need for infrastructural schemes to be supported by central Government to help farmers and the port at Lowestoft. Every sensible person understands that.
    I confess that I grieve for my country for what has happened as a result of the general election. I only wish that I could hope that the Government will respond to the words used in the House the other day by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands, (Mr. Knox):
    "given the proportion of the poll that the Government obtained in the recent election, during the next five years they should govern in a manner that shows respect for the views of those who did not vote for them. A real effort must be made to obtain consensus on as many issues as possible."—[Official Report, 25 June 1987; Vol 118, c. 102.]
    Yes, of course, under previous Conservative Prime Ministers there might have been some hope of that. However, the people that I am privileged and happy to represent recognise that this Prime Minister is totally lacking in humour and humanity. They recognise that the Government are a Government of doormats who are quite willing to go along with what the Prime Minister has to say.
    I was very interested in the comments made by the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) about the licensing laws. I agree with him overwhelmingly. I hope that he will join me in the Division Lobby in opposition to that legislation. However, if the experience of the previous Parliament is anything to go by, Conservative opposition will be single-issue opposition. When it comes to a fundamenal confrontation with the Government, when many Conservative Members realise that what the Government are doing is desperately wrong for the nation, they get cold feet. I suggest to the right hon. Member for Castle Point that he will probably be the only Conservative Member to join us in the Division Lobby when the licensing laws are debated.
    It is rather ironic that the speech moving the Loyal Address to the Gracious Speech was made by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). The hon. Gentleman's grandfather some years ago, when he was a Liberal Member—at least, I believe he was on the Liberal Benches then, but what's the difference between a Liberal and a Tory?—warned us about the licensing laws and said something about the Tory party being the
    416
    party which extolled the virtues of patriotism by the imperial pint. Of course, he used the word "pint" advisedly in those days.
    When we examine the Government's policies as they are presented in the Queen's Speech and in Bill after Bill, I very much doubt that we will find any attempt at consensus from the Prime Minister and her Cabinet of doormats. I am sure that any opposition will be expunged. We have heard already this afternoon from one of those Members who has been expunged. However, there are even more dire straits before us than the fact that the Prime Minister will continue with her intolerance.
    On 30 June 1983 I asked the Prime Minister my very first question about the riots that had occurred in Toxteth in Liverpool and the fact that I thought that the report of the Central Policy Review Staff had predicted the riots. The Prime Minister stated :
    "That report did not predict the Toxteth riots. It did, however, take the view that if high unemployment persisted and if the entire region became one of concentrated disadvantage the existing support services and income redistribution mechanisms would be inadequate to prevent social unrest." [Official Report, 30 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 698.]
    The concentrated disadvantages have not become better since 1983. In Liverpool, Merseyside and elsewhere, they have become much worse. The social mechanisms for distributing income have also been made much worse, thanks to the Secretary of State for Employment who will reply to the debate. The social security legislation introduced by the former Secretary of State for Social Services has made those mechanisms much worse and has increased poverty. If the Government want to see the next four or five years pass without real social turmoil, without the prospect of more Chapeltowns, Brixtons or Toxteths, they had better look carefully at the person leading the Government. That person is safer on the streets of Moscow than she would ever be in my constituency, and she had better look again at the leadership of the Conservative party. She had better look for someone who can lead the nation through consensus with that vast area of the country that has said no to Thatcherism.
    6.17 pm
    Mr. W. Benyon: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on their excellent maiden speeches we look forward to hearing from them in future.
    The first Queen's Speech of a new Parliament is a very important occasion because it sets the tone for the next four years or so. Therefore, I want to address my remarks specifically to my friends and colleagues on the Conservative Benches and especially to my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. I am not interested in what is happening on the Opposition Benches. Opposition Members have their own problems and they will have to solve them.
    I tried to intervene in the speech made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but he would not allow me to do so. I hope that the House noticed that throughout the speech—which, as usual, was good stuff and very amusing—there was not one reference to the responsibility of local government towards the inner-city areas. That was very significant, and I hope that it was noted by the House.

    417
    The difference between this Queen's Speech and others is that we have all come fresh from the hustings. I do not believe that my experience on the hustings is different from that of my hon. Friends or any other hon. Member. Obviously there are regional differences. For example, although I have 7,000 people drawing benefit in my constituency, hardly anyone mentioned unemployment. I appreciate that that was probably not the case elsewhere. However, they did mention, in strong terms, education, health, housing and law and order. I received general approbation on what the Government had done in the economic area. They thought that we had been successful; and most of my constituents are much better off now than they were when the Government came to power in 1979. On services, the people were really saying that they would vote for us this time but in a relatively lukewarm way because they did not think that we had done well on the services that I have just mentioned and they felt that we did not really care. The argument went on along those lines.
    Most popular concepts are unfair and there are no exceptions to the rule. We were not the only party that had that problem. Not every member of the Labour party is a card-carrying Militant, but that was the general appreciation, particularly in local government. Unfair though those concepts were, particularly on health and law and order where considerable progress has been made in recent years, unless they can be altered over the next four years or so, we shall face massive desertions at the next election.
    On that point I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said this afternoon. Organisation and efficiency are one thing, and they are very important in relation to the services, but there is no avoiding the crucial issue that more money needs to be spent in each of those areas. I should be much happier if I felt that that point was fully grasped by the new Government.
    We have already heard quite a bit about the north-south divide this afternoon. That name masks the fact that there are prosperous and deprived parts in all regions and that essentially this is a problem of the inner cities. Therefore, I welcome strongly the part of the Gracious Speech which deals with urban development corporations. I am sure that they are the right solution. I represent a constituency which has achieved tremendous progress and prosperity as a result of a new town development corporation, and I am sure that that is the way to proceed. But please let us make it plain that these are temporary, not permanent, solutions, and that what we are trying to do is to prime the pump in the deprived areas. We are not acting against local government; we are complementary to it.
    Before I entered the House—all too long ago—I served for many years in local government. I know that many of my hon. Friends are angry at the antics of some Labour authorities, and so am I. They have destroyed the essential trust that used to exist between central and local government. But if one supports local government, as I do, as an essential part of Britain's constitution, it must be accepted warts and all. My fear is that all our efforts in these areas will be dissipated by the lengthy debate and parliamentary process that we shall have on the community charge.
    Frankly, I think that the community charge is a bad tax. It is inefficient, expensive and unfair. I made those
    418
    reservations in my election address, so I am in the clear, as they say. But the point that everybody has missed—whether one is talking about the community charge, the rating system or whatever the system of local government finance—is that the burden is too great. Unless the burden is reduced, either by putting teachers' salaries on to the Exchequer, or something like that, no system will be able to work. That is vital to any consideration of the subject.
    I hope that over the next four years we shall turn our attention more and more to the progressive elimination of poverty in Britain. I hope that we shall start, first, with the old and then with the young. By that I mean that I hope that we shall move pensions slowly towards a percentage of average industrial earnings. That cannot be done too quickly. I understand the costs involved and the burden that that puts on working people. None the less, I hope that we shall work progressively towards that end.
    Secondly, for the young, I hope that we shall steadily increase child benefit because that is the easiest and quickest way to eliminate family poverty. However, to do that, it must be taxed, and I hope that that will be done. These measures to reduce poverty can take place without being a disincentive to work because payments are made to those in work and out of work. That will have a great effect on the so-called divide about which we have been talking this afternoon.
    Let me suggest one final method for the elimination of poverty. I hope that we shall have another look at the earnings limit for those who are on benefit. The present £4 limit is ridiculous. It is bad economically and socially, and I hope that that can be dramatically increased.
    No one doubts the successes of previous Conservative Governments on the economy, industrial relations and foreign affairs. In addition, no one doubts the radical nature of the measures that are detailed in the Gracious Speech, most of which I welcome wholeheartedly. But all will turn to dust and ashes unless we improve the position of the disadvantaged in Britain and create in truth the one nation that we all desire.
    6.26 pm
    Mr. Ian McCartney: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the parliamentary Session. You have taken a great deal off my mind, and, at the end of this speech, you will have taken a great deal of pressure from my kidneys. I also want to remind you of a promise that you gave me some 14 years ago when, as a young Labour party trainee organiser. I was asked to organise an industrial visit for you in Carlisle. Later that evening, in the Labour club, you told me, with your arm around me, that if there was anything at all that you could ever do for me I had only to ask. Fourteen years on, and the start of this speech, I intend at some time to hold you to that.
    It is a great pleasure for me to represent the constituency of Makerfield. Makerfield is an important and traditional part of the south Lancashire coalfield and an important part of the Wigan metropolitan borough council. Before I deal with the major issues of the debate. I should like to take the opportunity to thank two former hon. Members of the House for my being here. Their contributions were radically different, but because of them I am here making my maiden speech.
    The first person whom I want to mention is Michael McGuire, who, from 1964 represented the former

    419
    constituency of Ince and the constituency of Makerfield. During most of that time he enjoyed the support and understanding of his constituency party. For 24 years he carried out his duties in a way which brought him personal credit. The fact that in later years he fell out with his party can in no sense detract from that. It would be churlish in the extreme not to recognise that for most of that time he had the support of his party and in a genuine sense I wish him and his wife every success in his chosen new career.
    The second person whom I want to mention was the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, my father. Over the years he has treated me as a father usually does, giving me sound advice which I usually did not take—right hon. and hon. Members know that that is a trait that I have learnt from him—and he has always been an encouragement to me. It is a little disappointing that he is not present in the Chamber this evening as a Member. I also want to wish him and my mother, Margaret, every happiness in their retirement.
    Makerfield is one of those constituencies in the northwest of England which is still suffering from the ravages of industrial decline, the legacy of the industrial revolution and the exploitation of the coalfield and the textile industry and the heavy engineering industry. Despite the sensitive and radical way in which the local authority in Wigan has tackled those problems, over the last eight years the authority has been dragged back by the Government's actions.
    What I found appalling in today's debate, and in previous debates, is the complete insensitivity of Conservative Members to the plight of working people—not only in the north, but in every part of the industrial heartland of Britain. There is a real lack of recognition of the problems facing working people, not only because of the industrial decline brought on by the Government but because of the major effect on the community produced by poverty and the crushing disability that it brings to working people and their families. The major attack by the Government has been on those people in the front line—Labour local authorities.
    I make no apology for being a Socialist member of a local authority. I think that it is time that the people in this country recognised the important role that local authorities play in a democratic local structure, and in developing caring policies to ameliorate unemployment, to deal with inequalities in society and to stabilise it. Democracy is a very fragile thing. It is not just about Members of Parliament, but about real people in communities. One of the major reasons that we have a stable democracy is the role that local authorities have played since the industrial revolution, and the way in which, after the first world war, people came first in their hundreds and then in their thousands to town halls up and down the country and put forward persuasive changing attitudes to policies on housing, social services, transport, education and training.
    Those radical changes in policies were significant in terms of where we are today. The people who put them forward did so not out of books, but out of recognition and understanding of living in communities deprived of opportunity—deprived by Conservative Governments and business people whose interests were merely to take profits from communities, and to hell with the people who have to live in them. It is essential, in this and in future
    420
    debates, that we recognise and understand the importance of local authorities not only in tackling the problems of unemployment and deprivation, but in tackling in a real sense the feeling of alienation among working people, women and the unemployed. If anyone fails to recognise that alienation, he walks about blind. He fails to understand—Conservative Members often do not want to understand—what is happening in the nation today.
    In my constituency, which is a microcosm of the northwest, unemployment in two of my wards is over 20 per cent. In the ward that I represent—Abraham Ward—nine out of 10 school leavers last term did not go in to a real job. Car ownership is among the lowest in the country. We have the largest incidence of one-parent families out of Manchester, the largest number of single-person households and the lowest income in the borough of Wigan—itself a low-income area. Probably worst of all, we have the highest dependency rates of families living on one income. On council estates in the Wigan area, between 65 and 74 per cent. of all households are relying on a single income to maintain the family. That income is usually supplementary benefit or some other form of benefit. Twenty-three thousand families in Wigan each week live on supplementary benefit, and we have the largest live load of sickness benefit claims in the United Kingdom.
    This is the last school week in Wigan before the summer break, and we have 50,950 pupils. Of those, 10,187 are on free school meals. That represents 42 per cent. of children who go to school and take meals. So far in this financial year, the authority has paid out £440,000 to 13,857 young schoolchildren for clothing grants because their families live on or below the poverty line.
    In a recent speech in Wigan, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) talked about young workers living in a "hamburger economy". That is certainly true in Wigan. Even if there is the opportunity of a job, the jobs available are menial and pay less than £1 an hour. Training is almost nonexistent, except for the training schemes run by Wigan metropolitan council—the youth training scheme, the youth technology scheme, the scheme for young workers in the co-ops, the scheme for small businesses to employ young people, and subsidies for the private sector to take young people on. Those are all through a Labour local authority initiative. Why has it been done? Because the private sector which is represented on the Conservative Benches has given up. It is not interested in investing in jobs in Wigan or the north-west. It sees its role as investing in the City; investing in a fast buck; investing in money instead of people and jobs.
    What does that mean for our people? They are denied access to the nation's wealth, and denied opportunities that abound for those gentleman on the Conservative Benches every day of the week. They are rarely seen in the Chamber. Between 8 o'clock in the morning and 10 o'clock at night, when they turn up to vote, where are they? They are in the City, stripping the nation of its assets. This is an unrepresentative Parliament. [Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh, but they are stripping my people of real opportunities and jobs. That is the typical face of Toryism : they sit and laugh with their feet up on the Benches. The tragedy is that in my constituency people have their feet on benches because they have never been given a job opportunity.
    I want to ensure that I do not use unparliamentary language, so I shall use two words. I want to talk about

    421
    the abuse of the whipping system. I was shocked and surprised when I came here. Over the past week—the relationship has been either pimpish or impish—Conservative Members have been asking me, cajoling me and writing to me: "Please will you be a pair? I do not want to be here after 10 o'clock." The reason is that they do not want to come and represent their constituents; they want to come and represent the interests of business, and when they are not here, they are representing those interests in the City of London. The Opposition should be exposing that type of scandal to their constituents.
    I do not mind a whipping system that gives people time off for parliamentary duties. But I object to its being used for people to go into the City and the law courts to earn their coin, while we are sitting here at 10 o'clock watching them voting in the Lobbies and having a go at working people in all forms of legislation.
    We must recognise that local government is one of the most emancipating features of modern Britain. In all aspects of our activity, it is local authorities that keep the nation together, and that must be recognised. If the National Health Service is the jewel in the crown, local government must certainly be the crown.
    In the Gracious Speech, the Government have proposed a set of legislation that is desperately trying to undermine the work done by Labour local authorities. As a Socialist and a member of the Opposition, I am certain that Labour councils up and down the country will continue in a logical way to represent the interests of our people. I want to ask Conservative Members a number of questions, and they should ask themselves these questions. Do any of their children have to be sent on a youth training scheme? Do any of their children have their dole cut for refusing to be exploited by JTS? Do any of their married sons and daughters have to live on deprived housing estates, surviving on less than £50 a week? Will any of their children be sharing textbooks bought by the PTA at a local raffle? How many of their parents died last winter of hypothermia because of the cuts in benefits for working people?
    This Government will not inflict poverty and hopelessness on their own people, and we must ensure that they do not inflict it any longer on our people.
    Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had always been under the impression that when a maiden speech was being made in the House, hon. Members, no matter how much they might be provoked or hurt by a few home truths, would listen to that speech in perfect silence. Am I right or am I wrong? During the excellent maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) there were one or two nasty interruptions——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman has already made one overlong speech. He need not make another on a point of order. Yes, it is the convention that when an hon. Member speaks for the first time in this Chamber he is heard without interruption. However. I heard nothing that was out of order.
    6.40 pm
    Sir David Price: It falls to me to congratulate the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) on getting over the first hurdle that all hon. Members have to overcome. He seems to add a certain
    422
    tartan—I would almost say Clydeside—element to the red rose of Lancashire, and it is not necessarily any the worse for that. We appreciated his remarks about his predecessor, because Michael McGuire was respected on both sides of the House—as was the hon. Gentleman's father who for many years was on the Chairmen's Panel. The hon. Member for Makerfield has two excellent mentors in Michael McGuire, and his father, Hugh McCartney. If one wants to influence colleagues in this House, I suggest to him that it is always better to give colleagues, however much one may disagree with them, the benefit of the doubt.
    I intend to take up the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), and speak to a subject on which there may be consensus. Also, it fits in with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon). I regret that in this long series of debates on the Queen's Speech no day has been devoted to the National Health Service. The House knows that in the last Parliament I was the senior member of the Select Committee on Social Services. We devoted a great deal of time and energy to the subject. A number of reports. as yet undebated, lie on the table, all of which are directed towards improving the NHS.
    I draw the attention of the House in particular to the continuing problem of how society can provide the ever-increasing resources that are necessary to meet the ever-growing demands on the NHS. It is not a new problem, but for too long we have not faced it. Since its creation the NHS has been a growth service. The demands upon it have always exceeded the resources that have been made available to meet those demands. In 1970 the British Medical Association reported in an important survey:
    "the National Health Service has never, since the early years, been able to fully cope with the rising demands that it, and the parallel development of new methods of treatment, were responsible for stimulating."
    In 1977 the then Labour Secretary of State told us bluntly in her publication "The Way Forward":
    "demand will always outstrip our capacity to meet it."
    At the same time we must acknowledge that over the last 40 years more resources have gone into the NHS. That is not always fully recognised.
    If we return to 1948–49 and translate the then expenditure into 1986–87 values, we find that expenditure in 1948–49 on the National Health Service in England was £3·822 billion. By the last financial year, the figure for England had risen to £15·725 billion. That is a fourfold increase in 39 years, but it is not enough. There is evidence throughout the NHS of demands not being fully met—hence the waiting lists for operations.
    The problem has arisen partly because the NHS has been a success. Advances in modern medicine have increased rather than reduced demands upon the NHS. That is well illustrated by the increasing numbers of very elderly, frail and dependent people. As more people live into their eighties and nineties, the overall number of people who will be dependent will inevitably grow. So must the resources to provide the necessary care. both within the NHS and in the community at large.
    The Royal Commission on the National Health Service, which I remind the House was established by the last Labour Government and reported before they left power, gave this important warning:
    "Whatever the expenditure on health care, demand is likely to rise to meet and exceed it. To believe that one can

    423
    satisfy the demand for health care is illusory, and that is something that all of us, patients and providers alike, must accept in our thinking about the NHS."
    If one took that view literally one would despair, but I do not despair. However, all of us across the party spectrum must recognise the key economic fact that the potential demands for health care are virtually unlimited, whereas the resources that are likely to be made available to meet those demands will always be limited. The extent to which we can reduce that gap is dependent upon our relative success or failure in managing our economic affairs. In health care, as in pensions, the aspirations of the caring society must rely upon the success of the economic and commercial society to seek fulfilment.
    Since the commercial society is doing rather well, what are the reasonable resource expectations of the National Health Service at the start of this new Parliament? When Ministers appeared before the Select Committee in the last Parliament, they quoted a target of 2 per cent. annual growth rate in real resources. Since then there has been last autumn's statement. Additional money was made available by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to help to reduce waiting lists for operations. Do the Government remain committed to achieving a 2 per cent. growth rate? Furthermore, will additional resources beyond the 2 per cent. already quoted be provided for the NHS?
    I believe that because of the improvement in the economy we can do better than 2 per cent. I should like the growth rate to be up to 5 per cent. a year, but that may be pushing my luck a bit too much. Therefore, I would settle for the rate of growth in our economy as measured by the gross domestic product. I thought that this was an original idea of mine until a memorandum came through the post that had been produced by the three leading professional groups within the NHS—the Institute of Health Services Management, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing. They held a press conference on it.
    The memorandum contains exactly the same proposals as those I am putting before the House; I give up credit for authorship of the idea. I am quite happy to give them full credit for it. The proposal is that spending on the NHS
    "should rise in line with national income, with separate provision for demographic fluctuations and major new illnesses such as AIDS."
    I hope that at the start of the new Parliament we shall take that as our national aim and achieve consensus upon it.
    Having said that, there are still major allocation and management problems. I shall not detain the House with them this evening, other than to say that I would like to see us move from annual funding to triannual funding preferably. It is extremely difficult for members of regional and district boards, and even individuals running various parts of the service, to operate on an annual basis. We know that the Treasury operates on an annual basis, but we must try—as we did wth the universities in the past—to have a longer period of financing so that people know where they are.
    Secondly, what is the further potential for efficiency savings within the NHS? My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Social Services will recall that one of his Ministers told us:
    "this is not a process that can go on indefinitely".
    424
    In other words, we cannot look to savings of the order that we have achieved in the last two or three years to be permanent. There is, therefore, the problem of the need for extra resources to compensate for the extra that we have obtained in the last two or three years from savings.
    Thirdly, there is the whole area of pay. I need not remind the House that the NHS is inevitably labour-intensive and that the staff of the NHS are as much a part of the revolution of rising expectation as any other part of our society. They expect to share in it, particularly as many of them began on relatively low pay compared with many of their peers in other occupations.
    I draw attention to the proposals of the three institutes to which I have referred, which said of GDP growth :
    "The proposal is intended to cover the normal year to year needs of the health service: it does not seek to provide an all encompassing solution to wider structural adjustments which may be needed to cover skill shortages, catch up settlements etc".
    I shall not expand that thought, but merely leave it with my right hon. Friend. However, it is extremely important beause nothing throws the finances of a district health authority more than when it suddenly discovers in the middle of its financial year that it must give big pay increases that have not been allowed for in the year's funding.
    I also draw the attention of the House to that whole area of increased health care which we loosely call "care in the community." Many of us support that concept and want to see improved care in the community, but I cannot insist too strongly that it is not a cheap option, and anyone who thinks that it is has clearly not gone into the details of what is involved.
    I wish to quote what the Select Committee said when it examined the proposition of care in the community in relation to the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, particularly with regard to the Government's continuing policy of closing down long-stay mental institutions. Paragraph 223 of the Select Committee report stated :
    "We wholeheartedly support a policy of community care for mentally disabled people. It cannot be put into practice overnight. It cannot and must not be done on the cheap."
    I could go further as there is a whole report along those lines, but that leads me to warn the House that if we are to satisfy expectation in community care we must put more resources into primary medical care. I draw the attention of the House to the report of the Select Committee on primary health care which was published in January. It contained 62 conclusions and recommendations, yet it has not been debated. However, I shall resist the temptation to describe that report, even though it is extremely good.
    I merely draw attention to one point. Recommendation 12 stated :
    "With an ageing population, earlier patient discharge from hospital—particularly of children, increasing opportunities for diagnosis in general practice to reduce referrals to hospital, as well as greater responsibility for the management of chronic disease in general practice and a greater emphasis on a range of preventive services, the case for further reduction in the GP list size seems unanswerable."
    That is the key. We must have smaller lists for GPs. Much more can be done in general practice that does not need referral to hospital, just as, conversely, by the development of services, such as community physiotherapy, we give more relief and help to elderly people who do not have to suffer the burden of going to their district general hospital.
    If we are to accept this new consensus, we must recognise that any exceptional crisis in health care and

    425
    health provision must be met by exceptional measures. In terms of money, that means going to the contingency fund, not the normal NHS budget. On that point I again draw attention to one of the Select Committee's latest reports, which came out three days before Dissolution and related to the problems associated with AIDS. I hope that there will be time in this Session of Parliament to debate that report. One paragraph in that report states :
    "Obviously the Government has the lead role to play in responding to the challenge of AIDS—and we arc encouraged by its initial response. However even in these early days of the disease, we received evidence of under-resourcing which disturbed us and to which we have drawn attention. If the current estimates of the likely spread of the disease are in any way accurate, then the demand on resources will increase substantially and rapidly. In our view this rising demand must be met from new resources and not by diverting resources from other parts of the NHS or of the social services."
    The challenge of AIDS is immensely humbling when we think of what we ought to be doing. In all this there is a basis for consensus which would be very much welcomed by all who work in and use the NHS.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A large number of hon. Members are still waiting to speak, some of whom to address the House for the first time. Unless speeches are shorter, many will be disappointed.
    6.57 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: It has been interesting to note that since the Secretary of State's opening speech there have been four contributions from the Government Benches that have all been warning shots across the bows. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) warned the Government about licensing. The former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), and his hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon), said that more must be spent, especially on housing, and that we must beware of the divisive plans on education. Most recently, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said that more must be spent on social services. Those four speeches, plus a maiden speech, all warned the Government that they do not yet have agreement for the policies contained in the Gracious Speech.
    Obviously, I join others in saluting the contributions of the three hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches—two from the Opposition Benches and one from the Conservative Benches. They all warned that in their new home territories all is not yet right. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) spoke of unemployment in rural Suffolk and the need to deal with it. The hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) warned of the needs of areas in which Tories are not commonly found and of the difficulty, despite those needs, of getting the message across.
    There is justified worry, because the Gracious Speech clearly states that the Government intend to cut public expenditure. If public expenditure is cut, the people who depend most on it—those who have the least private capital and wealth and who are by definition the most economically deprived—are likely to be hurt most. The people who rely for their opportunities on the public provision are the people who are most likely to suffer from the cuts.
    426
    If the Government were trying to be fair, to provide opportunities and to remove deprivation, they would not introduce the community charge, or poll tax, which obviously treats people, not according to their ability to pay, but according to a much more arbitrary measure. There are fair ways of reforming local fund raising and local services. The poll tax, or community charge. is not one of them.
    If one wants to provide fairness, to remove deprivation, to increase opportunity and to provide a comprehensive employment service, one does not start by saying, -If you do not take the half-baked scheme that we have on offer, you will not get benefit at all." That is not the way to reward young people in constituencies such as mine who have been out of work for years. Nearly one in three adult males in Southwark and Bermondsey is without a job this month. They resent being told by a Government who received about one eighth of the vote in their constituency that they can have no income unless they are willing to take the only training scheme that may hold together.
    With regard to education in London, it does not help to deal with inequalities and lack of opportunity if one says, "The affluent, or Tory, boroughs can opt out arid leave the others with fewer funds to try to educate those who need education the most." That is not equality of treatment. That is not advancing the opportunities for people who start off at the bottom of the heap.
    We do not know the details of the housing Bill, arid the Government probably do not know them themselves. It appears that there are contradictory voices, and we shall have to await the outcome of the negotiations. However, it is not sufficient to say that private investment alone is the solution. The solution must be a partnership of support and it must meet the needs of those who are and will choose to remain tenants of local authorities.
    It is not sufficient for the Government to say that they will continue to help the Health Service. The former Secretary of State for Social Services, who is on the Government Front Bench today in his new role as Secretary of State for Employment, knows that there have been real cuts in the Health Service. He and I debated this issue often during the election campaigning. They are not technical or academic cuts, but real cuts. There must be more public investment. The equation does not add up.
    The policies in the Gracious Speech will not provide good opportunities for those who at the moment have least opportunities, and they will not remove deprivation. It was very galling to some of us to note that the Prime Minister was speaking after the end of the campaign as she spoke at the beginning of it. Deprivation and the denial of opportunity are not caused by defect of character. People in the inner cities, the north, Wales, Scotland and the areas that have suffered most do not lack character, resourcefulness or enterprise. They lack opportunity, services and often dignity, and respect from the Government.
    We must ensure that opportunity is given for all to advance and that it is given most—this is the test of a good Government—to those who need it most. Opportunity must be individual and collective. There must be personal opportunity—financial opportunity and opportunity in housing, employment, health and education. But people also want a collective opportunity to share in decisions for their communities. They want to be able to mould their lives together. The imposition of

    427
    solutions by agencies of the Government is not the way to share and to make the right decisions. The maximum democratic power should be at the bottom, not at the top.
    Sadly, I believe that the Government, the Prime Minister and her Ministers do not understand, because they come from affluent constituencies, live affluent lives and are politically insulated. They may have looked at the problems, but they have not understood them, and sometimes they clearly are not motivated in the right way. The evidence is clear. The Prime Minister started her election campaign by going to the jewel in her crown, the docklands of London. She went in a bus and hardly stepped out of it. She saw what she wanted to see. She saw development, but she did not see that most of the new jobs were for outsiders, that many of the homes that were being built were second homes, and that many of the people who were out of work six years ago are still unemployed. The number of unemployed in those areas has increased. The number of firms training youngsters is smaller than it was, and the development is often not in the interests of people who need it most. There have been opportunities to plan for the revival of those communities, but the plans that have been carried out often allow for those communities to be exploited by those who start off with the most.
    It was not surprising that the Prime Minister ended her campaign by talking about the inner cities. On that fateful night she stood on the steps of Tory Central Office in Smith Square and said :
    "From Monday we have got a big job to do in those inner cities"
    and then she smiled—
    "because we want them, too, next time."
    Britain's inner cities are not her inner cities. They are not the Government's inner cities, they are the people's inner cities, towns and country, and we must have a people's Government. If the Government do not heed the voices of their Back Benchers and the people outside in the areas that have not elected Conservative Members, they will leave this country with a legacy of division and inequality that will be worse than when the Prime Minister came to office.
    The Prime Minister and her Ministers could realise that it would he better to end their term of Toryism in good faith. They could make sure that the pattern of employment and training allows, with the right investment, for real jobs to be created and real training to be given. They could ensure that housing was not only repaired in the public sector, by releasing capital receipts, but was developed and managed in a more appropriate way. They could realise the inadequacy of the public services and do something to ease the strain on the social services, transport services and the Health Service. They could remove the feelings of alienation that many people still have.
    Why should people move from their communities and look elsewhere for work? Why should families have to be broken up because there is nowhere locally for them to live? Why should families be trapped in poor housing while they watch other people's luxury housing being built nearby? Why should that inequality continue? It is no good my constituents asking whether I can give them the list of new housing developments in their borough when the prices of some of the houses are £500,000 or £1 million. These are not acceptable developments when people are
    428
    living in damp, poor, overcrowded and unsatisfactory conditions. I hope that this belief in the regenerating magic of the urban development corporation, or another quango or new agencies, is not deceiving the Government.
    I have two examples of such a mistaken belief. A year ago the Government set up task forces in the inner cities. They set up one in Southwark and another in Kensington and Chelsea. One year later, the Southwark task force having spent only £100,000 out of its allocation of £1 million, a Southwark council spokesman said :
    "All we've seen is a couple of civil servants being put into an office above the local McDonalds. Now one administrator has taken long-term leave because of the stress, and contracts have been delayed by bureaucratic muddles."
    In Kensington and Chelsea, hardly an Opposition stronghold, the Conservative leader of the council, where also only £100,000 of the £1 million has been spent, said :
    "I would be surprised if it was any more. They haven't done very much here in their first year."
    Three things are needed : first, investment, not cutting back, so that the common wealth can be shared for the common good and not exploited for the few. Secondly, we need a response to local needs. Region by region, nation by nation, community activities and priorities are different and they must be allowed those differences. Power has to be given away by this all-consuming Government, who want to do everything themselves, believing that they know best. Thirdly, we need conciliation and humility. There must be an attempt to narrow social divides in health, wealth and education. We must not widen them.
    When the Prime Minister quotes the Bible, as she often does, she should remember that the teaching of Jesus was that people were judged by what was done to the least of his brethren. This Government must be judged, not by how rich the rich become or how affluent the already adequately well off become, but by how well off after another Tory term those with the less strong voices and the less fat pockets become. That is the judgment of compassion. The economic policy outlined in the Queen's Speech does not suggest that the Conservative Government, even after eight years, have begun to understand.
    7.11 pm
    Mr. Julian Critchley: Nearly 30 years ago. in the debate on the Address that followed Harold Macmillan's greatest victory of October 1959, Nye Bevan warned the packed Tory Benches that we were faced with hours and hours of infinite boredom. My God, he was right. We still are. It will not be long before we Back Benchers, especially those elected for the first time, will ask ourselves what on earth we are doing. Is Westminster, we shall complain, anything more than an echo chamber with knobs on?
    We should not feel sorry for ourselves. The newly elected have arrived without qualifications of any kind. It is, after all, open to any British subject over the age of 21 to apply for membership of the House.
    The 1922 Committee has never in my time included peers, clergymen, bankrupts or certified lunatics. What then is to be our fate? The hours are unending; the rewards, if the Prime Minister has her way—she usually does—will be meagre, and the job security non-existent. Welcome to the best club in London.
    If the newly elected Member ever wonders where the power lies, I can let him know : it is not with him. Power for an hon. Member does not lie in choosing the Executive.

    429
    Ministers are promoted on the whim of the Prime Minister from a list of the deserving provided by the Government Chief Whip. Power does not lie in the Back Bencher formulating legislation. We can amend it if we are persistent or fortunate, but Government legislation is by the manifesto out of the Civil Service which is responsible for its drafting. Power does not really lie in dismissing the Executive, for if we were to do so the roof of the temple would fall upon our heads. In truth, we are without power, save the power to make mischief. That is one thing that we can do. We can expose the shortcomings of Ministers and in that necessary activity we shall be aided and abetted by the press. It is a task that can be as much a pleasure as a duty.
    Of course, the making of mischief by Back Benchers—I see that the chairman of the 1922 Committee has hurried from an early dinner to join us—is in conflict with the desire of the party Whips. "Stop rockin' the boat" has been the cry of the Whips throughout the ages. For them, the only function of a Tory Back Bencher is to sustain the Government in office.
    To help us make mischief, we have a couple of weapons. One is the Select Committee, the reports of which can make the most arrogant Minister tremble at the knees. We should thank Norman St. John Stevas who, if there is any justice in an imperfect world, should soon be sitting at the feet of the Lord Chancellor eating bread and butter pudding.
    The second weapon could he the television cameras. If we were clever enough to bring them into the Chamber, we the disregarded, or even the deprived, would have a weapon at our disposal which would bring fear into the hearts of our masters. The nation might not be watching, but no one, whether Minister or bureaucrat, could ever be certain of that.
    This is a debate on the Queen's Speech. The speech was based upon the party manifesto. In an ideal world, manifestos should be treated like menus—we should choose only from the a la carte. I am certainly overfaced by ours. Listening to it in the House of Lords last week—so familiar in content, so unfamiliar in delivery—I wondered whatever happened to the Conservative party that I knew and loved. We have changed almost out of recognition. Instead of the part of continuity and careful change, it has become the party of reconstruction and radical change. Why not have done with it and change its name—to the Radical and Once-Unionist Party?
    After our election victory, the Prime Minister raised three fingers to the nation—one for each of her election victories. We, stranded way up on the back of the Government Benches—Government Back Benchers have long been regarded as the lowest form of political life—should now raise two fingers to the great and the good. That is unless all we want from life is junior office or four more years of infinite boredom.
    7.18 pm
    Mr. Gerry Steinberg: It is very difficult to follow the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), but I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech. I was getting worried and also suffering from kidney problems, having sat in the Chamber since 2.30 pm.
    430
    I want to thank the people of the City of Durham, and in particular my party workers, who together by their efforts elected me to the House of Commons. It is a great honour to be able to make my maiden speech this evening.
    The City of Durham result was very pleasing, because since 1983 we have been told that the City of Durham was one of the most winnable seats for the SDP. That suggestion has now been shown to be a fallacy.
    At this stage I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, Dr. Mark Hughes, who represented a Durham constituency for 17 years. I say "a Durham constituency" because during that time the boundaries were altered on a number of occasions. I have known Mark Hughes for many years, as I acted as his agent from 1973 until 1983. Mark is a very able person. He was an academic who gave up a flourishing university career to become a politician. Both Mark and I served as district councillors on the same local authority, although obviously at different times. We were both nominated for our parliamentary candidatures by the same Labour party branch—Sherburn and district.
    Over the years, Mark's contribution has included being a member of the Select Committee on Expenditure Trade and Industry Sub-Committee from 1970 to 1974 when he became Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. In 1975 he became a Member of the European Parliament. He held the dual role of being a Member of both the European and British Parliaments until 1979. In 1980 Mark became a Front Bench spokesman on agriculture, a post that he held until 1983 and which was of great interest to him. He was also a vice-chairman of the British Council.
    As one can see, Mark had an interesting and varied career and will be a great loss to his colleagues and ex-constituents. Mark has been ill recently and I hope that he soon recovers to full fitness. On behalf of myself and, I am sure, the whole House, I should like to give him our best wishes for the future.
    In this my maiden speech, I should like to direct hon. Members' attention to my constituency—City of Durham. I am extremely fortunate to represent such a constituency, which is perhaps the most beautiful in the entire country. We have a magnificent cathedral, which was voted the best architectural building in the world, and a magnificent castle. Indeed, the city could be described as the jewel in the crown of the north of England. The view when one crosses the railway viaduct coming north is breathtaking.
    In many cases, after going to public schools the children of Cabinet Ministers have ended up at Durham university which is a truly magnificent university. It is historically a seat of learning, spanning the centuries, and continues to be a centre of academic excellence. Incidentally, at the moment it is suffering badly because of scant resources.
    Durham is a tourist attraction, and millions come each year to see our beautiful city—and rightly so. As can be seen, I am proud of my city and should like to draw our three excellent golf courses to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
    However, what the Cabinet Ministers' children and the tourists do not see are the problems that we have in the City of Durham. Most people see the inner city and make their judgment of the City of Durham on that. Many of the villages that surround the inner city do not share the same affluence or splendour as the city itself. In some areas

    431
    of Durham, we have pockets of unemployment of more than 40 per cent. There are young people who left school at 16, who are now married and have children of their own, who have never worked—not because they are lazy, but because there are no jobs for them. Their enthusiasm and optimism have been wasted on the dole queues and in youth training schemes. Those young people should be contributing so much to our society, but their value is not being recognised. An entire generation of young people in my constituency has never known what it is to have a steady job and to be able to provide a good home in which they can be good parents to their children.
    The position in Durham is made worse by the loss of our assisted area status, and urban aid or being classed as a special development area. Our problems in Durham increase, but we are hampered in our efforts to attract industry to the area.
    Our mining industry has been devastated and Durham's once famous coalfield is no longer there. The last three collieries, Bearpark, Kelloe and Sacriston, were closed during the last parliamentary Session. That was the end of an era, but there is nothing on the horizon. However, what we have left is the waste and dereliction where the collieries stood, and because of the lack of funds the possibility of transforming those areas into vibrant industrial sites where jobs could be created is, indeed, remote.
    Our countryside is further ravaged by the unnecessary increase of opencast mining. The severe impact on the environment cannot be justified, especially when there is a considerable decrease in the demand for coal and the deep pits can produce as cheaply as the opencast mines. Since 1983 the Government have abandoned a target for opencast coal output and left it to be generally determined by the market. Consequently, more pits will close and there will be further job losses in my constituency for those miners who now travel to pits outside the constituency.
    After listening most intently to the Queen's Speech, I fear that there is no hope for the north and Durham in particular. I looked in the records to see I could find an appropriate quotation and stumbled upon one made by Winston Churchill—a leader who I know this House holds in great esteem—who has been widely quoted during this last week, and as recently as this afternoon. He said :
    "We know what to expect when the Tories return to power, a party of great vested interest, banded together in a formidable confederation. Corruption at home, aggression to cover it abroad : the trickery of tariff juggles, the tyranny of a wealth-fed party machine. Patriotism by the bucketful and imperialism by the imperial pint. An open hand at the public exchequer, an open door at the public house. Dear food for millions and cheap labour for the millionaire. That is the policy the Tory party offers you".
    Has anything changed since those enlightened words were spoken over 80 years ago?
    Local government has been under serious attack and this attack continues. Durham city council and Durham county council, like many other Labour caring local authorities, have struggled to maintain their services. They have seen their rate support grant severely cut and their capital allocations diminish. Cumulatively they have lost staggering amounts of resources.
    432
    That has had a dramatic effect on the services provided. Before 1979 Durham city council had a thriving house-building programme. Now it builds virtually no new housing. Its total new build will be 12 bungalows for aged persons, and that will dry up unless more money is made available. Currently there are 3,200 people on the housing waiting lists. That is treble the figure of five years ago. Homelessness has doubled over the same period. One third of those on the lists are single persons and the council has a chronic shortage of houses for the elderly. Over 75 per cent. of the applicants have been on the lists for over one year and in some places for nearly five years.
    All the evidence from the Audit Commission and the tenants themselves suggests that Durham is a well-managed, efficient housing authority, giving a good service and good value for money, yet the council is still being penalised. Despite that and with other housing problems—£66 million is needed for housing repairs—housing finance seems certain to be cut again next year and more jobs will be threatened.
    In the private sector, some of Durham's older houses are deteriorating faster than its repairs and improvement policy will remedy. The council cannot renovate its older council houses as quickly as it needs to do so. Many are below current standards of repair and facilities and have become difficult to let. Durham's housing conditions and problems are increasing, whereas the money available to remedy those problems is reducing. Short-term economies are producing serious and adverse long-term effects.
    I have lived in Durham for most of my life and, like many others, I want to stay in Durham. From the late 1960s the city's population saw a steady growth but since the early 1980s its population has started to fall. It is almost certain that most who are leaving are from the younger, better skilled sectors of the population. That increases the problems of support services and the rate of decline of Durham's economy. Unemployment is at the root of deprivation and it is not surprising that those areas in Durham with dreadful unemployment are also the areas with great deprivation.
    Last year a report published by the Northern regional health authority and the university of Bristol highlighted the close relationship between people's health and the deprivation that people experience in their daily lives. It highlighted also the north-south divide, even in the health of the population. I mention this report specifically because in my constituency the village of New Brancepeth was the fifth worst ward in the whole of the northern region. The report found that the areas of highest mortality and morbidity were overwhelmingly in the north, the north-east, Scotland and Wales and were almost entirely absent from the south, except for one or two areas of inner London.
    As a northern Member of Parliament whose constituency is directly involved I must say that the time has come for the north of England and Durham to be treated on a par with the south. The divide must be halted. The people of Durham, the north, Scotland and Wales—all areas which have been neglected—have shown the Government through the ballot box that enough is enough. We want equal treatment, jobs, and resources for better housing and health care. The Queen's Speech does not give me or my constituents any hope for a better future. Unless the Government begin to realise that there is a divide and unless they take steps to halt the increasing

    433
    anomalies, they will be remembered not as the Government of the United Kingdom, but as the Government of the divided kingdom.
    I remind hon. Members that I represent a beautiful constituency, but behind the affluence there is misery, grief and suffering. I implore the Government to take steps that will eradicate the feeling of hopelessness of so many of my constituents and to make a start by appointing a Minister for the north and giving the young and their families a chance, because, if they do not, they will never be forgiven.
    7.30 pm
    Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: I join with all hon. Members in congratulating the new hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) on following the tradition of a barbed, non-controversial speech. I made a non-controversial maiden speech, speaking up for my constituents in Birmingham. However non-controversial we intend to be, we all speak for our people and the hon. Gentleman followed that proper pursuit.
    Those of us who have the great good fortune to know Mark Hughes, the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, warmly welcome the kind remarks that the hon. Gentleman made about him. As has been said before, our opponents are in front of us and our enemies behind us. Mark Hughes was an opponent and a friend and the hon. Gentleman's good views of him are held by many of us.
    The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) seemed to use against the Prime Minister the fact that on that early morning after a great victory, her first words were about the inner cities. I had just returned home at 3.21 am after treading the streets, as we all had. I remember the occasion well because it surprised and pleased me that her first thoughts after her great victory were for the inner cities. I do not think that it was a cynical view, as the hon. Gentleman said; I think that the Prime Minister recognised it was sad that after a great victory the governing party had no representatives in Glasgow, Manchester, Leeds or Liverpool. Indeed it is sad, because the governing party governs for all people. It is to the Prime Minister's great credit that, after a long, tiring campaign, the first views she expressed were about the country's needs and that she would do something about the inner cities where the problems are great, as those of us who represent great cities and problem areas know.
    Exhortation, like patriotism, is not enough. We need a lead from the top and it is of profound importance that the lead on the inner cities will come from the Prime Minister, heading a Cabinet Committee which will deal with our inner-city problems. Anybody who comes from cities such as Birmingham, as I do, knows that over the years there has been decay in the cities that were built in the age of Victoria, even if industry has been increasing and improving. In the age of Thatcher, we must do something to ensure that that decay is reversed. Many of us who heard her words will be happy to help her and to ensure that those fine words are made into fine deeds.
    As a member of the majority party, I like the community charge, or poll tax, whichever one cares to call it. In a 77-page manifesto, it was made clear that there was a need for change and so there is. There is injustice in the present rating system. But my Government must ensure that we do not replace an unjust system with another system which may be even more unjust. Nor is it any good merely saying that this system is unjust. It is. It is nonsense
    434
    that a widow with a dependent family pays exactly the same property tax as a neighbouring family with four or five income earners. To say that it is unjust is only to state the obvious. If we are to say that sweeping it away will bring justice, we must recognise that this is not a children's tea party. I think that people voted thinking that somehow, like a children's tea party, we could all have prizes. We cannot. As an individual I shall gain about £2,500 a year. With my sad problems that is good news; I need it. I suffer, but if I gain, someone else must lose. We must ask whether the winners and the losers enjoy the same just relationship.
    John Gibson of Birmingham university's institute of local government, for which I have great regard having worked with it for many years, says—he may be wrong—that 8·3 million people could be worse off. It is important, particularly when we have won another great victory, to talk about justice. We cannot raise the £26 billion and more painlessly. The rating system was not devised to raise that sort of money alone; it was meant to be a type of poor law reform, repairing a few roads and potholes.
    At present, the rating system is not entirely fair, but let us ensure that when we sweep it away, or people suggest we do, we replace it with a more just system. People may say, "Let's get rid of it because we hate it," but that does not mean that they will not hate the replacement even more. How will it work? According to the Herod principle, with everyone going home on new year's eve to their village to be counted and to pay taxes? Are we to have a system which will result in people becoming gipsies, every three months moving to a different town to ensure that they are not counted? The rating system is bad and it costs 2·5 per cent. of the rates to collect. A poll tax system may cost 7 per cent. or 10 per cent. to collect, so we shall need to raise a further £2,000 million to be where we are now, from where we wish we had never started.
    We talk about change and I believe that we need change. But I say to the Government with the greatest friendliness in the world, particularly at the start of a new Parliament, having suffered since 1979 one outrageous fortune after another because of one local government Bill after another and having spent 22 years in local government and eight years as chairman of finance authorities of the great city of Birmingham and the west midlands: "Do not think that by brushing it to one side you will solve the problem. You will not." The money must be found. Local government and the needs of people have so moved on over the years that we are now talking about £30,000 million. It comes either from national taxation or from local taxation, but unless it comes only from inflation and from printing money, one way or another it will come from people's pockets.
    The Government should not dispense easily with the rating system. Property tax has a basis of fairness and logic. If it is right to give mortgage tax relief to people who buy their homes—I believe that it is, because no one makes a better investment than buying his own home—we should think carefully before abolishing a property tax and replacing it with a poll tax or a community charge. We need various threads to bring finances into the land, and property tax is a just tax. Those of us who own good homes should be willing to be taxed upon those homes as well. I concede that the Government should set a business

    435
    tax, as long as it is fairly based upon the local area and is not just a national mish-mash because some civil servant thinks that that is a better system.
    Let the Government fix a local rating tax and let us have a community charge, too, so that local authorities will be responsible. But we should not think that because, some years ago, the Prime Minister thought on the spur of the moment—perhaps it was not quite on the spur of the moment—"Let us do away with rates," we now have to do so. We must bear in mind the hopes of the people of Britain and their future and we must try to help individuals. Bearing in mind the fact that time moves on, to say that one was wrong does not mean that one was venal. To say that we should change our views shows statesmanship, not weakness. Let us make sure that, before we take such a giant step, that step is for the better and not into the darkness that might bring more unhappiness than benefits to our people.
    7.42 pm
    Mr. David Winnick: I pay tribute to the eloquent maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and to the equally eloquent maiden speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). All of them will make a major contribution to our debates.
    There is no doubt that we are in for some controversial legislation which the Opposition will fight every inch of the way. But that will not include agreed measures against crime. One of the most controversial Bills will be the one on the poll tax. No amount of name changing and calling it a community charge can hide the fact that it is a blatant poll tax that will be levied on all, regardless of income.
    I accept that the centuries-old rating system has many defects. I was a member of the Select Committee on the Environment in the 1979 Parliament which inquired fully into alternative systems of local revenue-raising. The Committee found that every alternative, including a local income tax, was worse than what we already had. We considered a poll tax, but it was rejected decisively by the Conservative majority on the Select Committee, as well as by the Labour Members, of course. Millions of householders would lose if such a tax was introduced. That is why it will be strongly opposed at every stage by Labour Members.
    However, it is interesting to see—as in the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark)—the beginnings of some concern among Conservative Members about what the Government intend to do. At least those Conservative Members, including the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) in his speech last night, are beginning to realise the possible effects of a poll tax and the sheer injustice whereby the most prosperous will undoubtedly gain and the losers will be people on modest incomes.
    Despite the Government's majority of over 100, if there is sufficient concern on the Government Benches and a willingness among Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Selly Oak to join us in the Division Lobby, we can defeat a poll tax even in this Parliament. I hope that it will not be just rhetoric from the Conservative Members
    436
    who understand the injustice of a poll tax but that they will show their concern by coming into the Division Lobby with us.
    A subject that has concerned me since I have been in politics and which indeed was the subject of my own maiden speech all those years ago, is the need for adequate housing for all our people. It is sheer Tory mischief-making, as we all know, to say that the Labour party opposes owner-occupation. Far from it. Indeed, a Labour Administration introduced the option mortgage scheme and other assistance for those with modest incomes to buy their own places. For the majority of our people, owner-occupation is the solution to their housing needs, and it was always expected—not least by me—that this would become the case in Britain.
    However, we are left with a sizeable number of people who cannot purchase their own homes, and there is no reason why they should be denied adequate housing because of their low or modest incomes. The Government have pursued policies that have made it almost financially impossible for local authorities to carry out their responsibility to build accommodation. My own borough of Walsall in the black country, whether Labour or anti-Labour-controlled at various times, has not had the means to carry out any house building during the past eight years. That is true of countless councils, and it has produced a great deal of housing hardship and misery.
    Since 1979, capital spending nationally on council house building and on major repairs has been reduced by about 60 per cent. In human terms, it means that young couples, like many of my constituents, have little chance of getting a place to live. Even families with two children have to wait now for years in a multi-storey block of flats before being offered a house. Thousands of families, in London for example, live in squalid bed-and-breakfast hostels which should shame our country. It costs about £50 million a year to provide such bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London alone. In addition, essential repair work is being delayed on older council properties because the local authorities lack sufficient capital.
    May I give an example of constituents who live in what are known as Wimpey no-fines properties—concrete properties built just after the second world war—in the Blakenall area of Walsall within my constituency. They are extremely worried about acute dampness and condensation, and the local authority agrees that the work should be undertaken as quickly as possible, but it simply does not have the money to carry out the work. The residents are so fearful that they will have to spend another winter in such conditions that they are coming to London on 22 July to see a Minister at the Department of the Environment. I hope that a Minister will see them. Only today, I reminded the Minister of Housing by letter that my constituents will be coming to his Department in London and that I shall be accompanying the deputation. It would be unforgiveable if, having travelled more than 100 miles and made financial arrangements to hire a coach and so on, my constituents were snubbed.
    The Government apparently accept that there is a need for rented accommodation, although I suspect that they sharply underestimate the numbers who require dwellings to rent. The main, important difference between the Government and the Opposition is that the Government believe that the shortfall in rented accommodation should be provided by the private sector through charging market rents. We totally reject that solution.

    437
    The Government's proposals are to provide new lettings—they emphasise new, rented lettings—to be let at what landlords consider to be these market rents. In those circumstances, I understand, security of tenure may be retained. At the moment it is rather difficult to understand precisely the Government's proposals and obviously we shall have to wait for the Bill. However, a free market in rent levels totally undermines security of tenure. What use is security of tenure to a private tenant if the landlord or the property company, as the case may be, offers a new agreement on a rent that the tenant cannot possibly afford?
    Ministers dismiss our concern about the revival of Rachmanism. They say that we exaggerate and that there is no chance that Rachmanism will come back. They point out that existing tenants will not be affected by any new legislation. Rachmanism came about, however, precisely because of previous attempts by the Tory Government to change the privately rented sector. The Rent Act 1957 came onto the statute book to deregulate a large amount of private rented dwellings. Rachmanism, alsatian dogs and the rest of it came about because those totally unscrupulous landlords wanted to ensure that sitting protected tenants were forced out. Once that tenant and his family were forced out, the letting could be re-let without any control, regulation or security of tenure. Ministers described the Rent Act 1957 as a measure that would increase the amount of rented accommodation. That was the justification for the Act and much was made of that fact.
    On 21 November 1956 when Enoch Powell—no longer with us—was a junior Housing Minister, he piloted the Rent Bill through the House and said:
    "It will halt the drain upon rented accommodation, it will release additional accommodation which is under-used or wasted, it will arrest the deterioration of millions of houses for lack of maintenance, and it will give to persons who are moving or setting up home the opportunity to find accommodation in the market."—[Official Report, 21 November 1956, Vol. 560, c. 1775]
    Almost exactly the same words are now being used again by Tory Ministers. That legislation, apart from bringing in Rachmanism, led to a substantial reduction in privately rented properties. More than 1·5 million rented dwellings left the market completely largely as a result of the 1957 Act. Why should we believe that there will be any difference now if the Government's wishes are put into force?
    As regards market rents, the House Builders Federation—I mentioned this in an intervention on a speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—points out that in some parts of Britain the market rent would amount to £90 a week. It also points out that that figure compares with the average £80 a week that many owner-occupiers repay on mortgages. Those people for whom we are so concerned, those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and so many others including many of our constituents who are unable to buy a house simply because they do not have the means, but who desperately need somewhere decent to live and who are on the waiting lists, will not be in a position to pay £90 a week, or anything near it, for rented accommodation.
    It is obvious that the measures that the Government have in mind will in no way resolve the serious housing problem faced by hundreds of thousands of people in this country whose only crime is that they have an inadequate
    438
    income to buy a place of their own. For that reason we are concerned about the Government's measures. We have the same concern about the Government's various, vague, but rather obnoxious proposals to encourage existing council tenants to opt out of local authority ownership. The idea that private landlords will come in and carry out the work that is so essential in so many places, be good landlords and act as philantrophists belongs to fairy-fairy land. We all know that to be the case.
    If council tenants are given an option, as the Government promise, we will do our utmost to ensure that they decide to stay as tenants of the local authorities. Indeed, they have every reason to continue as such.
    I have no doubt that the poll tax, housing, local government services and related matters will dominate this Parliament. During the next five years I am sure that, time and time again, we shall return to those issues. As I said earlier, I hope that if Conservative Members share our concern, certainly about the poll tax, they will demonstrate it in the Division Lobby.
    I certainly hope that, by the end of this Parliament, the Labour party will be able to convince the majority of the people to return a different type of Government. We shall do our utmost to ensure that in the next Parliament there is a Labour Government who will be deeply concerned about the problems that I have described and will act accordingly to resolve them.
    7.55 pm
    Mr. Tom Sackville: With respect to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I must confess that I expected to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). I may not agree with her thesis, but she certainly distinguished herself before entering this House. I was thwarted in the enterprise because some of my colleagues left the Chamber, possibly following the revelation from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) that, as Back Benchers, there was no point in them being here.
    I must disappoint the hon. Member for Walsall, North because I do not intend to indulge in rhetoric against the community charge, or to attack it. The subject of today's debate is inequality of opportunity. I must assume from the negative contained in the title that the subject was chosen by the Labour party. The Conservatives deal in positives. We believe in seeking ways to increase available opportunities for everyone instead of threatening to try to reduce the opportunities of a few in the misguided belief that that will help the rest.
    Complaining about our record on equality comes extremely ill from a party that, over the years, has destroyed so many opportunities. The House will remember which Government destroyed the grammar schools and caused the disastrous levelling down of education standards and the demoralisation of secondary education in many parts of the country. The House will remember which party supported the activities of union wreckers over the years. It will remember who allowed our manufacturing industries to be strangled by restrictive practices and lack of competitiveness and who made British industry famous all over the world for strikes. History will judge how many jobs were lost for ever, especially in the north of England and in my constituency, as a direct result of those actions.

    439
    The situation has now improved out of all recognition. It is sad to note that the Labour party is committed to repeal all our industrial relations legislation that has given rise to this extraordinary improvement. Millions of former council tenants will not forget that the Labour party did its best to prevent them from acquiring the dignity of owning their own homes and taking them out from under the mercy of local housing departments. Those departments were often incompetent or unwilling to maintain their properties.
    Equality of opportunity—whether that means equality of access to adequate health, education or other services or whether it means the supply of good, well-paid jobs—cannot be delivered by Governments fiddling around with the benefit or tax system or attempting to reform our institutions. It can come only as a result of continued economic growth. There is no way that the demands on the public services, especially health, can be met without an expanding tax base from an expanding economy. No company will plan to take on more employees unless it has a reasonable expectation that its business will grow.
    Jobs result from decisions by companies to invest and to take on more employees. It is now axiomatic that companies work in an international environment. Companies will not take investment decisions in any country unless they can see a favourable political and economic climate. After eight years of Conservative government, we have that climate. That means low inflation, monetary controls, a stable currency and, perhaps most important of all, a radical improvement in industrial relations.
    The economic portents at the time of the Queen's Speech are good. We have increasing tax revenues, despite the decline in the price of North sea oil, and falling corporate and personal income tax rates. We have the expectation of continued growth and low inflation, combined with mounting international interest in investing in this country. Best of all, we have the most confident predictions for years of a continued fall in unemployment.
    The measures in the Queen's Speech, particularly those on industrial relations, further privatisation and a reduction in tax rates, will build on all those favourable developments.
    But what do we hear from the Labour party? We hear of plans to nationalise or renationalise major companies, whatever words Labour Members may use to dress it up, in spite of all the evidence of 40 years that it can lead only to a disastrous waste of financial and human resources, loss of markets and further unemployment.
    We hear of plans to repeal employment legislation, which can only result in a return to strikes, restrictive practices and mob rule. We hear of spending plans that would involve huge increases in personal taxation, eroding the incentive to work for many people and rendering many others unable to afford to go out to work at all.
    What amazes me—I am sure that I am not alone in this—is that many Labour Members, particularly some of those who sit on the Front Bench from time to time, are go-ahead people who, in other walks of life, would make a real contribution to some aspect of our national life. But what do they do? We see them pushing out tired old ideas, so utterly reactionary that they are no longer taken
    440
    seriously by anyone who takes even a passing intelligent interest in the world of politics or business. Attitudes have moved on, but the Labour party stays rooted in the attitudes of the 1930s. It fails to recognise that the British work force will no longer be pushed around by the likes of Arthur Scargill. Labour Members forget that people want to own their own houses, their own pensions and shares in the companies for which they work.
    They ignore the fact that ordinary people have ceased to trust Governments and local authorities to take a huge proportion of their hard-earned income in taxes and rates to spend, or rather mis-spend, on their behalf. They seem unaware that people now want more control over their own lives, not to be controlled by politicians and civil servants. They seem unable to grasp the fact that new jobs do not come in any economy where Governments interfere in the workplace or the market place.
    Opposition Members now speak for and appeal to an ever-declining constituency, consisting of a tiny minority of people who still believe in the Socialist nonsense, despite all the evidence of its destructive effects over the years. That constituency also includes many of the low-paid or unemployed, who may have been conned into feeling that a Socialist Government would have something to offer them personally, and those who have never broken the habit of a lifetime of voting Labour.
    The British electorate proved in the recent election that it will have no truck with Socialism or any other reactionary policies that seek to take Britain back to the 1930s. The Labour party presented a campaign aimed at exploiting envy and class hatred, and it failed utterly. The Queen's Speech is further proof that the people have reelected a party, a Government, with a radical programme dedicated to dragging this country away from the prejudices and errors of the past and into the 21st century, with the confidence that everyone who wants to do so can share in the social improvement and greater prosperity for which the past eight years have laid the foundations.
    8.5 pm
    Ms. Joyce Quin: I am pleased to have the opportunity of addressing the House in this, the first, debate of the new parliamentary Session.
    It is the custom for new Members to pay tribute to their predecessors, and I do so willingly. Bernard Conlan, who represented Gateshead, East for 23 years, was a personal friend. His efforts in the constituency were much appreciated, particularly the work that he did in supporting the local power, engineering and shipbuilding-related industries in their quest for ever-elusive orders and new customers. In all his efforts in the constituency he was concerned to ensure that our high unemployment did not become worse. During his career Bernard Conlan was an active trade unionist and had an ideal of co-operation in industrial relations, which, unfortunately, in the present climate of hostility towards trade unions, seems a far-off vision.
    In speaking of my predecessor, I should also like to express my appreciation of the help and advice that he was always prepared to give me, both in my capacity as a Member of the European Parliament for Tyne and Wear, and more recently in my role as prospective parliamentary candidate in Gateshead, East.
    In his maiden speech my predecessor referred to the fact that unemployment in the Gateshead, East constituency was considerably higher than the national average. He also

    441
    lamented the fact that insufficient diversification of the local industrial base had taken place. It is a tragedy that 23 years after he made that speech, unemployment in Gateshead, East is now three times higher than it was then and that the hoped-for diversification has not taken place.
    The north-east of England as a whole has fewer small businesses as a proportion of regional economic activity than any other British region. We are all too well aware of the distressing tendency of the new technological industries to concentrate in the already prosperous parts of southern England rather than in the areas where they are needed most.
    How to deal with the regional imbalances is the most pressing problem that we face, yet one of the glaring omissions from the Gracious Speech is the mention of any regional policy worthy of the name. Opposition Members from Scotland have spoken eloquently of the political frustration felt there, arising from the unpopularity of the Government's policies. I understand their point of view, but it should also be said that there is real sense of anger in areas such as mine in the north-east that people in the better-off regions simply do not care about the unemployment and poverty that many people in our region face.
    It is true that the Prime Minister made a fleeting visit to the north-east during the election campaign. She visited the fine new Metro shopping centre on Tyneside, and that seems to have been one of the highlights of her campaign. I wondered whether, as a result, she would abandon her belief in market forces and instead take up a belief in supermarket forces, but the point that I should like to make strongly is that we want to produce more of the goods that are sold in our supermarkets.
    In the northern region, we feel that we are being squeezed into our corner of England and that we have virtually no ways open to us of exercising some control over our economic and political future. I should like to see measures of devolution introduced for all the regions of the United Kingdom that want it. In the north, that would mean a regional assembly as well as a development agency with a large budget and adequate economic powers. I noted that in his speech in the debate yesterday the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) referred to the need for an English development agency, but, from my point of view, what is needed is not an English development agency, but an agency for those areas of England that most need the jobs and potential that can be developed for the future.
    Being in the European Parliament has shown me that we are in danger of becoming one of the most centralised countries in Western Europe—a clear contrast with the position in West Germany, for example, where two good things happen. First, the regions are allowed economic and political powers of their own, and, secondly, their efforts are backed up by a federal policy of positive discrimination in favour of the least prosperous areas.
    In addition to the lack of regional devolution, we are faced with what seems to be a never-ending curtailment of the powers of local authorities. I know that many speakers in the debate have referred to that eloquently. Today's theme is lack of opportunity and deprivation, and that is obviously linked with the regional situation that I have described. If one lives in the northern region, one's chances of finding a job are limited. In fact, one would need to move a minimum of 150 miles away to find oneself in an area with an increased chance of finding new employment.
    442
    That is tragic, and so is the fact that the northern region is an area of net outward migration, despite the fact that we live in a small island, with more and more of our resources, people and wealth concentrated into one small corner of it.
    The lack of opportunity and the sense of deprivation is certainly real in my part of Britain, and the claim that was made during the general election campaign that Britain is booming and that people generally are experiencing a higher standard of living seems like a cruel taunt to the many whose experience is quite the reverse. The prospects for Gateshead and the north-east, if the proposals in the Gracious Speech go ahead, look bleak, yet areas such as Tyneside pioneered our industrial revolution and could do a great deal again if the conditions were right.
    A century ago one of the residents in what is now the constituency of Gateshead, East was Joseph Wilson Swan, who, together with the American Edison, is credited with the discovery of the incandescent electric light. Swan's house in Gateshead was the first in Britain to be lit by electricity, and through his invention he gave the whole of Britain a brighter future. I should like to think that the Government will take action to ensure that Gateshead and our other deprived areas have a brighter future in their turn, but it will certainly need a dramatic change of approach from that in the proposals that were outlined in the Gracious Speech if such a desirable result is to become a reality.
    8.14 pm
    Mr. Richard Holt: It gives me pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quinn), whom I have known for some time in her capacity as an MEP for our region in the north-east. She has made an excellent start in her contribution and I hope that I shall have the opportunity of hearing her often in the future. We shall disagree fundamentally in many ideological ways, but I believe that she is a good Member of Parliament and has started with an excellent speech. I also want to be associated with her remarks about Bernard Conlan, whom I also regarded as a friend. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said earlier, we have opponents in the Opposition who can be friends and not always enemies. We shall also miss Bernard Conlan's contributions to this House over many years.
    That said, I listened to the hon. Lady's speech and wondered whether it was about the same region of England as that which I represent. Of course, the Conservatives won more additional seats in the north-east than the Labour party this time. I now have as an hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) in a constituency adjacent to mine, and that is more than we had in the last Parliament. I hear all the gloom and doom and pour-more-money-down-the-drain remarks, and I wonder whether the hon. Lady has been to the Nissan factory yet to see what has happened as a consequence of the work that we have done to bring it to the north-east of England. Perhaps she should reflect that it is there, it is successful, and for one reason: it has a single union operation.
    Another reason why we have problems in the north-east of England is the stranglehold that the unions have had on that part of the country for far too long. Where else in the world would one find shipyards in which a ship is being repaired, another ship is lying off waiting to come in, and

    443
    the following happens: the men are told that if they go on strike they will lose the order of the ship that is lying off outside the river Wear and is now waiting to come in? What did the men in Sunderland do? They went on strike, as a result of which they lost the additional work and created the sort of atmosphere in the north-east that drives would-be entrepreneurs and business people away from the area.
    Cleveland has been in the public eye during the past two or three days because of a matter that I do not wish to dwell upon in this speech. However, it does not help our cause in the north-east—to improve the lot of the people—if we are saddled with the sort of millstones that have resulted from the activities of the Cleveland county council social services department and the stranglehold that the unions have in the north-east. The Prime Minister was right to say that we must attack the problems of the inner cities. She has also said that we must seek to eradicate Socialism from this country. The last area in which it seems to thrive now—although it is dying rapidly—is the north-east of England. Once we have eradicated that bedrock of Socialism, which is endemic in society there, we will have the same opportunities for our people as exist in the rest of the United Kingdom. There will not be the bleating that we hear about the north-south divide, because everything that is good will exist in the north-east as well.
    Nevertheless, the Government have a role to play and they had better listen to some of the voices of Conservative Members from the north-east in this context. It is no good for ever saying that we cannot have a motorway linking the south-east of England and the Channel tunnel with the north-east. We must have one, and the Government have a responsibility to provide it. That is one way of opening up the north-east. If one tries to travel down the A1 now from Newcastle to London one will run into no fewer than 10 lots of roadworks, and the journey for an average lorry driver will take six hours. That is not good enough. The Government must address themselves to that problem.
    The Government have recognised the poor standards produced by local governments in the north-east, which is one reason why two urban development corporations have already been announced. They will be the kernel from which wealth will be created, jobs will come and people will be set free from the doctrinaire attitudes with which they have had to live for far too long.
    Much has been made of the subject of the community charge and/or poll tax. I suggest that, before the Government rush headlong into it one way or the other, they should look at the whole of local government and examine whether it is absolutely necessary to have county councils, district councils, borough councils, parish councils and town councils, all of which are becoming far more politicised than they ever were. I receive letters telling me that a parish council in my constituency has decided to ban anything from South Africa because it is antiapartheid. It was set up in the first instance to deal with allotments and bus shelters. Such councils were not intended to be places where local people can start to get involved in major affairs of government.
    We ought to be looking at the duplication and at the manner in which local government comes about. Perhaps we ought to start by asking what local government should be doing and who should he doing it. Outer London
    444
    boroughs seem to be quite capable of running their own education and social services and they have all the trappings of county councils, yet we maintain county councils. I served on Buckinghamshire county council. If I wanted to go from the south to the north of the county I had a journey of 84 miles, and those who lived in the south and those who lived in the north had absolutely nothing in common.
    I represent a constituency in a small county, Cleveland. That county council is totally unnecessary and bureaucratic nonsense, and the quicker it is done away with the better for the people of Cleveland. Officers of the local authorities are serving as county councillors and county councillors are officers of the local authorities. Therefore, we have the mish-mash of the professional politician. That is quite untenable, but we have brought the situation about and we must address it.
    It is no good saying that a report is coming any minute now and that, when it comes, something will be done about it, because setting up a committee in the first place is kicking the problem into touch. The problem is there. We do not need a report—we need action. Perhaps the Government should pre-empt the report by seeking to reexamine the whole role of local government and determining what its priorities are and what they should be.
    Mr. John Prescott: That is rubbish.
    Mr. Holt: Having done that, we should establish and set about funding local government in a proper manner. There is no point in saying that it should be abolished altogether, because it has a role to play. We must determine that role. At the moment there is far too much duplication, waste and lack of accountability and far too many people are elected with no training, knowledge or expertise in anything.
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: Is not the possible answer to my hon. Friend's question and to the theme that he is developing so well that local government is misnamed? It is not government. It has an administrative role which should be discharged as efficiently as possible in accordance with statutes passed by this House.
    Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking up my theme and for following it through. Anyone who looks at what has happened in Cleveland county council in the last few days will see that it has lost £250,000 of its pensioners' funds by putting that money into a speculative newspaper. That newspaper was bound to fail, and everyone knew that. However, the council has wasted £250,000 that it did not have the right to lose.
    What else has Cleveland county council done? It has just introduced apartheid studies in every secondary school in Cleveland. How many parents in my constituency or in Cleveland as a whole saw a Labour party local government manifesto that said that when Labour was in power it would mandatorily teach the children apartheid studies whether the parents liked it or not? I shall suggest to parents in my constituency that if they do not like it they should withdraw their children from those studies. That is not a right and proper thing to be taught in Britain's schools.
    What happens in Cleveland about rate increases? The county council has massively increased the rates. We have

    445
    the highest rates in the country. Middlesbrough pays the highest rates of any town in Britain. The county council carried out a survey to justify the extent of the increase and announced that everyone in Cleveland likes having a 25 per cent. increase in rates. When I challenged the council and asked how many of the people surveyed actually paid full rates, it took six weeks to acknowledge my letter. It was two and a half months before the council sent me an answer and it arrived one week after the general election. The council came up with the staggering answer that 51 per cent. of the people that it had surveyed paid full rates and that they were prepared to pay an additional 25 per cent. if they were given the opportunity.
    During the election campaign I was on the doorsteps of many houses in my constituency, yet I did not find too many people who said that they were not paying enough rates and wanted to pay more. I met a great number who said that they were paying far too much. That is one of the reasons why we cannot bring industry and commerce to the north-east. Industrialists know that they would be bled white by Labour-controlled local authorities which have no knowledge of how to run a business or of how to produce goods. Very seldom have any of them been in the position of employing anybody or being responsible for creating jobs and wealth.
    In her contribution the hon. Member for Gateshead, East talked about the need for the north to have its own controlling agency. It had the Northern Development Agency and it was stuffed full of Labour councillors. They spent fortunes. How many jobs did they create? They created none at all. The business community in the northeast got fed up and frustrated and set up the Northern Development Corporation. That has superseded the Northern Development Agency because that was a moribund body, a talking shop, and a waste of all the resources that were poured into it. It had an office in Canada and one in the Far East. People could junket out there and junket back, but they did not produce any jobs. That is why the north-east of England has lost much of its manufacturing base.
    There is no point in talking about a Minister for the north or about a northern development organisation that would be separate from this Parliament. One of the things that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East will learn is that from the Back Benches one can get at every Minister of the Crown. If there were a Minister for the north, every time one wrote a letter to the Secretary of State, it would be deflected to the Minister for the north and would not get to the source of the power about which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) spoke so eloquently.
    The north-east needs a radical change. We have to eradicate Socialism there, and one of the ways in which to do this is to ensure that the role of the media in the northeast is changed. At the moment people producing material for radio, television and the newspapers openly say that they are producing articles that they think suit the people. We need to ensure that there is a greater balance in the way in which the north-east is shown in the media.
    Far too often, only the bad things in the north-east are projected. Let us see some of the good things, and let us see them more often. Let the media take note that the north-east of England will never prosper and survive and develop in the way that we would all like it to do unless the media present the north-east in a light that will encourage people to go there. People must be encouraged
    446
    to bring business there and to provide employment. It has taken a long time, but we are now beginning to persuade people in the north-east that profit is not a dirty word—that it is out of profit that we get investment and jobs. For years anyone in the north-east who made a profit was automatically castigated, but at long last we are beginning to get the message across that what we need is more profit which will bring extra investment. Investment will bring the jobs and the prosperity and, slowly but surely, we shall sweep away Socialism. At the moment, I am the frontiersman. Everything to the south of me, almost without exception, is blue. Very many of the places to the north of me, almost without exception, are red. Those days are changing. We will move that frontier forward more and more.
    Mr. Prescott: Hallelujah!
    Mr. Holt: I had to smile inwardly when I heard the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) making his ranting and raving, but so-frequently-made speech about Rachman. I remember hearing the hon,. Gentleman make speeches like that nearly 25 years ago when we were both founder members of Brent council. He has not changed and Socialism has not changed. However, the north-east of England is changing. That is why the Conservative party has had an excellent general election result and next time we will have an even better one.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. John Garrett: I am tempted to begin by asking, "What was I saying when I was so rudely interrupted four years ago?" I remember what I was saying. I was commending the National Audit Act 1983 to the House as a useful advance in parliamentary accountability which did not go far enough. I still hold that view and I hope to return to that subject in debates on the Public Accounts Committee.
    I must state how pleased I am once again to represent the people of Norwich, South. The city of Norwich has an incomparable record of Labour-controlled local government, which is now desperately threatened. The city has a cultural tradition in the arts and architecture unlike any other city of its size. It has a formidable intellectual tradition of radicalism and dissent. I hope to live up to those traditions. I pay my respects to my predecessor. and I am sure that the people of Norwich, South thank him for his work and interest in local government.
    Today's debate is primarily about inequality and the lack of chances. I intervene briefly because I come from a region that is considered to be on the prosperous side of the divide and therefore free from the curse of unemployment, the decline of public services, increasing homelessness and the lack of opportunity. Naturally enough, things are not quite like that. The years of Conservatism have not been good years for many people in Norwich. We now have more than 8,000 unemployed and 500 vacancies and we have an unemployment rate of 16 per cent. inside the city boundary.
    The economy of Norwich is traditionally based on manufacturing industry, in mechanical and electrical engineering, footwear, food, drink and confectionery. We have seen many redundancies and closures of long-established firms in those industries. For example, Boulton and Paul, Laurence Scott, the Co-op footwear factory,

    447
    Courtaulds, Marconi, the Norwich Brewery and Norplan. The manufacturing base of the city has been massively undermined.
    It is true that there has been some growth in retailing and financial services, but many of those jobs are part-time. The result is a grossly unbalanced labour market with very few opportunities for craft trainees and apprentices. Many skilled men and women will never use their skills again. The Government frequently talk of the substitution of manufacturing employment with service employment as if the creation of a job in a boutique selling jeans balances the loss of a skilled fitter's job in electrical engineering. It clearly does not.
    For many years, Norwich had a remarkable record in council housing. In the 1970s, it was not unusual for the city to build 600 or 700 houses a year. Last year, it built 80 and this year 40. The housing waiting list is now more than 5,000, and 25 homeless families a month have to be housed. My advice surgeries are already filled with people desperate for a home who are living in cramped, substandard accommodation. What kind of society is it that cannot provide decent rented housing? There is no private solution to the problem when house prices have gone far beyond the reach of those on average earnings.
    Education is a key issue in equality of opportunity. As a county borough, Norwich used to have a fine record in education with properly staffed, funded and maintained primary, middle and comprehensive schools. Then education was taken over by the primitives on the Tory-controlled Norfolk county council. Norwich was levelled down to the standards of an authority that has been singled out by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools as providing an inadequate service. Norfolk county council has a low level of expenditure per pupil, a high pupil-teacher ratio and underfunding of GCSE and even needs to spend £600,000 on fire precautions to meet current standards in primary schools. There are only four nursery schools in the whole county. Thirty-three nursery units built with the encouragement—one might say at the behest—of the present Prime Minister when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science have never been used for their intended purpose. Currently, the levels of school ancillary staffs are being reduced. We have a picture of educational deprivation in what is supposed to be a prosperous county. Poor public services are not related to geography, but are a factor of Conservative control.
    There are two important school issues in my county—the failure to provide a new school in Bowthorpe village, a fast-growing area of the city, and the proposed closure of the Bowthorpe comprehensive school, which has an excellent staff, a unique system of pastoral care and good results. It is being closed ostensibly because of falling rolls, although it is clear that there will be a shortfall of 600 comprehensive school places in the city by the early 1990s. The closure of that school by Norfolk county council probably has more to do with the value of the school's extensive grounds. I will be seeking early discussions on that matter with the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
    There are also crucial issues in higher and further education in the area. The Norwich school of art—an institution with a national reputation—was first encouraged, as a result of a review by the National
    448
    Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education, to merge with the Great Yarmouth college of art and design. When discussions were under way, the White Paper on higher education produced in April 1987 proposed entirely new arrangements for funding colleges which left the Norwich school of art as one of the colleges that could be opted out of local authority control altogether. That proposal is repeated in the Gracious Speech. The result is total confusion for that institution. It cannot plan ahead and contemplate development. I hope that the Government will clarify in short order what is meant by allowing some colleges to opt out of local authority control and what that will mean for funding.
    Another educational issue of the greatest importance to Norwich is the sudden and massive £4 million cut levied on the funding of the university of East Anglia. That is a cut of 16 per cent. overall and 19 per cent. in the academic cost centres. That will lead to the loss of 110 academic and 75 non-academic posts. At a time when the nation and the region need more graduates, a very well regarded and successful university is singled out for a most destructive attack. What is the rationale for that? By the standards of similar countries in western Europe, we already have a very low level of investment and a low level of participation in university education. However, the Government are now proposing an economy by cutting investment in university education still further.
    In all those ways and more, in health, social services and transport, our quality of life in Norwich has suffered for the sake of tax reliefs which most of the beneficiaries hardly noticed. In what is supposed to be a prosperous corner of prosperous England which is envied, I suppose, by most of my hon. Friends, we have rising homelessness, grievous unemployment and deteriorating opportunities for our children. The mean and destructive spirit of present-day Conservative ideology reaches into every corner of our country, north and south. If people are weak, old or poor or do not have adequate economic clout, they suffer.
    What remedies are contained in the Gracious Speech? There will be further cuts in public expenditure when we really need more houses, schools, hospitals and more expenditure on roads. There will be compulsion to use the make-weight, make-work dead-end youth training schemes. There will not be more expenditure on our schools, but there is a half-baked and divisive proposal for schools to opt out of the local authority system. There is a proposal for a poll tax. That will be a tax on young adults which will hit students and the young unemployed particularly hard. However, I listened to speeches by Conservative Members today and yesterday which contained many awful warnings about the poll tax. I have an idea that the Government may slink away from that poll tax in the end.
    The Gracious Speech also promises the truly ominous privatisation of water authorities. There is the greatest concern for the quality of the water supply in Norwich. We have alarming levels of mercury in our waterways. The Broads are polluted by agricultural run-off. The Norfolk beaches are polluted by sewage. Who will safeguard water and river quality when the Anglian water authority is profit-driven by privatisation?
    As it is, Norfolk is an environmental tragedy. Farming and forestry have drenched the landscape with chemicals. In the past 40 years, we have lost 60 per cent. of our hedgerows. Every year, sites of special scientific interest

    449
    are destroyed. The wetlands are under threat. In Norfolk, we have that unique anomaly in Government that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pays farmers to drain their wetlands and the Department of the Environment pays farmers not to. The landscape has been destroyed to produce great heaps of grain that nobody wants. Add to that devastation the removal of the environmental protection through water authority privatisation and there will be an environmental disaster. There is great concern about that and other environmental issues in my constituency.
    In all those ways, modern Conservatism has meant a reduction in our quality of life and the quality of our community standards. Most of East Anglia may have enjoyed a superficial material prosperity from Conservatism, but many thousands have been left out. I speak for them.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Five hon. Members still hope to speak, including two who wish to make their maiden speeches. I appeal for brief contributions so that I can call all those hon. Members before the Front Bench spokesmen.
    8.41 pm
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: I shall certainly oblige you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in that regard.
    I must begin my remarks by sharing with the House a dilemma that I face. I have become a good friend of the previous hon. Member for Norwich, South, yet it is properly my duty to commend to the House the excellent and experienced speech made by the renewed hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). I am sure that he would not wish me to follow his remarks as though he were a maiden speaker. He is obviously returning to the task with experience and familiarity, and has just made a good speech to prove it.
    The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that I am not unfamiliar with Norwich. It is, as it describes itself, a fine city, and my late father was an employee of one of the businesses to which the hon. Gentleman referred—Laurence Scott. I had Easter lunch with my mother in the Maid's Head. Therefore, as we co-exist in this Parliament, the hon. Gentleman and I will have something that we can talk about.
    The same must surely be said of the excellent maiden speech of the new hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). I knew her in another place—more often than not in Strasbourg, where she did a splendid job as the Member for Tyne and Wear. She made the absolute model of a maiden speech. I hope that her new hon. Friends from the north-east of England will convey those appreciations to her.
    I want to make a few limited remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, contained and restrained in the light of your injunction from the Chair, about inner-city areas and local government. It may well be that some hon. Members would give me an argument on my experience of inner-city areas, representing, as I do, the constituency of Solihull, which would not on any test rate as an inner-city area, but in another and previous existence I was leader of an interesting authority called the West Midlands metropolitan county council. Those who are familiar with the west midlands will know that it embraced Lozells and
    450
    Dorridge and, if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will permit me to say so, Four Oaks and Nechells too. Across the conurbation were the outer prosperous areas, and there were the inner, deprived and needy areas too.
    One of the few arguments that retained some validity in the days when we discussed and then abolished the metropolitan county councils was that they could serve as an instrument for sub-regional redistribution of resources between the wealthier people on the periphery and the less prosperous in the centre. However, those arguments became somewhat marginalised by the orgy of overspending that took place in the death throes of the metropolitan county councils. Therefore, perhaps the one valid argument was lost in that rather inglorious and inelegant closing performance.
    Many things have contributed to the rundown and unsatisfactory state of our inner-city areas. A number have been touched upon rather combatively during the debate, and I do not wish to make any particularly combative points at this stage. I shall deal with one rather less contentious point, which is that urban sprawl, as it has reached out into the countryside on the edges of our conurbations, has gone hand in hand with central urban evacuation and demoralisation. Some studies, such as those of Dr. Alice Coleman of London university, have shown that the relationship between urban sprawl on the one hand and central urban evacuation on the other is 1:1. That permits the conclusion, not merely that they have gone hand in hand but that those activities at the periphery have helped to cause the disadvantages and the evacuation at the centre.
    No one, from whatever place within the political spectrum, would disagree that, ultimately substantial resources must be spent in our inner-city areas and, if I may put it this way as a representative of one of the outer-city areas, it is in our interests to do so. I do not want to live in a prosperous midlands suburb a few miles from a society that is disintegrating, because that is no good for my constituents. If they have to contribute to those costs, I suspect that they will willingly do so.
    It is a concomitant tragedy of that situation that much of the land that is now redundant in our inner-city areas is in public ownership in one form or another. If one examines the audit, one finds that it belongs to the water authority, the waterways board, the gas board, the coal board, the city council, and so on. Those parcels of land are languishing on the books of those public bodies at unrealistic book values which might almost be designed to repel any interested inquiry. That state of affairs is leading nowhere and helping no one.
    We must grab hold of some of those sites in an imaginative way, award them a pretty broad-range omnibus planning permission and sell then at auction for anybody who will give anything. Let them go away with one condition only attaching to that purchase—that the stipulated or chosen development within the planning permission must be commenced within 12 months and finished within a further period. Such an approach will result in book losses for public bodies. My answer to that is, "So what?" We must move some of those sites, and until we start work on the fabric we shall not start work on the morale.
    We have the resources. At the time of the Budget, an interesting and sincere debate showed that there were two sides to the argument. Some said that we should cut taxes,

    451
    others that we should have more public expenditure. The interesting thing about cutting tax from 33p to 27p is that the net result in the Chancellor's hands is £1·1 billion of extra revenue per annum in real terms. Therefore, those who wish to see more public expenditure and those who wish to see reduced taxation are on the same side of the argument.
    As the Revenue is having good inflows of money, as national borrowing is low, and as there are signs of increased economic activity, there is reason for confidence that the pledges in the Gracious Speech about the inner areas will be followed through. The kind of leadership that leads the party that I support does not merely say that it will do it; it does it. We can expect that to take place. I am glad that it will, and I hope that we shall have more bodies like the London Docklands development corporation, which, under the inspirational leadership of Mr. Reginald Ward, has worked a miracle in the Isle of Dogs. I hope that we shall see more of that.
    My last remark—I know that others are anxious to speak—concerns the very nature of local government. A complete misunderstanding has become current that supposes local government to be a kind of model village of central Government. It is thought that this legislature, and the Government who come here and respond to it, are one kind of great institution within our society, and the belief has grown up that local government is the same thing, only smaller. It is not; it is quite different. Local government is not governmental, but administrative. It is in place by statute to discharge statutory responsibilities, and the people who are elected regularly to its councils to supervise its discretions should remember that they are there in an administrative role and answer to that in a sensible style.
    The Leader of the Opposition, in response to the Gracious Speech, referred to the theft of power from local democracy. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is playing a leading part in misunderstanding the role of local government. I hope that I am not, and that I never have done. I spent 13 years or more in local government, and it has led me humbly to the conclusion that, in stepping into the inner cities, the Government must use their own authority. They may be answerable to the House, through institutions such as the London Docklands development corporation, but if they need to step aside and bypass local government they should do so, and they will have our support in doing so. I recommend that they will succeed only if they do that. I support the Gracious Speech, and those sections of it in particular.
    8.51 pm
    Ms. Joan Ruddock: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a maiden speech in a debate on the inequality of opportunity in Britain. I do so not as one of the Celtic minorities in the House, although I am so qualified, but rather as an elected representative of Lewisham, Deptford—a constituency clearly located in the prosperous south-east, and a mere three miles from the Palace of Westminster. That constituency was most ably served by my very distinguished predecessor, the late right hon. John Silkin. I know that hon. Members will share my deep regret that premature death has prevented him from serving in some new capacity in his planned retirement from the House.
    452
    It is almost 24 years since John Silkin made his maiden speech on the subject of the Rent Act 1957 and property profiteering. He pointed out then that the aims of the Act to bring more properties into letting had signally failed, producing instead a property market rife with speculation, extortion and profiteering. Such is the continuing pressure of housing need in Deptford today that I know that he would have had no confidence whatever in the new free market policies for housing outlined in the Queen's speech.
    The Prime Minister referred last week to her Government's success in bringing independence and power to the people. I regret to say that that has not been the experience of the people of Lewisham, Deptford. Many of my constituents have suffered the very worst consequences of a divided Britain. Half our manufacturing industry has disappeared since 1981; one person in five is unemployed, and, among those in work, wages are well below the average for the south-east. Yet there is no lack of pride, spirit, determination or endeavour among the people of Deptford. We may live in the deprived inner city, but we still have a sense of community. We want the best for our community in housing, employment and education, and we want it for all the community.
    In the Prime Minister's speech last Thursday, we were promised new freedoms and responsibilities in housing, education and local government finance. On behalf of the people of Lewisham, Deptford, I have to ask how those freedoms will be gained and those responsibilities exercised by the poorer members of our society. Or are they lesser beings in the new order? In Lewisham borough as a whole, 22 per cent. of the population live, or rather subsist, on supplementary benefit. The combined waiting and transfer list for council housing alone numbers close on 25,000, and hundreds are literally homeless. Yet no one, in my experience, is seeking dependence. People want the dignity and self-reliance of a job, but there are on average 35 unemployed people for every registered vacancy.
    People want improved council housing and better education, and they are willing to pay for it. Indeed, they are paying—paying for collective provision, and repeatedly returning Labour councillors to office. But we are told that a change of tenure is the answer to housing problems in the inner city. Frankly, I find that notion incredible. What alternative landlord is going to provide for the needs of the tens of thousands queuing for homes in Lewisham? What alternative landlord is going to be financially viable—even profitable—in providing housing for the average family, or the pensioner in the inner city? Or could it be that the new landlords will be supplied with the public money denied to elected local authorities? My local council has repeatedly put forward exemplary plans both for its own programmes of house building and environmental improvements, and for employment initiatives in partnership with Government. On the latter, it has even been congratulated by the Department of the Environment on the range and content of the projects submitted.
    There is no lack of initiative by Labour councillors in the inner city. There is, however, a dire lack of finance. A Government injection of a couple of million pounds under special programmes goes no way to offset the estimated £137 million lost to Lewisham council in central Government support between 1980 and 1986.

    453
    I can promise that the people of Lewisham, Deptford will not readily accept cosmetic solutions to their real and pressing inner-city problems. We shall also be looking carefully at the Government's promise to introduce a Bill
    "to reinforce the system of firm but fair immigration control."
    In more than a quarter of the households in my constituency, the head of the household was born in the New Commonwealth or Pakistan. Those people are not seeking open-ended immigration; far from it. But they do seek, and I seek on their behalf, a just law which does not split families, and which gives our black citizens the freedom to receive visitors from abroad on equal terms with everyone else.
    Freedom has been a recurring theme of speeches in the past few days. It is a much-vaunted concept, but one around which the House, like Britain, remains divided. As Socialists, we on this side of the House seek freedom tempered with justice, acknowledging that freedom for the strong all too often means exploitation of the weak. Our attempts to secure greater equality are frequently denounced, as they were today by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), as barriers to that greater freedom. However, Tawney said:
    "We must ask the vital question, 'Freedom for whom?' For there is no such thing as freedom in the abstract, divorced from the realities of a particular time and place."
    I am only too aware of the realities of my inner-city constituency and of the needs of its people. I come here to campaign for those people and to resist every measure that shifts resources from the weak to the strong and from the have-nots to the haves.
    8.59 pm
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate the newly elected hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on her eloquent speech. She spoke eloquently about her subject and also about her predecessor, the late right hon. John Silkin who was held in such high regard by hon. Members on both sides of the House. He is very much missed by us all. It was good to hear her speak so well of him.
    The hon. Lady has strayed quite a long way from her Celtic origins. Furthermore, she can be no believer in the north-south divide, judging by how she referred to the conditions, as she sees them, in her constituency. I was also glad to hear that she seemed to reject utterly her leader's call to scrap all the immigration laws. I am sure that her constituents are pleased that there is to be a firm and fair immigration policy.
    The Gracious Speech is excellent. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to his new role and look forward to his introduction of the three pieces of legislation that were outlined in the Gracious Speech. The first relates to the withholding of benefit from school leavers. School leavers should not have the right to go straight on to the dole. However, the Government should ensure that school leavers have a proper choice when they embark upon their careers. It is one of the most important decisions that anybody has to make. School leavers should not feel compelled to take the first job that is offered to them.
    The Sun criticised my right hon. Friend for proposing a job search allowance for six months. If he is criticised on both the Right and the Left, perhaps he has chosen the right path. The careers advice that is available to school leavers should be adequate and ensure that sufficient
    454
    choices are put before them. If they are not to be pushed into the first job that is offered to them, we shall look forward with great pleasure to the legislation.
    The legislation on the inner cities is to be welcomed. As the inner cities have been regarded as unemployment sinks for so long, we must take new initiatives. Excellent work has been done by the city task forces. Will my right hon. Friend consider the inclusion of Bolton among those areas where special measures can he taken? There is high unemployment in some areas in Bolton, and they would benefit from such measures. I am not sure whether the proposed legislation would include Bolton, but I ask my right hon. Friend to include specific towns such as Bolton.
    The third piece of legislation will deal with the right of individuals not to strike. It will provide for freedom to work. If my right hon. Friend is considering where the balance should lie between protecting the rights of the individual and looking after the cosy interests of the closed shop, I urge him to back the individual every time. It is not always very comfortable when one person is right and everybody else is wrong, but the Government should not flinch from supporting any individual who has to make a difficult choice. It is not easy for the politician who is right when everybody else is wrong. He may find that he is in difficulties. If the Government are wondering where the, balance lies, they should stick with the individual. I hope that the CBI, the Institute of Directors and other employer bodies will not persuade the Government to allow cosy arrangements to continue. The future must lie with the efforts of individuals, and we should back those individuals every time.
    These pieces of legislation are the result of manifesto proposals. It was an excellent manifesto. It outlined three guarantees. I have dealt with the 16 to 18-year-olds. There is a guaranteed youth training scheme for them. The manifesto also proposes that within one year a place should be guaranteed for all those aged between 18 and 25 who have been unemployed for six to 12 months. For them there are the enterprise allowance schemes, the job clubs and the new job training scheme.
    I am disappointed that the trade unions are backing away from the agreement on the JTS. Ron Todd was a TUC representative when the agreement was drawn up by the Manpower Services Commission. I wonder whether the unions should continue to play a role on the MSC when their role is so negative. They seem to be far more interested in looking after the rights of people in work and are not sufficiently interested in looking after the rights of those who are out of work. The Government should reconsider the role of the unions on the Manpower Services Commission to see the whether or not we should continue their involvement.
    I welcome most of all the proposals for those who have been out of work for longer periods and who are aged over 25, because in the past people between the ages of 25 and 50 have been relatively neglected. The number of those who have been out of work for a long time has increased substantially. Before the election I produced a publication called "Operation Longstop"—copies of which are available in the Library—and I am pleased to see that the recommendations in that publication have been picked up to such an extent in the manifesto. In particular, I welcome the improvements to the community programme, so that people need not turn down a place simply because

    455
    they can get more by way of benefit. The fact that they can get at least as much, or even more, on the new style community programme is very much to be welcomed.
    In my book I draw attention to the plight of those who have been out of work for long periods. The number of people out of work for five years or longer has risen from 66,500 in 1983 to nearly 250,000 currently, and I am particularly pleased that the manifesto promises that all those out of work for more than two years and aged under 50—it was a stated aim rather than a specific promise—will be guaranteed a place in a training scheme, the new community programme, the enterprise allowance scheme or a job club. That reflects one of the main recommendations in my booklet "Operation Longstop".
    Bolton's job clubs have now placed more than 200 people in employment since the first one opened in September, and anyone who has been out of work for six months or longer is welcome to apply. I appeal to all the unemployed of Bolton who are eligible—of whom there are about 10,000—to apply for a place in the job clubs as they have been extremely successful in encouraging a positive spirit among all those who have participated. I am confident that unemployment in Bolton will drop further if people take full advantage of these schemes.
    The latest figure from the Bolton jobcentre shows that unemployment has fallen by 1,500 in the past year, and I am sure that we shall see a continuing drop in the future if people take full advantage of the Government's schemes and our strengthening economy.
    9.7 pm
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity of speaking in the debate on the Gracious Speech. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) said that he thought that the topic had been chosen by the Official Opposition because of the emphasis on deprivation and inequality. All I can say is that the Secretary of State's speech left me wondering what the debate was about, as in my opinion it was a gratuitous insult to the honest poor of our nation, given that the first part of the afternoon was devoted to crime and crime prevention. Those who look to the poor for the source of crime are often looking in the wrong place.
    At the same time, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), on his tour around the kingdom, forgot that Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom. As a result, I am glad to be able to speak this evening, especially as my colleagues and I represent that part of the nation which is recognised by most as the area of greatest deprivation that has suffered most from the problems affecting other parts of the kingdom—more unemployment, lower incomes, greater poverty and poor health.
    I welcome the comments of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He did not allow me to intervene when he referred to Scotland, even though I come from that part of the country which gives Scotland its name—the land of the Scotti—the land of the Irish. As one of the Scots-Irish, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's plea was important.
    It was echoed in a fine maiden speech by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), who suggested that there may be a place for regional assemblies, and I was reminded that as Leader of the Opposition the Prime
    456
    Minister said that it was the task of Conservatives to encourage diversity and to ensure that it could flourish. While there is a tendency to think of central Government as the only way out, it is interesting that many of the Commonwealth countries, the United States of America, which is regarded as our strongest ally, and West Germany all have systems of federalism. The time has come for this House to consider that form of government for the future of the nation and to give a place to the diversity in the regions.
    Although this is not relevant to the concept of federalism, the Treasury may consider that, instead of building larger buildings and more offices for Members and staff here, it could spread the finance around and have a House of Commons that deals with the central issues of the nation and give the regions greater power and scope to deal with the diversities that exist.
    Northern Ireland is deprived in other ways. It is deprived, unlike any other part of the kingdom, in that joint authority is shared with a foreign Government through the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I would have thought that, almost two years after it was signed, those who are entrusted with administering it would be wanting to trumpet forth its worth. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) complained about the difficulties in getting answers to questions from local authorities. We have similar difficulties getting answers from the Northern Ireland Office. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had an opportunity to answer a simple question that I tabled for answer on 29 June. It asked:
    "in what ways the Anglo-Irish agreement has contributed to peace, stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland since 15 November 1985".
    His answer was:
    "I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible."—[Official Report, 29 June 1987; Vol. 118, c. 28.]
    I would have thought that there would have been such self-evident benefits at the present moment that he would have wanted to herald them to the world, but the reality is that no benefits have been forthcoming.
    We should consider sharing the wealth of the nation throughout the nation. In that context I question the glib use, in debates about the poll tax or revision of rates, that comes through regularly from Government Departments about winners and losers. It would be tragic if, in the words of a very wealthy gentleman, the rich are the winners and the real losers are the frugal poor. Those who are thrifty and who have built the nation to a large extent are constantly penalised.
    Due to the time, I am unable to deal with other issues, but I shall deal with one. The people of Northern Ireland have suffered from the use of identity documents when voting. At least 2 per cent. of the people going to the polls, with no one questioning their right to be there, are not allowed to vote. They have not got the prescribed documents. We on this Bench counselled against such a system. We desire a proper identity document for the whole nation. Such a document could be useful with regard to the problem of alcohol addiction, especially teenage drinkers.
    Northern Ireland is not being treated as an equal part of this kingdom. We were regaled some time back by guidance that was given to the unemployed to get on their bike and go looking for a job. We had a refinement of that from a well-meaning former Minister of State in Northern

    457
    Ireland who said that he had gone to America and tried to get them to open immigration so that our people could go there again; no longer on a bike but on a Boeing.
    9.15 pm
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I pay tribute to my predecessor, Jim Craigen. He is held in very high esteem for his devotion over many years to the interests of the Maryhill people. Since coming here I have met many hon. Members who hold him in high regard as a man of ability who did his work here and in Scotland, particularly in regard to local government, with great distinction. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will join me in wishing him well in his future endeavours. Nothing could give me greater pride than to stand here today as Jim Craigen's successor in a long line of Labour Members for Maryhill.
    My constituency has been described in the press as "a citadel of Socialism". That might be journalistic exaggeration, but the answer at the general election to the Prime Minister's threat of bringing an end to Socialism in Britain was to increase a Labour majority of 11,000 to an all-time high of over 19,000. The story is similar all over Glasgow. It is the city that has everything except a Tory Member of Parliament.
    In the few days that I have been in the House I have frequently heard Government Members claim that their policies are working, but just a little more slowly in Scotland. We are told to have patience and that all will be well. Let me tell the House just how patient Maryhill will have to be. A total of 29 per cent. of adult males in Maryhill are unemployed. In the Woodlands ward the rate is 34·4 per cent. In Ruchill more than half the unemployed have been so for over a year, and 20 per cent. of unemployed women have been unemployed for three years or more. Half the youths in my ward are unemployed, and the Queen's Speech gives no hope whatsoever of any improvement in their lot.
    It is strange to reflect that 200 years ago, the 1784 Tory Government of William Pitt, in the reign of George III, deployed a more progressive attitude to jobs and industry than do their present-day successors. That Government gave a cash grant of £50,000—£25 million at today's prices—to the Forth and Clyde canal company to complete the unfinished canal on a route through Maryhill to link with the Clyde at Bowling. That company was what Government Members would call a "lame duck" company. It had run out of money and could not raise cash on its own. The Government gave real money—not a loan, not a capital allocation, which is Whitehallese for permitting local councils to spend ratepayers' money to pay off interest on borrowing.
    Maryhill prospered. The population grew rapidly and industry boomed. Mining, glass-making, chemical, engineering and many other industries flourished, but most of them have now gone. At the height of the prosperity a pub was opened. It still stands on Maryhill road. It is called The Politician because its building was the headquarters of the Maryhill Tory party. However, for many years now Maryhill Tories have drowned their sorrows in the Bearsden watering holes, but even that is no longer the haven that it once was.
    The industries that I mentioned have almost entirely gone. It did not all happen in eight years of Tory Government, but the climate has considerably worsened in recent times. Since 1978 many companies have ceased
    458
    to trade, with a loss of more than 4,000 jobs in my area. Employment in the largest companies that existed in 1978 has fallen from 13,000 to 5,500. However, the people of Maryhill are not cowed. Their vote on 11 June was a warning, and in their own interests Government Members should heed it.
    A different but related aspect of the Queen's Speech concerns the rights of trade unionists who are fortunate enough to be in work. The attitude of the Government to trade unions has nothing to do with giving power to the people, but everything to do with weakening democratic opposition to Government policy. This Government will spend any amount of money, as they did during the coal dispute, to weaken trade union organisation. They have victimised trade unionists for carrying out the democratically decided wishes of their members. If this Government want people power, why are the people who work in OUT industries the last to know about management decisions that affect their livelihoods and working conditions? Why do the Government not require employers to give adequate time off for training and education?
    Let us consider some of the proposals that the Government have come up with. There is, for example, the inspection of trade union accounts. Why do the Government not bring forward amendments to require the political parties to reveal all their sources of income, or would it be giving too much power to the people if they were enabled to choose a packet of biscuits that did not contribute to Tory party funds?
    In the election of trade union executives, double standards are again at work. The people of Scotland voted for a Scottish assembly, and against the Government's policies, but they do not get what they voted for. Whether one is talking about teachers in England or Scotland, about the GLC, GCHQ or the Morris furniture workers in Glasgow who balloted for trade union recognition, the Government respect only the ballots that come up with the answer that they want. Under the new rules that the Government hope to bring in, it will not matter if 100 per cent. of the work force agree in a secret ballot that they want a closed shop. They will not get it.
    The Green Paper openly admits that the reason for that legislation is to provide
    "greater flexibility in the labour market and increased freedom of choice for employers when recruiting."
    That is nothing more than an attack on the ability of trade unions to protect their members interests and an invitation to unscrupulous employers to pay poverty wages. Likewise, the charter for strike breakers who defy the result of a democratic ballot will serve only to bolster the employers' power. It is utter hypocrisy to see that as having anything to do with the rights of trade union members, because trade unions are democratic organisations which know an awful lot more about serving their members' interests than do Conservative Members.
    The Government's readiness to exert stringent controls over the conduct of trade union affairs stands in sharp contrast to their willingness to leave the City to its own squalid affairs and to regulate itself. The Government have been rumbled by the voters in Scotland, Wales and the north, and it is no coincidence that the traditions and values of the trade union movement are part of the culture of those nations and areas. That is why the Government are bent, not on ignoring them, but on dismantling their rights to organise themselves collectively.

    459
    In conclusion, any trade unionist, or any person with a respect for democracy, will fail in his duty if he does not do all in his power to stand up for the rights of working people and in the defence of trade unions until once again we have a Government who truly believe that people should have the power to rule their own lives.
    9.22 pm
    Mr. John Prescott: This has been a good debate, which has been characterised by the real issues of deprivation and lack of opportunity and which has been improved immeasurably by the quality of the maiden speeches. There have been eight maiden speeches today and although that seems an awful lot in one day, all made valid contributions to the issues that are before the House. I welcome the fact that nearly every one of those speeches—perhaps with one exception—overthrew the tradition of not being controversial. Indeed, they were controversial and colourful speeches that reflected the anger felt by people representing constituents who have voted in a particular way because they reject—and rightly so—the Government's policies, as embodied in the Queen's Speech.
    I hope that the House will understand that trying to address some of my remarks to those eight maiden speeches will take a considerable amount of the limited time that is available to both Front Bench Spokesmen. However, it would be a discourtesy not to make an effort to comment on some of the points raised in those speeches. I thought at one stage that I might have not to comment on a maiden speech but to welcome the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) to the Back Benches. His contribution reminded the House that it is not "business as usual," whatever the result of the election, and that if the Government fly in the face of the evidence of what the people in certain parts of the country are saying, they will be in for a difficult time. That problem is not limited to Scotland.
    The first maiden speech, that from the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) reminded me of the other dissident, perhaps the first dissident of this Government, Mr. Jim Prior, who was respected in the House because he argued that there should be a system for the regulation of fair wages, such as the wages councils. Indeed, because he argued a strong line on that in the Cabinet, he paid the price—as have most of the dissidents in this Government—and left the Cabinet. Indeed, when the hon. Gentleman made his point about the fishing industry I was reminded of the fishing industry in my area. He spoke of the importance of regulation in that industry, yet the Government set great store by deregulation. I hope he has more influence than we have in deterring the Government from deregulation and all its consequences.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) made powerful speeches, reflecting the cutting edge of those who represent constituencies with high levels of unemployment, considerable deprivation and poverty. Both showed their influence on and experience of local government. It was clear from most speeches that many hon. Members who have come to the House have direct local government experience, and at a time when the Government are mounting a massive attack on local authorities. The theme
    460
    throughout the debate has been the role of local authorities and that will be a major issue in the coming months.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield struck a humorous note when he talked about the circumstances here. He reminded Mr. Deputy Speaker that Mr. Deputy Speaker had promised to do anything he could to help the hon. Gentleman and that he would ask Mr. Deputy Speaker to provide him time for speeches. He reflected the humour of his father, whom we all remember. He seems to have his father's experience and humour, which will undoubtedly stand him in good stead.
    My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) reminded us of that beautiful city, its value and university, as well as the considerable difficulties facing it. When he spoke of golf courses, I thought that he had caught on to a mood. Perhaps he should be making the point about golf courses and everything that is in the air. I think that man will go far.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) made an eloquent speech and I particularly welcome her because we share a record. We crossed the Humber bridge together before it was opened, and when the car crashed I broke my back. She was in the car at the same time and I am pleased to welcome her to the House. We both recovered—[Interruption.] I do not think that she has come to finish the job. We welcome her to the House. She reflected the experience she gained in the European Parliament, especially in shipbuilding and fishing, which was a reason why she visited Humberside at that time.
    I certainly welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who is not a maiden speaker but what we call a retread; he is certainly no maiden. He reminded the House that in the areas of considered affluence in the eastern region there is deprivation, high unemployment and real problems with many job losses in the manufacturing sector. He will undoubtedly make considerable contributions to our economic debates, as he did in the past.
    The final two maiden speeches came from female Labour Members who reminded us that women were under-represented in the House of Commons. I am glad to see that there are now far more women in the Labour party and I am sure that their numbers will increase as they begin to get a fairer proportion of representation in the House. Both spoke of the north-south divide—a constant theme in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) reminded us that the prosperous south-east has levels of unemployment in some parts of our inner cities as high as exist in some of the worst parts of northern England. It is a division between the haves and have-nots and not strictly a north-south divide.
    One million are unemployed in the south. Admittedly deprivation, poverty and unemployment are higher in many northern areas, and we shall reflect that in our debates, but we should not ignore the fact that we have high unemployment, a lack of opportunities, and considerable deprivation developing in our inner cities. That is presumably why we have had a considerable volume of propaganda from the Government about what should be done in our inner cities.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) made an important contribution to an issue about which we shall hear more—trade unions and democratic representation. Indeed, we shall hear more

    461
    about democracy in our debates, whether about the democratic rights of local authorities to have a say in what happens in their areas or about the democratic rights of individual trade union members to have a say in the internal mechanisms of the trade unions and to decide not necessarily to be regulated by statute. She made a powerful point about the contribution that trade unions make to our society. No doubt all of them will make a considerable contribution to our debates, and I offer my congratulations, as will every Member of the House, to them on their maiden speeches. I hope that eventually we can get rid of the word "maiden" and call them first speeches.
    I welcome the new Secretary of State for Employment, whom I remember from our debates on transport. I watched him while he was Secretary of State for Social Services, and some of the skills that he learned at the DHSS will be of use to him at the Department of Employment. He is quite adept at fiddling figures, as was shown when he fiddled the hospital waiting lists. I recall the conference when he threw a list of hospitals to everyone and said, "These are the hospitals that we have built," but apparently half of them had not been built or even planned. The Department of Employment has also been adept at fiddling the unemployment figures.
    Instead of reiterating all the arguments about unemployment, which is clearly higher than unemployment in any of the major competitors and higher than it was in the 1930s, will the Secretary of State put honesty back into the unemployment figures and calculate them in the same way as other countries calculate them? Why does he not publish a Green Paper on how we will examine real unemployment, not just the numbers of those who are eligible for benefits? If we returned to the regular census reports, people would have more confidence in the figures given by the Department. I hope that the new Secretary of State can end the constant debate about fiddled figures every time the unemployment figures are produced.
    The Secretary of State's experience in the administration of social security and unemployment benefits will stand him in good stead in his consideration of reform of the Manpower Services Commission. If he removes control over jobcentres from the MSC and puts it into the Department of Employment, he will be setting up a system whereby the same Department will deny benefit and place pressure on those who visit jobcentres to accept the employment offered or the skivvy schemes that were promised in the Conservative manifesto. He will be in breach of the belief, under both Governments, that we should remove pressure from the MSC and that people should be able to attend jobcentres without the fear of being pressured into jobs or the refusal of benefits. The Government are trying to apply pressure, especially with the coming job training scheme, the youth training scheme and the denial of benefit to which they are committed. It is also probably the first move towards privatisation of those services, but we shall wait to hear what the Secretary of State has to say about that.
    Another feature of the Department of Employment is the amount of money that it spends on propaganda. The amount spent to publicise the YTS and JTS schemes increased elevenfold from £3 million to £34 million. The propaganda money spent by the DHSS doubled while he was Secretary of State there, although a great deal of it related to the AIDS problem. A fantastic amount of money has been spent by the Government, and by Saatchi and Saatchi in the process, to propagate the Government's
    462
    case, yet we are promised legislation that will deny local authorities the opportunity to explain their case using their resources. That is another example of the doubletalk that we can expect from the Government.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman must realise that we have only 25 minutes left, so I shall not give way.
    Today's debate was largely about deprivation and the lack of equality of opportunities. The provision of employment is the most important contribution to improving equality of opportunity and reducing deprivation.
    I presume that the great emphasis on inner-city policies comes from the Government's new-found belief that something should be done in the inner-city areas. The Government should have accepted the policies that have been advocated over the past 15 years by members of the Labour party to deal with the problems of deprivation.
    I notice that the new Secretary of State for Employment has displayed great concern about the amount of money that should be available from his Department for job creation. Indeed, within a couple of days of getting the job, the right hon. Gentleman was on television telling us that a lot more jobs will result from tourism. I worked in the tourist industry, and I can tell the House that it offers low-paid, low-opportunity, low-skilled jobs. Such are the jobs that mainly exist in that industry. It has been easier for such jobs to continue in existence because the protection of the wages earned by people in that industry has been taken away by this House. We are the only country, out of the 90-odd countries that observe the international convention, that has removed the protection on low pay for those in wages council industries.
    What especially offended me when the Secretary of State made the announcement on television was that he felt that the way forward was to improve bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London. The reason why bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London is tinder pressure is primarily because an awful lot of people got on their bikes and came down to London. There are 1 million homeless in the London area who have now been pushed into bed-and-breakfast accommodation, financed by the DHSS.
    Why are there so many homeless? Why are there cardboard cities? Why are we using bed-and-breakfast accommodation to provide for our people? It is primarily because the Government have denied £18 billion to the local authorities to do the necessary work. They have also denied local authorities the use of £6 billion—a sum that the local authorities have obtained from capital funds—to build houses. The Audit Commission has told us that, in London alone, the Government cut £1 billion for house building from local authorities.
    We have witnessed the collapse of public sector house building : the number has dropped from 11,000 to about 2,500. However, the Secretary of State has come along to tell us that the way forward is to improve bed-and-breakfast accommodation, together with an improvement in tourism. That illustrates the difference in our approach to this problem. If one wants to create jobs and meet the needs of homeless people, why do we not release the £6 billion that local authorities have in their accounts and allow them to build houses? The unemployed building

    463
    workers should build the houses that will reduce homelessness. The local authorities should be able to carry out their traditional role as house builders. That is an easy way of providing real services, meeting real needs, and creating real jobs. The money, labour, resources and demand are obviously there. Why do we not allow local authorities to carry on and do that instead of having the Secretary of State coming on television giving us propaganda about bed-and-breakfast accommodation?
    What I find especially annoying about the Government is that they claim that the London Docklands development corporation represents the way forward for urban development corporations. However, it has already been mentioned in this debate that some of the houses provided by that body cost almost £500,000. How do the people of Bermondsey and the docklands afford such housing? Of course, private money has rushed in on a bed of public money to build the infrastructure, but the houses on offer to people in that area cost between £100,000 and £500,000. The income of the average person in that area is between £10,000 and £11,000. How will they raise the money to obtain a mortgage in that area? The area is becoming extremely affluent and the property provided is for those who are extremely wealthy. Such housing developments have little to do with reducing deprivation and the lack of opportunity in those particular areas.
    The problems that we face in our inner cities have developed because there is a shortage of training. There is a considerable shortage in every kind of skill. The Secretary of State should ignore what his Department has been saying for the past few years and ignore what is intended for YTS and JTS. They are skivvy schemes and they do not provide qualifications; indeed, they do not provide much opportunity for jobs. That is why people do not want to accept a place on those schemes. Some 20 per cent. turn down a place on YTS and more and more are turning down JTS and workfare projects. All those schemes witness the development of an army of skivvy labour who will be available for the inner-city programmes that the Government are now beginning to introduce.
    The Government have made many complaints against the authority of Southwark. Indeed, today Lord Young made a speech in which he said that Southwark does not co-operate. I have considered the evidence. Southwark produced an alternative plan to get people back to work called "A Working Community." Such plans for jobs are always rubbished by the Government, so they sent in a task force. We asked the Government how many jobs it created, what resources it was provided with and what sort of schemes it produced. The then Paymaster General said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) that out of the £1 million available, only about £200,000 had been used. It was used for projects that included the establishment, in co-operation with a clearing bank, of a grant and loan scheme for local small businesses. That was recommended by Southwark council. Twenty places were provided for entrepreneurial training for people from the estates. That is welcome, but it was mentioned in the document "A Working Community". In another project, £12,000 was provided for the improvement of lighting and external security on the north Peckham estate. We all want that—it was recommended in "A Working Community".
    464
    Other projects involved the establishment of a cooperative shop, and the creation of industrial start-up units from garages. Another project gave support towards training for about 100 local people, which is similar to 20-week JTS training. Finally, there were improvements to two adult education institute branches. The toilets were improved for £4,000 and a training course for 15 disadvantaged local residents was recommended.
    After 18 months, the Government produced that alternative to "A Working Community". It represents few jobs and few resources and does nothing to reduce the deprivation in that area. On that basis, the Government give us all the propaganda about the extension to another eight inner-city areas. It is a charade. It does nothing for the real problems in our inner-city areas.
    The local authorities have produced job plans and alternatives to the Government's schemes, whether YTS or JTS. If the Government looked at those alternatives, they would find real ideas. But the Government are not interested in those alternatives. They see no role for the local authorities or the trade unions participating in a reformed Manpower Services Commission. They see no role for them in the improvement of the quality of training for our youngsters and in providing jobs for nearly 1 million people of between 18 and 25. All that the Government offer is more skivvy schemes; a conscripted labour force. That is not a way forward for any of our people. It is those schemes and ideas that we in the Opposition shall fight tooth and nail because they do nothing to assist towards the reduction of deprivation or to increase the equality of opportunity in our society.
    9.42 pm
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): The House has listened to a series of impressive maiden speeches. All the hon. Members referred generously to their predecessors. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) referred to both his immediate predecessors. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) put the case strongly for the east of East Anglia. The hon. Member for Dundee, East set out his case on unemployment, to which I shall refer.
    The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) set out his view of the Conservative Benches, which seems to be that we all work in the City and are perpetually paired. Speaking as someone who has never worked in the City and who does not have a pair, I shall gladly come to an arrangement with the hon. Gentleman.
    There were also excellent maiden speeches from the hon. Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett)—although, as has been said, he is a retread—for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).
    The House also listened to a typically witty speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and to powerful speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) and for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), and many others, but, above all, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He was a most distinguished Leader of the House. His speech was elegant, short and to the point. At the end, in his typically modest way, he said that he was glad to be around. If I may say so, the House is glad that he is around.

    465
    The theme of the debate was inequality of opportunity. The Opposition's case is significant not just for what they set out but for what they left out. We have not heard a great deal about the need for a successful economic policy, yet there is not much equality of opportunity for elderly people in this country when inflation cuts the value of their savings in the terrible way that it did under the last Labour Government. Labour's inflation of 25 or 26 per cent. was a savage blow to millions of pensioners. We have not heard a great deal about spreading home ownership, yet there is not much equality of opportunity for men and women who are forced to remain council tenants rather than buy and own the houses in which they live.
    We are not prepared to take lectures from the Opposition on equality of opportunity, because, like so many of the Opposition's policies, they are based on words, not actions. It is a deception to claim that opportunities can be achieved without successful economic and anti-inflation policy. One does not help the inner cities if one's economic policies collapse in ruins. One does not help the weak if inflation gets out of hand, because inflation robs the weak, not the strong. It hits the pensioner, not the person who is able to adjust his income quickly to rising inflation. All the Government's policies, social and industrial, are within the context of a sound economic policy; and if we do not achieve that, we do not achieve any of our other goals. It has been the consistent failure of the Opposition to recognise that which has helped to doom their position to one of perpetual opposition.
    The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to health care. Perhaps again we can remember exactly what happened under the last Labour Government. They had to cut the capital building programmes, such as hospital building, and the cuts that they inflicted were the worst since the war. Why? Not because the Labour Goverment wanted to do that. They did not want to cut the hospital building programme, but they had no option. The economy was in ruins. The IMF came in and Labour's cuts were the inevitable consequence, with the effects that it automatically had on employment in the construction industry.
    The right hon. Gentleman also referred to perinatal mortality rates. He failed to point out that improvements in the maternity services have led to a sharp drop in the deaths of newborn babies, from 15·4 per 1,000 in 1978 when he was in government to 9·8 per 1,000 in 1985. There is now more spending on health than ever before, and the policy of redistribution is precisely the type of policy that he advocates. If we are to have a strong Health Service, a strong education service and a social security system that provides help for families, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes rightly urged, we need a strong economy. The Government have provided that. The Labour Opposition have most conspicuously failed in providing an economic policy with any credibility.
    I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said about the level of unemployment. I certainly agree with him that central to the whole issue of equality of opportunity is opportunity for employment. What I cannot accept is his view of the trend in unemployment. It is true that, earlier this month, I announced a record monthly fall in unemployment, which was down by 64,000 on the seasonally adjusted basis. It is true that the figures have now come down below 3 million and that in May they fell
    466
    faster than at any time since records began. I should have thought that that would have been welcomed. I thought that it was on that issue that we were being challenged in the last election. However, the significance lies not in one month's figures, but in the trend of unemployment, which has fallen each month for the past 11 months. In the year to May 1987 unemployment has fallen by almost a quarter of a million. It is firmly established on a downward trend.
    Let us be clear about what the figures mean not only for one month, but over the whole year. They mean that, during the year, the number of long-term unemployed has fallen by a record 61,000. They mean that, during the year, unemployment has fallen most substantially in the northwest, the west midlands, Wales—some of the areas about which the right hon. Member for Gorton spoke. The figures show that during the year unemployment in Britain fell faster than in any other industrial country and that our unemployment rate is now below that of our nearest neighbours, France and Belgium.
    This fall in unemployment has not been achieved by the overmanning of the 1960s and 1970s. The United Kingdom economy is now into its seventh successive year of growth. We have experienced the smallest number of days lost due to strikes for a generation, inflation has come down and our goods are now much more competitive. Although earnings are still rising too quickly, there have been substantial gains in productivity, especially in manufacturing, where the rate of increase in unit labour costs has slowed dramatically compared to that of our competitors.
    The conditions exist for a further fall in unemployment, but that will not happen automatically. It is vital that we remember the lessons that we have learned, that industry improves further its productivity and competitiveness and that we recognise that realistic wage settlements give us the firmest foundation for long-term prosperity. In this debate the Government have been urged to act in a number of ways, but it remains the case that the greatest contribution that the Government can make is to provide sound financial policies that will provide the low inflation that is necessary for individuals and for business and industry.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East in this respect. Beyond their indispensable, strong, economic policy, the Government can take further steps. Nothing is more important than that we should help unemployed people back into jobs by improving training and by improving their skills. The aim is to help the unemployed to take full advantage of today's expanding opportunities. The priority is to help those who have been hardest hit by unemployment, especially the young and the long-term unemployed. To achieve this, the Government are committing themselves to a number of major steps that I hope the House will welcome. First, we are now able to guarantee a place on the youth training scheme for every 16 and 17-year-old school leaver who does not have a job.
    Mr. Prescott: They cannot get qualifications.
    Mr. Fowler: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East says, the youth training scheme offers training leading to recognised qualifications, and two thirds of trainees go into jobs or into further education—[Interruption.] There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to shout. He was demolished by one of my hon. Friends only last week. If the Opposition are readily interested in equality of opportunity, they should welcome

    467
    the opportunities offered by the YTS which puts us ahead of most other countries. The fact that we can now guarantee a place to every school leaver is a major step forward.
    The second Government commitment concerns the 18 to 25-year-olds who have been unemployed for between six and 12 months. Within the next 12 months we aim to guarantee places on the job training scheme, on the enterprise allowance scheme or in a job club. The people in this group are often too old to have benefited from the YTS and all too often they do not have the skills and qualifications that they need in a modern labour market. That is why the Government are determined to press ahead with the job training scheme that the Manpower Services Commission launched earlier this year. It is a training scheme of high potential specifically designed for the 18-to-25 age group.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West, I think it is a great pity that the Trades Union Congress has now succumbed to pressure to withdraw its support for this scheme. This is despite the fact that the TUC, through its membership of the Manpower Services Commission, participated in the design and launch of the scheme and despite the fact that my predecessor in this office accepted all the recommendations of the commission about the design of the scheme. It entirely exposes the hollowness of the Opposition case when they seek to talk about equality of opportunity. There will not be much opportunity for many of the young people in this age group unless they can get the qualifications that they need.
    Our third aim is to work during the lifetime of this Parliament towards the position where everyone under the age of 50 who has been unemployed for more than two years can be offered a place on job training schemes, the enterprise allowance scheme, in a job club or on the new community programme.
    The fourth change affects the community programme. The community programme currently provides more than 300,000 long-term unemployed people each year with a temporary job on projects that benefit the community. However, the programme has two weaknesses that are widely acknowledged by those involved. The opportunities it provides are largely part-time and the structure of the programme means that many of the jobs on offer are not sufficiently attractive to people on higher rates of benefit. Therefore, we propose that those working on the community programme should be paid an allowance which gives a premium over and above their social security benefit. That will ensure that no one entering the programme is worse off than he would have been on benefit and that no one is deterred from taking up the opportunities for financial reasons. That is a major reform—[Interruption.]
    Those are substantial improvements in the programmes for the long-term unemployed. For the first time we will be able to extend the community programme to people with families, the longer-term unemployed and those who until now have had no financial incentive to take up the jobs on offer. I want to see the community programme
    468
    revitalised, offering a way back to work for people who until now had nothing before them except continuing and lengthening unemployment.
    The fifth and final change concerns the management of the services. It is now clear to us that we will be able to give an even better service to the unemployed if we establish a comprehensive employment service covering the work of the jobcentres, restart, job clubs and the payment of benefits within a single organisation. I am therefore consulting the Manpower Services Commission about the transfer of the jobcentres and the related programmes to the Department of Employment to form part of a new comprehensive employment service. I shall write to the chairman of the commission this evening, and I will, of course, put a copy of that letter in the Library.
    The Manpower Services Commission would then be able to concentrate on the vital task of modernising our training arrangements. That aim was set out in the election manifesto. We also said in the manifesto that we intend to enlarge the commission because our training strategy depends for its success on one thing above all else—the commitment of employers. The employers create the demand for skilled labour and they are the customers for it. However, just as important, the enlargement of the commission will mean that we can involve the new growing sectors of employment not now represented on the commission. I have in mind the new technologies, leisure, tourism, retailing, distribution, banking, insurance, financial services and small businesses. Those are the areas in which tomorrow's jobs will emerge. We think that it is therefore reasonable for the commission to be enlarged by up to six seats so that those areas can be represented. The restyled commission will be an up-to-date reflection of the balance of responsibility for training and will speak with greater authority as a result.
    The Opposition have chosen the theme of today's debate to be equality of opportunity. They have made a weak case. Indeed, the choice of subject is curious. We have on record the views of the deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who, on "Newsnight" in 1983, said:
    "The Labour party are not the party of equality of opportunity. That is a view of society of the Conservative party. We, the Labour party, arc the party of equality of outcome."
    I leave it to Opposition Members to define what "equality of outcome" amounts to. By equality of opportunity, we mean equality before the law and defence from discrimination. We also mean the opportunity for people to own homes, to have pensions, to build up savings and own shares and to have the maximum choice over how their incomes will be spent.
    By equality of opportunity we also mean that the unemployed must be provided with opportunities to get back into work. Over the next months the efforts of the Government will be directed at that goal, and particularly at helping the position of young people and the long-term unemployed in this country.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Crime (Use of Knives)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Greville Janner: I am pleased to raise on the Adjournment of the House the problem of the use of knives in crime. I do so under the shadow of a hideous murder in Leicester of a 17-year-old trainee carpenter constituent of mine called Paul Webster. Stephen Michael Curran was last week convicted of that murder and also of the stabbing of a very brave police officer, Inspector Michael Holly, who was fortunate to survive the attack. I do so also in the presence of Mr. Dennison, who lost his son in a stabbing incident and who has launched a courageous campaign in an attempt to have the law changed. I appreciate that in an Adjournment debate I can refer only to the law as it is and ask the Government what they propose to do in order to meet the challenge within the law as it stands.
  The law within which the Home Office and the police work is extremely weak. In the first place, when dealing with knives I would wish to pay a tribute, with which I know that you, Mr. Speaker, would wish to be associated, to my late father Barnett Janner, Lord Janner of the city of Leicester, who introduced the restriction of Offensive Weapons Bill which subsequently became an Act in 1959 and which resulted in the effective banning of flick knives and gravity knives, which have become rarely used. It is an offence under that Act to manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or be in possession of such a dangerous instrument.
  Unfortunately, the Act does not extend to other knives which rejoice in such names as survival knives, Rambo knives, butterfly knives and other dangerous weapons, still less to knives which may be used entirely properly by anglers, hunters, carpenters, butchers or carpet layers; knives such as Stanley knives, especially those with retractable blades, and large penknives, which can, if used, be extremely dangerous.
  The other Act which gives the police some power is the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which provides:
  "Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence".
  But an offensive weapon does not include an instrument which has normal and proper uses unless the prosecuting authorities can prove that the weapon is being carried by the person concerned with criminal intent. In effect, the burden of proof remains such as to make it almost impossible to achieve successful prosecutions for the carrying of knives which are normally used for proper purposes.
  It is into that background that the police are faced with hooligans, with young villains and sometimes with perfectly ordinary youngsters coming together in gangs and carrying knives. Some of them, according to the Metropolitan police, are carrying them in London as a means for self-protection. As Chief Superintendent Mike Farbrother said:
  "We are seeing early evidence of a generation which carries knives almost as part of their clothing."
  It is becoming almost a fetish, a vogue, a fashion, and it is hideously dangerous and must be stopped.
  470
  This is a national problem. We know that about one third of all murders are committed with sharp instruments, the vast majority of which are knives. We know also that the problem is far worse in the metropolitan district than elsewhere. In Leicester, for example, it is regarded by the police as no more of a problem than in other places. However, the pages of the Leicester Mercury are too often filled with stories of knife attacks. Indeed, last week's issue contained a page with pictures of the sort of knives about which the Leicestershire police are worrying. Superintendent John Peacock, the deputy commander, says that it is not as big a problem as in other places—for example, in the Metropolitan police area—but that any control, whether voluntary or statutory, would he well recieved, as the police are concerned about people being able so easily to buy and carry craft and other potentially dangerous types of knives.
  The question now arises of what control there can be in the absence of changes in statute, and what proposals the Government would make in the face of this problem. I know that the Minister, who is himself a distinguished lawyer, will take the problem seriously, as one who has both prosecuted and defended criminals in cases involving knives. I hope that he will bear in mind the horror caused to ordinary people when they are faced with a knife, even if the person does not intend to use it. I hope that he will not take lightly the fear that is struck into the hearts of so many people out on the streets, and sometimes in their own homes, when they are faced with someone carrying a knife. I hope that he will also take seriously the vast increase in crimes of violence in the Leicester area. In the past nine years such crimes have doubled in number, and many of them—although we do not know how many—involve the carrying and use of knives.
  I was pleased to hear the Home Secretary say earlier today that he was having consultations with the shadow Home Secretary to see what common ground could be found. I am sure that there is much common ground. Equally, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is the Government's duty to see that legislation is brought in. It is necessary to be a very able and, in some ways, a fortunate legislator to succeed, as my father did, in introducing a private Member's Bill from the Back Benches and to see it brought into force. It is the Government who have watched over, and failed to control, the vast increase in dangerous crime, and it is the Government who must now bring forward proposals to deal with it. The problem is worse in London than in other areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng)—whom I was delighted to see elected to Parliament—can testify. It is national, metropolitan and local.
  The first possibility is that the Government will institute an immediate campaign to try to convince young people that the carrying of knives is as great a danger to themselves as it is to those whom they may face. Some youngsters carry knives, as they put it, "just in case". That is a very poor argument for carrying an offensive weapon. The same argument is sometimes used to suggest that police officers ought to carry guns, just in case they are faced with someone with a gun. That argument has been used successfully in the United States, and has contributed to the huge increase in crimes involving firearms. Anyone would encounter such cases if he had the misfortune to be out in New York, or even just to read the newspapers. But it is not an argument that we want to hear in this country,

  471
  and we do not want it to be introduced to our police force. It is certainly not an argument from which the Government should take the least solace. What we want is to convince people that carrying knives of any sort is dangerous.
  Secondly, it ought not to be thought that knives that are normally used for happy purposes can conveniently be carried, simply because one forgets to put them away. Nobody is trying to prevent anglers, hunters, carpenters or carpet fitters from carrying those knives that are part of their duty, work or sport, but when the purpose of carrying a knife is completed, it should be put away. It should be left at home. It should be regarded as a danger.
  When, in due course, the Government consider changes to the law, they must strike a balance. When additional powers are given to those whose duty it is to protect the public, and when the burden of proof is changed, dangers to people's liberty are sometimes created. If we carry knives after dark, we should recognise that we may have to explain that the purpose of carrying it is lawful. If an ordinary member of the public is carrying a sheath knife, a hunting knife, or a knife with a retractable blade, it will not be easy to prove innocence.
  The Government must try to convince shopkeepers—voluntarily, one would hope, without a change in the law—that they should take much greater care than they do today when they sell knives to members of the public. If voluntary efforts fail—as they failed over the sale of glue, and some of us were involved in that campaign—legislation will have to be introduced. In the case of glue, it became an offence for a shopkeeper to see glue if he knew or believed that it would be used for an unlawful purpose. It would be a misfortune if similar legislation had to be introduced for knives. I cannot call for it tonight. No doubt, however, legislation will have to be considered if shopkeepers continue, as at present, to sell weapons that are a menace to those whom they have no good reason to believe will use them properly.
  The so-called survival knife is sold by many totally disreputable shops. One selling Nazi regalia is due to open within a mile of this House. Shops that sell such knives ought to be licensed. Knives should not be available for sale to anyone, particularly when they are obviously being sold to those who are villainous in intent. I should like all such shops to be licensed and as few licences as possible to be granted.
  In the meanwhile, if we are not to have legislation—and I cannot call for legislative changes tonight—all those who sell survival knives should keep them locked up and sell them only to adults of apparently good intent. Furthermore, the name and address of every person who buys such a knife ought to be taken. I have spoken to shopkeepers, some of whom have said that that would be no problem,, while others have said that it would create more bureaucratic trouble for them and that it would be difficult. I cannot see the least difficulty for them.
  If a shopkeeper sells a weapon that may be used to kill, murder, maim or strike fear into the hearts of ordinary people, I cannot see why he should not take the name and address of those who buy such weapons and why he should not require some form of identification. It would not be so great a burden as if the shopkeeper were selling a gun, and it would act as a voluntary deterrent. I call upon those who sell potentially vicious, dangerous knives to the public
  472
  to take voluntarily the same sort of precautions today as they have been required to take by force of law over the sale of glue because voluntary measures failed.
  The problem is vast. The deaths that have resulted from our failure to face the problem have been unnecessary, and they have caused grief and misery to hundreds of families. The thousands who are faced with the menace of a knife will not forgive the Government if they fail to take immediate steps in recognition of the concerted complaints that have been made to them by the police, in recognition of public concern at the growth in violent crime and in recognition of the Government's own failure to curb crime in accordance with their promise to do so. They will not be forgiven for that failure by any of those who are threatened, still less by the families of those who are murdered. There should be voluntary action and, if necessary, compulsory action by those who sell knives. It should be made more dangerous in law and in reality for those who carry knives and who should not have them on their persons.
  10.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has raised this subject. It causes considerable concern to the Government. Despite the fact, Mr. Speaker, that you fought this election in a non-partisan way, you will have doubtless cast your eyes on the Conservative party manifesto—perhaps someone whispered its contents in your ear—and you will have found a commitment by the Government to strengthen the law dealing with the sale and possession of offensive weapons.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated a number of possible approaches for the Government to adopt, and I too would like to deal with that aspect of the problem. Before doing so, there are two preliminaty points that I should like to make. The first relates to the increase in the number of incidents involving the carrying of knives and the second is about the existing law.
  Let me deal first with the increase in the number of incidents in which people carry knives. I entirely agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said: there is an alarming increase in the numbers of people who are carrying knives, and I agree with his suggestion that in certain parts of our cities it is becoming part of the subculture to go around with a knife. That is a profoundly worrying and distressing fact that the Government must address.
  The evidence is conclusive, and I give just two statistics. In Merseyside between 1985 and 1986, the number of robberies involving the use of a knive increased by 21 per cent., and in the Metropolitan area during the same period the increase was 29 per cent.
  The nature of my responsibilities means that I go around the police stations and talk to police officers. I am very aware of their anxieties on this score. Therefore, like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think that this is an urgent and pressing problem which Governments must address.
  My second preliminary point relates to the existing law. If a knife is used for the purposes of assault and injury is caused, the offender will be charged not with the possession of an offensive weapon but with the more substantive offence that reflects the assault. The gravity of the charge will reflect the gravity of the offence—that is

  473
  to say, if it is a serious injury, the person may well be charged with an offence under sections 18 or 20 of the 1861 Act or with assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
  Therefore, for the purpose of this debate, I confine my attention to the possession of offensive weapons as dealt with under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. The hon. and learned Gentleman has, as one would expect, reminded the House of the contents of that statute. I am happy to say that he did so accutately. He correctly summarised the contents of the 1953 Act, so I do not have to do so. However, I want to dwell on the classes of weapon that are caught by the Act. Two classes are involved, as they fall within the definition of an offensive weapon.
  One type of offensive weapon is the kind that is made or adapted for the purpose of causing injury. An obvious example might be a swordstick or a sharpened screwdriver. Both would fall within the first class of an offensive weapon, but that is not where the problem lies. It lies with any weapon—I use that word broadly—because it can be any instrument that a person carries for an unlawful purpose—for the purpose of causing an injury. It might be a milk bottle, a high-heeled shoe with a sharp stiletto or a knife.
  It is here that we come to the core of the problem because there are a range of legitimate purposes that justify the carrying of a knife. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West referred to the fisherman coming back from the stream with an angler's knife. Other examples are the housewife returning from the ironmonger having purchased a bread knife, the boy scout returning from camp with a sheath knife or the decorator who has been hanging wallpaper and has put a Stanley knife in his pocket. All those instances would be a proper possession of something that is capable of being a weapon. When a weapon is carried in those circumstances it is not an offensive weapon for the purposes of the 1953 Act, but it becomes an offensive weapon if the person who is carrying it has it for the purpose of causing an injury. It is the intent to which the 1953 Act is directed and it is that which causes the problem. How does one distinguish, in statutory language, between the first innocent example and the second example, which is far from innocent? What approach should we adopt?
  The hon. and learned Member spoke about education and I agree with him. What is being done by Superintendent Farbrother in Lambeth is desirable and useful. In schools, youth clubs and other appropriate places we must ram home the message that the possession of a knife is, or can be, a criminal offence. It can be dangerous to the possessor and very dangerous to other people.
  I agree with the hon. and learned Member that we must place increased emphasis on what might be called the broader educational aspects of the matter. However, I do not agree with him when he calls for licensing. The problem does not concern the Rambo-type knife, unpleasant though it may be, but with the potato knife or the bread knife, which is just as dangerous as the Rambo knife, but which could not be made the subject of licensing
  474
  regulations. There are other problems, but I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I do not develop them in this short debate.
  I now turn to what I would like to see done. I appreciate that I cannot go into the detail of legislation, but I have been looking at "Erskine May" and I see that where the matter is ancillary to the main business before the House it is permissible for me to dwell on it in broad terms. The Government are not in a position to come forward with firm proposals, but it might be helpful if I were to canvass some of the broad ideas that have been passing through my mind and those of other people.
  We must remind ourselves that flick knives and gravity knives have been made the subject of a prohibition. It is unlawful to sell a flick knife or a gravity knife. That is a precedent on which we could build. It would be perfectly possible for the Government to take powers to prescribe and prohibit certain classes of weapon. Those classes could be defined generically or by description. No doubt there would have to be powers to amend the list. There might have to be residual statutory defences, but those are problems of no great moment. It would be perfectly possible for Parliament to prohibit the sale, and probably the possession, of certain defined weapons. That may be a useful way forward that will commend itself to the House. However, there is a problem. The problem is that that will not go to the root of the difficulty. Although we could define and include Rambo knives in the prohibited classes, the bread knives, Stanley knives and carving knives are the major problems. We could not prohibit their sale, for the reasons that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West and I understand.
  We have to go a stage further. We have somehow to try to mark the statutory distinction between the fisherman, the boy scout, the decorator and the housewife and make it unlawful for someone without a lawful cause to have a knife tucked away in the back pocket either for offence or defence or because of pressure within the peer group. We must direct our statutory endeavours to that.
  It would be idle to pretend that the Government have yet made a collective decision or are in a position to make proposals. However, we are giving urgent attention to how we can make it unlawful for people without good or reasonable excuse to have with them a sharp-bladed instrument. I hope that it will be possible for the Government in the near future to make proposals. They might be additional to the power to prohibit sale.
  Like any Minister, I am conscious that we are likely to be criticised from both flanks. Some people will say that we have not gone far enough and others will say that we are infringing civil liberties. That is for the future. For the present, all that I can say is that I regard it as a matter of high urgency. The Government recognise the serious problem. We are addressing that problem. We will, I hope, come forward with proposals soon. I also hope that the proposals will be couched in such terms as to appeal to Opposition Members.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Tornado Aircraft
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost at current prices (a) of the Tornado aircraft fleet and (b) of spares in stock and ordered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  For the cost of the Tornado programme, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood ( Mr. Wilkinson) on 20 February last, at column 875. The value of spares in stock and currently on order is estimated at £636 million at current economic conditions.

  United States Forces (United Kingdom Bases)
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many bases in the United Kingdom are currently in use either in part or in whole by United States forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There are currently 66 military bases and facilities in the United Kingdom made available for use by US forces. In addition, there are two NATO armament depots which provide a service for US forces.

  Jaguar and Tornado Aircraft (Crashes)
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) Jaguar and (b) Tornado aircraft have crashed during flight operations since 1979; and what is the total cost in (i) lost aircraft, (ii) recovery operations, (iii) damage repairs and (iv) number of lives lost and pilots forced to discontinue flying because of severe injury.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since 1979, 37 Royal Air Force Jaguars and 12 Tornados have suffered irreparable damage in crashes, as a result of which 18 aircrew died and two others sustained injuries which prevented them from undertaking further flying duties. The cost of the aircraft lost, in 1987 prices, is £430 million. It would not be possible to quantify associated recovery work without disproportionate cost and effort.

  Trident Missiles
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the increase in destructive power over Polaris represented by the deployment of Trident nuclear missiles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 6–11 of the essay entitled "The Minimum Deterrent" to be found on pages 39 to 42 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987".

  Royal Dockyards
  Mr. Hicks
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence when employees in the royal dockyards will be informed of the financial value of their personal buyout pension bond; and what are the reasons for the delay in providing this information following the introduction of commercial management on 6 April.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Changes in the method of revaluation associated with personal buyout bonds have been announced by the Treasury since the royal dockyards were contractorised on 6 April 1987. Such transfers are, as a result, more widely available and there has been a considerable increase in demand for personal estimates. I am well aware of the concern of dockyard employees and plans are being made to deal with the new situation I shall be writing to my hon. Friend shortly.

  AOR2
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the procurement timetable for the AOR2 vessel.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Swan Hunter Shipbuilders has been given a preferential opportunity to tender for the second AOR, to the Harland and Wolff design. Its tender was received on 18 June and this is now being evaluated. We hope to be able to negotiate a contract based on the terms and conditions outlined by my right hon. Friend on 24 April 1986, at column 434, so that work can commence on the ship as soon as possible after negotiations are completed.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. Peter Wright
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Attorney-General what is the total cost, to the most recent practicable date, of legal representations in Australia and elsewhere in attempting to suppress publication of Mr. Peter Wright's book on MI5.

  The Attorney-General
  The total amount of costs expended to date in the proceedings to restrain the publication of Mr. Peter Wright's manuscript is about £292,000.

WALES

  Green Pound
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union in Wales to discuss the devaluation of the green pound; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I shall be meeting both unions next month, but I am well aware of the farming unions' views on the need for a substantial devaluation of the green pound in the current CAP price fixing negotiations.

TRANSPORT

  Scotrail (Dundee Depot)
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the management of Scotrail to discuss the future of its Dundee depot; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No. It would be inappropriate for Ministers to intervene in what is a management matter for the board.

  Airedale Trunk Road
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of providing quarry materials by rail for the construction of the Airedale trunk road and the current cost using road-borne traffic; how many road transport contractors are involved; and how many vehicle inspections have been carried out in 1987 to the most recent practicable date.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The cost of providing materials by rail is not available for the two sections of the Airedale route under construction. Following investigation, the Department was satisfied that the cost of delivering bulk materials by rail was considerably greater than by road.

  The estimated cost of imported bulk fill by road for the first section of the route is £4·0 million; for the second section the estimated cost is £1·0 million. To date, 70 haulage subcontractors have been employed on the first section and 53 on the second.

  Inspections of loaded vehicles are not related to hauliers working on particular road schemes. The Department's traffic examiners and vehicle examiners carry out programmes of roadside checks on weights and other aspects and also fleet inspections to check mechanical conditions of vehicles.

  Settle-Carlisle Railway
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has yet reached a decision on the retention of the Settle-Carlisle railway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I appreciate the concern caused by continuing uncertainty over this line's future. It is, however, the most complex closure case for many years and there are many issues involved. I am working to resolve them.

  Railway Sidings
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many grants for the installation of railway sidings under section 8 of the Transport Act 1974 have been made in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 to the most recent practicable date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The information requested is as follows :

  Year

  Number of grants

  1979

  17

  1980

  20

  54

  Year

  Number of grants

  1981

  7

  1982

  14

  1983

  17

  1984

  18

  1985

  21

  1986

  4

  11987

  2

  1 To date.

  These figures are the totals for Great Britain, and include grants made by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales.

  British Rail (Vandalism)
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost of vandalism on British Rail; whether grant aid to remedy the damage is available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No estimate of the cost of vandalism on British Rail is available. There is no specific grant-aid to remedy damage caused by vandalism, but all the costs of operating the passenger railway, including those associated with vandalism and policing, are at present taken into account in determining the amount of PSO grant paid to BR. From next year, when the InterCity services cease to be eligible for grant, the cost of vandalism on those services will have to be met from fares.

  Lighthouse-tender Ships
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he hopes to receive the consultative report on the operation of the United Kingdom's lighthouse-tender ships; and whether he will make copies available in the Library.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend expects to make an announcement shortly. Copies of the report, when it is published, will be placed in the Library.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Dicks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received the consultants' report on surface access to Heathrow airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  The report of the Heathrow surface access study on travel between Heathrow airport and central London, which the Government commissioned in March 1986, is being published today by the consultants Howard Humphreys and Partners, who undertook the study in association with the MVA consultancy and Kennedy Henderson Ltd. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library and sent to those most closely involved. Further copies are available direct from the consultants.

  The consultants were asked to examine the implications of growth at the airport over the next 20 years, including the possibility of further terminal development on the Perry Oaks site. There are no plans for such a development, but it would have been wrong to conduct a long-term review of this kind without examining how the transport options considered could meet the increased

  55
  passenger demand which would be created by any further development of this kind within the timescale dealt with by the study.

  The report confirms the general experience that roads in the Heathrow to London corridor are already heavily loaded and traffic is continuing to grow. If nothing is done, delays will get worse. While Healthrow traffic is only a small proportion of all traffic using these roads, the report proposes various ways of assisting the flow of traffic on the M4 and A4 to make journey times to Heathrow shorter and more predictable. Three of the schemes, to the west of Chiswick, are relatively straightforward; these have already been incorporated into the Department's programme of projects for the A4-M4 corridor. The report also identifies possibilities for more far-reaching schemes to the east of Chiswick.

  The study revealed that rail and road options were complementary rather than competing, and the report identifies a large number of possible rail developments involving both British Rail and improved Underground services. These have been evaluated on a financial basis using a computer model developed specially for the study. The report finds that some of these rail schemes should be commercially viable.

  In accordance with their remit to look beyond the end of the century, the consultants have considered the scope for more radical solutions. One possibility considered is the use of new technology to provide a dedicated link connecting the terminals at the airport directly with central London. A further possibility involves a tolled tunnel from Boston Manor on the M4 to the Shepherds Bush area. In view of the promising options that have been identified for cheaper and more conventional solutions, both road and rail, I do not propose to have these ideas taken forward as public sector projects for the time being.

  The Government will need to reflect carefully on the findings of this major study. I am therefore inviting comments on the report's conclusions from the main transport operators (British Airways, British Rail, Civil Aviation Authority, Heathrow airport, and London Underground), the relevant local authorities, and other interested parties. The Government will also be considering how the private sector might be involved in the development and financing of the schemes discussed in the report; no decisions have yet been taken on the provision of public sector finance.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Political Refugees (China)
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens from China are claiming political refugee status in the United Kingdom at the latest date.

  Mr. Renton
  As at 26 June there were three Chinese nationals whose initial application for refugee status was under consideration.

  Economic League
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made with inquiries into the matters raised in the "World in Action"
  56
  television programme broadcast on 16 February concerning the Economic League and possible breaches of the law, including section 2 of the Official Secrets Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received from the chief constable of the North Yorkshire police a report of an investigation carried out by a senior officer of his force into claims that information, in particular about criminal records, was passed to the Economic League by the police. Detailed examinations of police national computer transactions made by the force produced no indication that the PNC had been used to obtain criminal record information for the league. Further inquiries and interviews produced no evidence to support the implication that other police information had been passed to the league.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will increase the public expenditure allocations to the Department of Health and Social Security in order to facilitate the full implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lawson
  Priorities within the DHSS programme will be discussed over the next few months as part of the annual review of public expenditure.

  Disincorporation
  Mr. Sackville
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will be considering changes in the law to remove obstacles to disincorporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  There may be circumstances in which those involved in running a company consider that it would he commercially preferable for the business to be run in unincorporated form. The Government have received representations that there are a number of fiscal and other legal deterrents to moving from corporate to unincorporated status. As indicated in the White Paper "Building Businesses … Not Barriers" (Cmnd. 9794) the Government have been considering ways of removing these deterrents. The Inland Revenue and the Department of Trade and Industry will this week be publishing a consultative document seeking views on possible changes to company and taxation law relating to disincorporation. A copy of the document will be placed in the Library of the House and the closing date for comments will be 31 October 1987.

  Pensions
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government now intend to reintroduce measures to enable members of occupational pension schemes to make additional voluntary contributions to a separate pension plan.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It remains our intention to reintroduce all the proposals dropped from this year's Finance Act as soon as possible.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Copyright
  Mr. Fraser
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he plans to introduce legislation to modernise the law of copyright.

  Mr. Butcher
  As announced in the Queen's Speech, a Bill will be introduced to reform the law of copyright.

  Leather (Imports)
  Mr. Fry
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give figures for the levels of Japanese exports of leather to the United Kingdom for the last five years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is as follows:

  United Kingdom imports of leather from Japan

  £000

  1986

  4,868

  1985

  3,331

  1984

  2,439

  1983

  1,435

  1982

  1,230

  Notes:

  1. Leather defined as Standard International Trade Classification Division 61 less Item 613.0

  2. 1986 figure provisional

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics

  Mr. Fry
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give figures for the levels of finished leather garment imports from Turkey for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is as follows:

  United Kingdom imports of leather garments from Turkey

  £000

  1986

  3,606

  1985

  4,032

  1984

  2,957

  1983

  726

  1982

  541

  Notes:

  1. Leather Garments defined as United Kingdom Tariff heading 4203.100

  2. 1986 figure provisional

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics

  Director General of Fair Trading (Report)
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he intends to publish the report by the Director General of Fair Trading for 1986.

  Mr. Maude
  The 13th annual report by the Director General of Fair Trading has been published today. It covers the period 1 January 1986 to 31 December 1986. Copies of the report have been laid before Parliament.

  Yorkshire Woollen Textile Industry
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the number of employees in the Yorkshire woollen textile industry for 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 to the most recent practicable date.
  58
  Mr. Atkins
  I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Furniture and Toys (Safety Regulations)
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce legislation to ensure that fire safety regulations for furniture sold for use in the home are stringently applied; if he is satisfied that there are adequate safeguards to ensure that toys are not inflammable; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the deficit in trade in manufactured goods between the United Kingdom and the Common Market in 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 to the most recent practicable date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is in the following table:

  United Kingdom Balance of Trade in Manufactures1with the European Community2

  BOP Basis, £ billion Not Seasonally Adjusted

  Year

  1984

  -8·1

  1985

  -8·7

  1986

  -10·1

  1987 Q1

  -2·4

  1 Standard International Trade Classification Sections 5 to 8.

  2 Present Membership throughout.

  Source: Department of Trade and Industry.

  Origin Marking
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce legislation to ensure that goods offered for retail sale are marked with the country of origin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I have no plans to do so. The European Court of Justice, in its 1985 judgment against the former Trade Descriptions (Origin Marking) (Miscellaneous Goods) Order 1981, has already made it clear that such a requirement would be in breach of Article 30 of the treaty of Rome. However, it is and will remain a criminal offence to mislead consumers about the origin of goods.

  Afghanistan (Arms Exports)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has had from Shorts of Belfast about the export of arms to Afghanistan.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is not the practice to comment on individual defence equipment export matters.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Korea
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's present relations with the Republic of Korea; and if he will make a statement.
  59
  Mrs. Chalker
  We have been following events in the Republic of Korea closely and are encouraged by reports of the latest developments. Our bilateral relations continue to be good.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current relations with Nigeria.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We enjoy close and cordial relations with Nigeria, a fellow Commonwealth member.

  British National (Overseas)
  Dr. Twinn
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the diplomatic exercise to explain the new status of British National (Overseas) and the passport that goes with it.

  Mr. Eggar
  Over a period of nine months we have conducted an intensive diplomatic campaign to explain the background to the 1986 Order in Council and the creation through it of the status of British National (Overseas). We have drawn attention to the fact that British passports in that status will be available from 1 July 1987, and have handed over specimen copies explaining the various endorsements which will help make the passport an effective travel document both before and after 1997. We have also made it clear that the arrangements we are introducing are in the full knowledge and understanding of the Chinese Government.

  The response we have received to these explanations has been overwhelmingly positive. No foreign or Commonwealth Government have said that they would not accept for entry to their territory travellers holding BN(O) passports. Many have let it be known publicly in Hong Kong that the passports are acceptable. There is therefore every reason to believe that holders of BN(O) passports will he able to travel as widely and freely as they were previously when using British dependent territories citizen passports. The Government will continue to monitor reactions carefully, and will make every effort to ensure that the arrangements which come into force on 1 July work smoothly.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The usual forecast was deposited in the House earlier today. At present, four meetings of the Council of Ministers are planned for July. The incoming Danish presidency has indicated that it may call meetings of the Council earlier than those scheduled.

  The Economic and Finance Council is due to meet on 13 July. It is expected to consider the second quarterly review of the economic situation in the Community. The agenda may also include the effects on Spain and Portugal of the Council's decision to delay reimbursement to member states of losses incurred on the disposal of butter stocks; the Commission's proposals on the future financing of the Community; and the Economic Policy Committee's report on the Commission's 5-year financial forecast.
  60
  The Agriculture Council is due to meet on 13–14 July to continue if necessary its discussion on the 1987 price fixing proposals.

  The Foreign Affairs Council meets on 20–21 July. Discussions will cover the Commission's proposal for a regime to regulate the levels of radioactivity in food following a nuclear accident and developments in both EC/Japan and EC/US relations.

  The Budget Council is due to discuss the 1988 Preliminary Draft Budget at its meeting scheduled for 23 July.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any changes have occurred in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cash limits for 1987–88.

  Mr. Eggar
  The cash limit for Class II, Vote 1, overseas Representation, will be decreased by £544,000 from £424,360,000 to £423,816,000 to take account of a reduced requirement for the installation costs of the FOLIOS computer project attributed to this Vote.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Shorts (Surface-to-air Missiles)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funds he has given to Shorts of Belfast in relation to the development of surface-to-air missiles.

  Mr. Viggers
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 June 1987 c. 27]: The Secretary of State has given no funds to Shorts of Belfast for the development of surface-to-air missiles, but the missiles systems division of the company is in receipt of standard capital grants for the purchase of machinery and equipment.

  Vehicle Excise Duty (Fines)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland in the last three years for which figures are available have been imprisoned for not paying a fine imposed by a court for failure to display a Road Fund Licence; and what information he has as to how many such fines are outstanding at present.

  Mr. Stanley
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 June 1987. col. 28] : In 1985 the last year, for which figures are available, 1,091 people were imprisoned in Northern Ireland in default of payment of fines. However, information about the number of persons imprisoned specifically for not paying a fine for failing to display a road fund licence is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  At 26 June 1987 the number of fines imposed at magistrates' courts for this offence and which remained unpaid totalled 1,087.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Meals
  Mr. Yeo
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had on the case for nutritional guidelines for school meals.
  61
  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions. Local education authorities have access to a wide range of expert professional advice on this matter.

  Geological Surveying
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he received a copy of Sir Clifford Butler's report on the future of geological surveying; and whether he will arrange for its immediate publication.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he proposes to publish the joint Natural Environment Research Council—Advisory Body for Research Councils study group report into geological surveying.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend received a copy of Sir Clifford Butler's report on 22 June, with preliminary comments from the chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and the chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council. My right hon. Friend expects to make an announcement on publication shortly.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages Inspectors
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of wages inspectors in post for 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 to the most recent practicable date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The numbers of wages inspectors in post were as follows:

  Number

  1979

  158

  1980

  155

  1981

  125

  1982

  116

  1983

  116

  1984

  115

  1985

  118

  1986

  92

  11987

  75

  1June

  The Wages Inspectorate is being reduced to 71 inspectors. This is considered to be adequate in view of the simplified wages council system introduced by the Government in 1986.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment in how many claims made in the London borough of Camden entitlement to unemployment benefit has been disqualified on the grounds of voluntary unemployment or dismissal for misconduct, or both, since the new rules came into operation in October 1986; and in how many cases the disqualification was for the maximum period of 13 weeks.

  Mr. Lee
  Information is not readily available about claims made in individual local authority areas, and this could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

THE ARTS

  South Bank Board (Report)
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he expects to lay before Parliament a copy of the South Bank Board's report to the Arts Council for the year ended 31 March, as required by section 47 of the Local Government Act 1985.

  Mr. Luce
  I congratulate the South Bank Board on the success of its first year and welcome the 1986–87 report "Now we are one", a copy of which has been laid before Parliament today; the audited accounts for 1986–87 will be presented to Parliament later this year when they are available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cereals
  Mr. Lord
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria will be applied to decide eligibility for the small cereals producer aid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  In the United Kingdom eligibility for the small cereals producer aid intended to offset the effect of the cereals co-responsibility levy, will be restricted to those cereals producers with not more than 100 hectares of crops and grass, excluding rough grazing, who can supply evidence that during the 1986–87 cereals marketing year they have had the cereals co-responsibility levy deducted on their grain. The aid will be paid at a maximum rate of £3·37 per tonne on a minimum claim of 3 tonnes and up to a maximum of 25 tonnes (£84·33). The rate of aid will be reduced if the total amount of aid claimed by producers exceeds the 5·35 million ECU (£3·354 million) allocated to the United Kingdom for this purpose.

  Application forms are being despatched in England and Wales to those cereal producers believed to meet the criteria. Producers who believe they are eligible and do not receive an application form should apply to their local divisional office for a form. Separate arrangements for distributing application forms have been made in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Completed application forms must be returned to divisional offices by 31 July 1987. Payments will be made by 31 December 1987.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. David Martin
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether it is proposed to change the cash limit on any departmental vote for which he has responsibility; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limits on votes for which I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are responsible will be increased in order to make provision for the purchase of milk quota in Great Britain for issue to Northern Ireland producers as announced to the House on 31 March 1987 at column 445.

  The cash limit for Class IV Vote 4 (other Agricultural and Food Services and Support for the Fishing Industry) will be increased by £875,000 from £141,801,000 to £142,676,000 and that for Class XVI Vote 2 (Agricultural

  63
  Services and Fisheries, Scotland) by £127,000 from £69,832,000 to £69,959,000. These increases will be contained within planned provision for programmes and will not involve a call on the reserve.

ENVIRONMENT

  Tyneside Urban Development Corporation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the members of the Tyneside Urban Development Corporation; and if he will state the annual remmuneration paid to each member.

  Mr. Trippier
  The members of the Tyne and Wear development corporation are Mr. Paul Nicholson (Chairman), Mr. John Ward (Deputy Chairman), Mr. Graeme Anderson, Mr. John Barnsley, Councillor John Donnelly, Mr. John Hall, Dr. Ralph Iley, Mr. Joe Mills, Councillor Bert Moore and Councillor Septimus Robinson.

  All posts are part-time. The chairman is paid £13,610 a year on the basis of a time commitment of one and half days per week. The deputy chairman is paid £6,158 a year on the basis for a time commitment of 1 day per week. Members are paid at a flat rate of £3,610 a year.

  Defective Houses
  Mr. George
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will designate Wimpey No-Fire houses under the Housing Act 1985 to permit the assistance of owner-occupiers who purchased such defective houses from local authorities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Mr. George
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will increase the housing investment programme allocation to Walsall to assist the local authority to deal with defective housing such as Wimpey No-Fire, Smith, Cornish and Reema.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Local authorities were notified last December of their HIP allocations for 1987–88. Although authorities were invited to bid for a share of £14 million extra HIP resources put aside for those experiencing particular difficulties with obligations under the housing defects legislation, Walsall decided not to submit an application.

  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the recent visit to Liverpool of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier).

  Mr. Trippier
  I visited Liverpool on 22 June 1987 to see the work of the Merseyside Development Corporation. I met the chairman, chief executive and senior officials of the development corporation, toured a number of formerly derelict dockland sites and saw for myself what is being achieved by the corporation in partnership with the private sector, in revitalising large sectors of Liverpool's Docklands.

  Urban Programme
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a detailed breakdown of the total urban programme for the financial years 1978–79 to 1987–88 (estimated); and if he will list the outturn urban programme grants paid to each partnership, programme and designated authority and the estimated figure for 1987–88, showing also for each authority the level of funding in each year on (a) housing subsidy receivable and (b) block grant, expressed in constant 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Ridley
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 June 1987, c. 48]I have placed in the Library a copy of the information on the detailed breakdown of the total urban programme for the financial years 1978–79 to 1987–88 and information on block grant to those authorities. Information on the level of funding on housing subsidy receivable is being placed in the Library pursuant to my reply of 29 June 1987, at column 49. I shall write to the hon. Member with the information requested on urban programme grants.

  Housing Subsidy
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the housing subsidy paid to each London borough, metropolitan district and non-metropolitan district in each of the years from 1978–79 to 1987–88 (estimated), expressed in constant 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Ridley
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 June 1987, c. 49]I am placing in the Library the information requested for the years 1981–82 to 1987–88 inclusive. Information for the years before 1981–82, when the present housing subsidy system came into operation, cannot be provided except at undue cost.

PRIME MINISTER

  Trident (Report)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister for what reason information in the report by Ministry of Defence civil servants, on the costs of Trident, prepared on the instructions of Sir Robert Armstrong, designed for an incoming Labour Government was given to The Independent newspaper in the first week of June.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  None of the material prepared for any incoming Government has been made public. The Independent newspaper approached the Ministry of Defence in early June with questions about Trident. It was given only information already publicly available.

  NHS (Patients' Choice)
  Mr. Ray Powell
  asked the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have to increase opportunities for patients to choose the date, venue and doctor for their treatment within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government's aim is to make sure that all patients receive the treatment that they need within a reasonable time. That is why we have launched a waiting list initiative backed up by a special fund of £50 million which we expect to bring about the treatment of 200,000 extra patients from the waiting list over two years.
  65
  There are no plans to change the present system where a general practitioner may refer his patients to the consultant he considers most appropriate for their treatment. In doing so a general practitioner can take account of probable waiting time and location. Acceptance of the patient and date of admission is then a matter for the consultant's clinical judgment, taking into account the patient's availability for treatment.

  Norwich
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  asked the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to visit Norwich.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

  Welsh Office
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Prime Minister what representations she has received about Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the administration of the Welsh Office.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend has received three such letters, including one from the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) and one jointly from the hon. Members for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas), for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones).

  Shettleston
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Prime Minister if she will make an official visit to Shettleston constituency.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Mr. John Mark Taylor
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend is in Brussels for a meeting of the European Council.

  Mr. Abdul Haq
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister what discussions she had with Mr. Abdul Haq during his visit to number 10 Downing street on 11 March 1986, about the acquisition of Blowpipe missiles by persons or organisations opposed to the Kabul regime; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  It has been the practice of successive Administrations not to comment on matters of this kind.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  asked the Prime Minister what stage has now been reached in preparing a contingency plan to deal with the effects of any future nuclear accident overseas.

  The Prime Minister
  The main framework of the new contingency plan, to cater specifically for the consequences 66
  for this country of nuclear accidents outside the United Kingdom, is complete. Departments and organisations involved in implementing the plan are now preparing their own, complementary, individual contingency plans. Discussion of certain aspects with elected member representatives of the local authority associations will take place in the near future.

  The main features of the new plan are:—

  Central Government Arrangements

  1 These are designed to carry out the following tasks:

  (a) Establish the hazard likely to be faced by this country;

  (b) Determine the measures required to protect and/or reassure the public;

  (c) Issue whatever specific directions or general information may be required;

  (d) Keep Parliament properly informed.

  2. These tasks will be carried out under the auspices of the Department of the Environment (the lead Department) where a co-ordination centre will be established. Officials of Departments and organisations directly concerned will work in the co-ordination centre where assessments, based on monitoring information, will be co-ordinated, recommendations will be made on action to be taken and briefing material will be prepared for Parliament, Ministers and the public. Those Departments (including territorial departments), with statutory responsibilities, for example for health, agriculture, control of contaminated cargoes and so on, will thus be enabled to discharge them in the context of a co-ordinated response to the effects of an accident.

  3. The Secretary of State for the Environment will answer in Parliament on all aspects of Government arrangements except those which are the specific departmental responsibility of other Ministers. Should a need arise the lead Department would seek support from the appropriate Cabinet committee, under arrangements made by the Cabinet Office.

  Monitoring and Data Assessment

  4. The whole country is to be covered be a network of monitoring stations based on existing facilities. The necessary equipment is already in place in some of these stations and will be installed in the others. Arrangements will be made to supplement the information obtained from these stations by deploying portable detectors, mobile sampling equipment and possibly aerial monitoring devices, as well as using information available from those hospitals, universities, local authorities and other organisations with monitoring facilities.

  5. Data from all monitoring sources will be stored on a central data base facility (CDF) and be available to Departments and organisations responsible for making assessments. Commercial electronic mail (for example, BT Gold) telephone, telex and facsimile systems will be used to transmit monitoring information to the CDF. Assessments and advice based on them will be disseminated on appropriate channels, which will include the media, Viewdata systems (for example, CEEFAX and ORACLE) and departmental channels (for example, MAFF, DHSS, FCO and territorial Departments) for specific purposes, for example to permit Ministers to carry out their statutory responsibilities. Assessments and the advice based on them will also be stored on the CDF and interested organisations will be given access to them.

  Public Information

  6. During the period immediately following the Chernobyl accident extensive use was made by the public of departmental hot lines in London, Edinburgh and Cardiff. These facilities will be continued. In addition, information and advice will be routed to the public via local authorities, health authorities and the regional structure of the relevant central Government Departments. Further discussions will be held with local authority associations and others about practical aspects of implementing this part of the plan.

  Public Protection

  7. The considered conclusions of the expert authorities concerned, after a careful analysis of the Chernobyl experience and other relevant factors, is that an accident overseas, even to an installation on the French or Belgian coasts, would be most unlikely to produce effects in this country that would justify making specific contingency arrangements for evacuation, shelter or distribution of potassium iodate tablets. Arrangements will, however, be made to cover the following:

  67

  (a)Treatment of those returning from affected areas overseas for effects of exposure to radiation — by Health Departments;

  (b)Possible contamination of food and water — by DOE, MAFF, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices;

  (c)Advice to United Kingdom citizens abroad or intending to travel — by FCO, DTI, D.Transport, MOD, DHSS, (together with ABTA and the media) as appropriate;

  (d)The import/export of contaminated goods — by DTI, DHSS, MAFF and territorial departments closely coordinated with arrangements being made under EC auspices.

  Action will be co-ordinated as necessary under lead Department auspices.

  Relationship with Plans liar an Accident inside the United Kingdom

  8. Existing plans to cope with a nuclear accident inside the United Kingdom, relating to individual nuclear installations, which will remain the responsibilty of the Secretaries of State for Energy, Scotland, Defence or Transport as appropriate, have mostly been publicised in some detail in the areas to which they apply and in more general terms in the Health and Safety Executive publication "Emergency Plans for Civil Nuclear Installations". Any accident in this country would almost certainly require implementation of parts of this plan for example, activation of the monitoring network. There will therefore he close correlation between this plan and existing plans, which are currently under review.

  Review Arrangements

  9. The new plan will be kept under regular review. Arrangements will be made for appropriate exercises to practise the plan and, where necessary, improve it.

  Scottish Devolution
  Dr. A. Godman
  Q 65. asked the Prime Minister if she will now take steps to hold a referendum in Scotland on the issue of devolution in Scotland.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no plans to do so.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Health Authorities (Charges)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice he has given to health authorities about levying charges for treating patients from other health authorities.

  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice he is offering to health authorities on charging other health authorities for services provided.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department is to discuss draft guidance on this issue with regional health authority treasurers at one of their regular meetings later this week. This will confirm the current legal position; that health authorities may enter into a charging arrangement by mutual consent but that an individual authority may neither impose a charge unilaterally nor refuse to treat a patient if no payment is made.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the incidence of leukaemia around nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department has established the independent expert Committee on the Medical Aspect of Radiation in the Environment to advise the Government on such matters. COMA RE has been asked to advise on 68
  the position in relation to Scottish nuclear sites and the Aldermaston/Burghfield area. More recently it has been asked to advise on the recent Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report on cancer incidence and mortality in the vicinity of nuclear installations in England and Wales. We await the Committee's advice.

  COMARE was set up in response to one of the recommendations in Sir Douglas Black's report on Sellafield. Action has been taken also to implement the other recommendations in that report. A small area statistics unit is being set up under Professor Geoffrey Rose at the London School of Hygiene, to study statistics on the distribution of disease amongst small areas and the interpretation of such statistics, and to study reports of unusual clusters of disease in the neighbourhood of industrial installations. The epidemiological studies recommended in Cumbria are well on their way towards completion.

  Benefits
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children are now living in households dependent on social security benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  Around 2·24 million children were living in families receiving supplementary benefit in February 1987, the date of the latest available statistics. The reformed social security structure to be implemented next April will target help more specifically on low income families with children through the new family credit and the family premium in income support.

  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action will be taken to measure the extent to which claimants do not receive benefits to which they are entitled, following the recently published report on the subject by the National Audit Office.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department's system of measurement covers underpayments and overpayments of benefit. The recent National Audit Office report drew attention to undetected errors. In the light of the report, officials are urgently considering ways in which detection, recording, and correction of wrong payments can be improved.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospitals have closed in the United Kingdom since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information is not held centrally on numbers of hospitals closed. We do however, keep information on hospital facilities approved for closure. From 1979 to end December 1986,284 hospitals have been approved for closure in England. For closure outside England, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Since 1987 (to date) some 230 schemes (costing £1 million and over, building and engineering costs) have been completed to provide about 22,000 new beds. In addition many smaller schemes have provided facilities in response to the care in the community initiative.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Marlow
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to enable parents who have been accused of sexual abuse of children to have a second opinion provided from authorities outside their own local authority.

  Mr. Newton
  Parents can present their own evidence and expert medical opinion before the Court either in care proceedings or wardship and if they are prosecuted for alleged sexual abuse. The local authority's duty is to investigate and if need be apply for a place of safety order to protect the child. After assessment they may institute care proceedings. The assessment is multi-disciplinary with a substantial medical component for which the local authorities look to the health authorities who could arrange for a second opinion if this is thought appropriate. The Northern regional health authority has this week set up a pilot scheme under which cases of suspected child sexual abuse are discussed with consultants drawn from a special regional reference group.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to combat child abuse.

  Mr. Newton
  We have under way a considerable programme of work designed to provide help and advice to social services departments, health authorities and other agencies with a role to play in combating child abuse. In particular, a new guide and circular on interagency working is being prepared, following the circulation of drafts last year. We have embarked on a special initiative to help training of staff, especially but not only on child sexual abuse. The first stage of this was announced in October 1986, the second in April 1987; and further projects are possible. We are also developing practice guidance for social workers and health visitors. All of this is additional to our continuing programme of research and development projects and assistance to voluntary organisations working in this field.

  Social services provision for this work is decided by local authorities themselves who are responsible for deploying the resources available to them. The 1987–88 rate support grant provision for personal social services was a 12·9 per cent. increase on 1986–87 an included additional provision for children's services and for training.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of women have responded to the initial call in those districts where cervical cancer call and recall schemes have been introduced.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information available from three of the first family practitioner committees to set up systems indicates that between 33 per cent. and 64 per cent. of women who received invitations to attend for screening responded, although some of the respondents merely gave a reason for not attending. After those who did not respond initially had been followed up the response rate rose to between 75 per cent. and 84 per cent.

  Information on the response in other areas is not yet available centrally. It will be reported by health authorities in their annual outturn reports due next month.
  70
  Mr. Patchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the target level of accuracy in National Health Service pathology laboratories for dealing with cervical smears.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information his Department has on delays in treating women whose cervical smears have proved positive.

  Mrs. Currie
  Responsibility for providing services for treatment of cervical cancer and related conditions lies with the local health authorities. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Dewsbury health authority for information concerning Dewsbury. We do not routinely collect such information centrally.

  Mr. Bradley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what provision he has made to monitor the standards of accuracy of cervical smear tests.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the professional standards of private sector companies offering breast cancer screening.

  Mrs. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many health authorities use their own pathology laboratories for dealing with cervical smears; and how many put them out to private contractors.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let the hon. Members have replies as soon as possible.

  Miss Mowlam
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether South Tees health authority has sufficient computer capacity to provide a full cervical cancer call and recall scheme.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that a full cervical cancer call and recall system is operating in South Tees health authority and that the district is meeting the four-week target for reporting on smear tests.

  George Eliot Hospital, Nuneaton
  Mr. Stevens
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the capital building programme at George Eliot hospital in Nuneaton.

  Mrs. Currie
  Phase II of the capital building programme at the George Eliot hospital was completed earlier this year at a cost of £6·5 million. The first patients moved into the 54 acute beds provided on 30 May. Phase III of the development was approved in August 1986 and work on this £12 million scheme is due to start in July 1989, with completion due in April 1992.

  Look After Your Heart Campaign
  Mr. Wood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement about the progress of the look after your heart campaign.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Look After Your Heart campaign, launched on 22 April, has generated considerable interest and continues to gather momentum. Because the main aim of this phase of the campaign is to raise public awareness
  71
  about the dangers of heart disease and what can be done to reduce or avoid the risk, further use of the mass media is planned, in particular a television advertising campaign starting in the late summer.

  An important part of the campaign strategy is to involve industry, commerce and the workplace directly. One way this is being done is through a scheme of healthy living contracts in which employers and organisations undertake to support the principles underlying the campaign by a series of practical innovations which can include providing no-smoking areas and healthy menus in public restaurants and works canteens, displaying and disseminating campaign material to staff and the public, and introducing "Look After Yourself" courses in exercise, nutrition and stress management. A contract signing ceremony with a number of company chairmen was a feature of the campaign launch, and there will be a further signing by some leading British industrial and commercial organisations on 14 July. An industry pack which includes suggested action plans on smoking, alcohol, stress, nutrition and exercise, has been produced for use in industry and has been endorsed by both the CBI and the TUC.

  Major food retailers are being encouraged to mount special promotions for healthier eating and negotiations are proceeding with various sectors of the food industry to encourage the wider availability of appropriate products.

  A further major strand is the healthy cities programme. A growing number of cities and towns are forming joint action teams, involving health and local authorities, local business, voluntary organisations and other local interests, to mount health promotion programmes for this purpose.

  Publications on various aspects of coronary heart disease have been produced to support the campaign. These include a leaflet about healthy living designed with the main target audience in mind, of which some 4 million will be distributed during 1987. Some four million copies of other leaflets on particular aspects of coronary heart disease are also being produced. A total of £2·5 million, an increase of £ 1 million on the original budget, will be devoted to the campaign in 1987–88.

  Pensions
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the present value of the basic pension for a single person as a percentage of average earnings; and what will be the corresponding figure in the year 2030 on the assumptions made in the statistical annex to the White Paper, "Reform of Social Security".

  Mr. Scott
  At estimated April 1987 figures, the basic pension for a single person is about 21 per cent. of gross average male manual workers' earnings. If earnings increased consistently by 14 per cent. a year more than prices, and pensions were increased only in line with prices throughout the next 43 years, the proportion would be 11 per cent. in 2030.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will bring forward legislation to amend the rules for entitlement to full pension for women who marry prior to their 60th birthday to receive a full pension at the age of 60.

  Mr. Scott
  Where a married or single woman has retirement pension entitlement on her own contributions,72
  this can be received from age 60 if she satisfies the condition of retirement. Women whose pension entitlement derives from their husbands' contributions cannot receive a pension until they are 60 and the husband has reached the age of 65 and retired. We have no plans to change these rules, which have existed since the start of the national insurance scheme.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Stott
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to seek to improve the take-up of severe weather payments.

  Mr. Scott
  We are currently reviewing last winter's experience, including the question of publicity arrangements.

  Personal Pension Schemes
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further measures he plans to encourage the spread of personal pension schemes.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government's aim is to encourage the spread of both personal and occupational pension coverage, through the new choices and incentives introduced by the Social Security Act 1986, so that many more people will have a pension of their own. Regulations under the Act which set out the detailed arrangements for the new types of pension schemes will be laid before Parliament later this week, and will help providers finalise details of their new products. It will be for those providers to promote their schemes, but I am considering what role the Department might best play in ensuring that people are aware of the new choices open to them as a result of our pension reforms.

  Arthritis
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about the number of specialist units available for the treatment of children suffering from serious arthritis.

  Mrs. Currie
  Apart from the internationally renowned centre at Northwick Park hospital, Harrow, we do not have detailed information about other centres that provide treatment for children with this condition.

  Infra Uterine Transfusions
  Mr. Loyden
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many district health authorities have the facility to carry out intra uterine transfusions on pregnant women.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information on the number of district health authorities which have the facility to carry out intra uterine transfusions on pregnant women is not held centrally.

  District General Hospital, Solihull
  Mr. John Mark
  Taylor asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement reporting progress with the new district general hospital for Solihull.
  73
  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that building work on Solihull's new district general hospital is due to start in July 1989 and is expected to be completed in July 1992. Planning work is proceeding on schedule.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much he expects to be saved in 1987–88 by competitive tendering for cleaning, laundry and catering.

  Mr. Newton
  From estimates provided by regional health authorities and special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals, we expect new savings of some £39 million to accrue for the first time in the financial year 1987–88 from competitive tendering for cleaning, laundry and catering services. We also estimate that by the end of March 1987, annual savings generated by the competitive tendering initiative in England exceeded £93 million.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Hunter
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he proposes to increase resources for the provision of care in the community for the mentally handicapped and their families.

  Mr. Newton
  Health authorities' strategic plans envisage continued growth in overall expenditure on mentally handicapped people. Most regional health authorities have developed their own funding arrangements to assist the development of community services. Joint finance can also be used on extended terms if necessary. We are keeping an open mind about whether any further steps may be necessary.

  The provision for personal social services in the rate support grant settlement for 1987–88 includes an extra £27 million for the development of community care generally. Decisions on priorities for local government spending are the responsibility of individual local authorities.

  Social security costs will inevitably rise as normal benefits for people remaining in or returning to the community replace the personal allowances paid in hospital.

  As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government have asked Sir Roy Griffiths to undertake a review of community care, and to advise on options that would contribute to more effective care. This review will include consideration of whether the public funds used to support the community care policy are giving the best value for money, whether they are properly targeted, and whether the people assisted are being given the help most appropriate to their needs. The Government look forward to the completion of this review towards the end of the year.

  NHS (Pay)
  Mr. Gregory
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the present average annual salaries of midwives and health visitors employed in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  Information in the form requested is not available. The current basic salary scales for midwives and health visitors are given in the following table.
  74
  In addition staff midwives and midwifery sisters receive additional payments' mainly for working overtime and unsocial hours. Present average earnings (excluding London Weighting) of full-time staff midwives and midwifery sisters are estimated to be about 15 per cent. and 14 per cent. greater than basic pay.

  Grade

  Basic salary scales as at 1 April 1987

  Minimum £

  Maximum £

  Staff midwife

  7,300

  8,600

  Midwifery sister

  9,000

  12,000

  Health visitor

  10,100

  12,250

  Diabetics
  Mr. Beith
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the future of the special diet allowance for diabetics on supplementary benefit.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received correspondence from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and several other hon. Members, on behalf of the British Diabetic Association.

  Cold Climate Allowance
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to introduce a cold climate allowance based on regional variations of temperature.

  Mr. Scott
  We, like previous Governments, are not persuaded that it would be right to deviate from the principle of national benefit levels.

  Primary Health Care
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be able to reply to the First Report from the Social Services Committee, Session 1986–87, of 27 January 1987, HC37, 1986–87, on primary health care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  As soon as possible.

  Health Care (Bexley)
  Mr. Evennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from Bexley health authority concerning health care provision within the district.

  Mrs. Currie
  None.

  Young Persons (Benefits)
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many young people have had their benefit reduced or suspended for either (a) refusing a YTS place or (b) leaving a scheme early.

  Mr. Scott
  From December 1983, when the Department started keeping records of these cases, to the end of May 1987 2,244 people have had their supplementary benefit reduced for refusing a youth training scheme place and 23,453 for leaving courses early, without good reason.

  Mobility Allowances
  Mr. Battle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received regarding mobility allowances.

  Mr. Scott
  We regularly receive representations about the qualifying conditions for mobility allowance, particularly in connection with individual claimants' appeals against decisions by the independent adjudicating authorities. Recently there have been more general representations about the age 75 limit, and about extending the medical eligibility criteria to include disabled people who can walk but are not independently mobile.

  Nottingham Health Authority
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to make up the £5 million shortfall in the funding of Nottingham health authority, as measured by criteria laid down by his Department in its evidence to the former Social Services Committee.

  Mr. Newton
  Decisions on allocations of funds to district health authorities are a matter for regions.

  Cancer Unit (Southend-on-Sea)
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has recently received regarding the closure of the cancer unit at Southend-on-Sea, Essex.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have received this year six letters from hon. Members, and about 3,000 letters direct from members of the public, together with two petitions, about the closure of the radiotherapy department at Southend hospital. The North-East Thames regional health authority has proposed that the radiotherapy department is closed, but that most other cancer services will continue to be provided in Southend.

  If we are required to make a final decision on the proposal, we will take into account all representations which have been received.

  Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services by what date he aims to have fully operational all the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Ms. Mahon
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in implementing all sections of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when Her Majesty's Government intend to implement in full the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Scott
  Section 4, 8(1), 9 and 10 of the Act were brought into force on 1 April 1987. The Government have always made it clear that those sections of the Act which have significant resource implications will be implemented only when the necessary funds can be made available. Discussions with the local authority associations about the 76
  costs of the various sections of the Act have been proceeding at official level, and I plan to meet the associations shortly to review progress. Decisions on the implementation of the outstanding sections can be taken only in the light of the outcome of these discussions.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations his Department has. received about the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Scott
  Since the beginning of this year 243 representations have been received from hon. Members and 20 from other people or organisations about the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. The majority of these have been concerned with implementation.

  Ambulance Service (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement concerning the recent disruption to emergency ambulance services in east London and the reasons for reductions in non-emergency ambulance services in the Greater London area.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Poverty and Unemployment Traps
  Mr. Rowe
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps his Department is taking to help overcome the poverty and unemployment traps.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government have already taken the following measures to help improve work incentives. The basic rate of income tax has been reduced from 33 per cent. to 27 per cent. and since 1979 personal tax allowances have been increased by over 22 per cent. in real terms. Family income supplement prescribed amounts have been increased by a minimum of 13 per cent. in real terms and extra help has been given to families with older children. Since October 1985 national insurance contributions have been reduced for those with low earnings and for their employers. In addition, the Department of Employment's claimant advisers explain to job-seekers that rapid access to family income supplement and standard housing benefit can be provided for those re-entering employment. All these measures help to overcome either the poverty trap or the unemployment trap.

  Looking ahead, the introduction of the reformed social security system in April 1988 will help alleviate the unemployment trap by bringing more generous help through family credit to double the number of working families that presently receive family income supplement. The alignment of the assessment rules for income-related benefits will also mean that people with similar incomes will be treated equally whether in or out of work. The poverty trap will be eased under the reformed structure because family credit and housing benefit will be assessed using net income. This will mean that it will no longer be possible for the withdrawal of in-work income related benefits to create a fall in net income when gross earnings rise.

  Heating Allowances
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the level of heating allowances for the elderly.

  Mr. Scott
  Help with heating costs is provided through the supplementary benefit scale rates and heating additions. We have extended automatic entitlement to the basic rate heating addition to supplementary benefit householders aged 65 or over and the higher rate to householders aged 85 or over.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many low income families will benefit from the new family credit when it is introduced in 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  On the basis of the illustrative amounts in the technical annex to the White Paper "Reform of Social Security" (Cmnd. 9691), published in 1985, around 410,000 families would receive the credit.

  Disabled People
  Miss Fookes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what new measures his Department is taking to help disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  The new income support arrangements, which are to be introduced next April, will result in increased expenditure on people qualifying for the disablement premium. The Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys is carrying out a major survey of the needs of disabled people, which will be completed next year.

  Benefits (Industrial Action)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the cost to local authorities of payments made to claimants who have not received benefits because of industrial action in his Department.

  Mr. Portillo
  We do not have estimates of costs incurred by local authorities in making payments under section 1 of the Child Care Act 1980 or in Scotland section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Such payments are the responsibility of the local authority. However, where local authorities have made interim payments of benefit during the current industrial action, the cost of the payments and reasonable administrative expenses will be reimbursed, so there should be no significant cost to the local authority.

  Doctors and Surgeons (Merit Awards)
  Mr. Fallon
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will review the practice of merit awards to the medical and surgical professions.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no present plans to do so.

  Legislative Proposals (Representations)
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received as a result of proposals in the Queen's Speech which affect his responsibilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moore
  None.

  Nurses
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he will take to reduce the number of nurses leaving the National Health Service for nursing jobs abroad.

  Mr. Newton
  Nurses are free to seek employment wherever they choose. The National Health Service, being the major employer of nursing staff, is bound to lose some qualified staff abroad. We do however recognise the need to recruit and retain qualified staff and the recent pay increases for nurses, ranging from 5 per cent. to 12·7 per cent., are largest for qualified staff and reflected this need. There are also other central initiatives which have implications for the recruitment and retention of qualified staff.

  Hospitals (Dorset)
  Mr. Butterfill
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the hospital building programme in Dorset.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Skinner
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to meet representatives of pensioners organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  My predecessor, together with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, met representatives of the National Pensioners' Convention in March, and representatives of the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations in April. I have no present plans for further meetings, but look forward to maintaining regular contact with the main pensioner organisations.

  Mentally Handicapped Patients
  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on progress in implementing care in the community as regards mentally handicapped patients.

  Mr. Newton
  Substantial progress has been and is being made. The majority of mentally handicapped people continue to live with their families or independently, usually supported by local authority, health or voluntary services. The number of mentally handicapped people living in NHS hospitals continues to fall while the numbers living in local authority homes and hostels and in small NHS units in the community have been increasing. The provision of local authority day services has increased. Relevant figures are available in the Department's various publications on health and personal social services statistics, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Community Care
  Mr. Atkinson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects Sir Roy Griffiths to report on the current review of community care.

  Mr. Newton
  Sir Roy was asked to report by the end of this year.
  79
  Mr. Blair
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has had on the level of provisions for community care.

  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received regarding his Department's policy on community care.

  Mr. Newton
  From time to time the Department receives representations from organisations and individual members of the public regarding particular aspects of the Government's community care policy. Sir Roy Griffiths is currently conducting an overview of community care policy, and has been asked to report by the end of the year.

  Health Funding (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he has taken to provide further financial support to Leicestershire health authority, following the meeting between the Minister for Health and hon. Members from Leicestershire constituencies on 9 April.

  Mr. Newton
  I am grateful to the hon. Members from Leicestershire constituencies for bringing the issue of health services in this district to my attention on 9 April. I explained at the meeting that allocations of funds to districts is a matter for regional health authorities. I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss with the region the representations made to me, but will do so as soon as possible. I know, however, that the Trent regional health authority is well aware of Leicestershire's needs and for this reason the district has received real terms growth of 34 per cent. since 1978–79. I understand that the district is on schedule to receive its target share of resources by 1994.

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest figure for the change in the number of kidney transplants over a convenient 12-month period.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Nurse-Patient Ratio
  Mr. Favell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish the information available to his Department on the nurse to patient ratio in England; and what information he has as to how this compares with France and Germany.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that comparative data on nurse to patient ratios is not available; but the World Health Organisation does collect information on nurse to population ratios, for which the latest available figures show 498 nurses and midwives per 100,000 population in the United Kingdom compared to 346 in Germany and 304 in France. It should be noted, however, that these figures relate to different years and that there are differences in detail in the way they are compiled.

  Pensioners (Energy Prices)
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made as to the effect of energy prices on pensioners; and if he will make a statement.
  80
  Mr. Scott
  Fuel prices are included in the retail prices index which is used as a basis for the uprating of pensioners. Changes in energy prices are therefore taken into account automatically when pensions are increased to reflect the overall rise in the cost of living. The level of the heating additions paid with supplementary pension is determined with specific reference to the fuel elements of the retail prices index.

  Regions (RAWP Allocation)
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for each region for each year since 1979–80 its capital resources allocation working party allocation as a percentage of its weighted population share.

  Mr. Newton
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Artificial Limbs (McColl Report)
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the findings of the McColl report on artificial limbs; and whether he proposes to act upon any of its recommendations.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my predecessor on 10 March at columns 149–51.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of people in receipt of supplementary benefit in 1979 and 1986 and 1987 at the most recent practicable date.

  Mr. Portillo
  Figures from the quarterly statistical inquiry show that in February 1979 there were 2,964,000; in February 1986, 4,912,000; and February 1987, 5,008,000.

  Mr. John Evans
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the value in real terms of the long-term supplementary benefit rates for a single householder and a married couple as a proportion of average earnings compared with their value after the November 1977 uprating.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is as follows:

  Single householder

  Supplementary benefit long-term scale rates as a percentage of net male manual earnings Couple

  November 1977

  34·6

  51·5

  April 1987

  29·1

  44·3

  Benefits (Payment)
  Mr. Stern
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to extend the payment of social security benefits by private agencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I have no such plans.

  Warnock Report
  Mr. Hannam
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will state the Government's proposals for legislation on the matters raised in the Warnock report on human fertilisation and embryology.

  Mr. Moore
  The Government are aware of the deep concern felt about these complex issues and have indicated their intention to legislate in this Parliament. In preparation for that, a consultative document was issued last December for comments by the end of June. We are now studying carefully the views we are receiving and intend to set out our conclusions about the form legislation should take in a White Paper later this year. This will include proposals for alternative clauses about the issue of research on human embryos on which we have promised the House a free vote when legislation is introduced. We will give the House an opportunity for a debate on the White Paper so that we can take full account of hon. Members' views in the drafting of legislation.

  AIDS
  Mr. Wheeler
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether it is his intention to support the development of the AIDS health education and information unit in Paddington and North Kensington health authority as a demonstration project of good practice.
  82
  Mr. Newton
  The AIDS health education and information unit is an important example of a local initiative complementing the national public education campaign. I am pleased to be able to announce that we are making £87,000 available in the current financial year to enable the project to develop its existing service and offer training and consultancy to other health authorities.

  Innovative Products
  Mr. Cash
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has decided the scope of protection for innovative products under article 1(iii) of European Community directive 87/21/EEC.

  Mr. Newton
  Yes. This directive was adopted last December and comes into force by 1 July this year. Among other matters, it amends the requirements for the submission of test and clinical trial results when applying for licences for medicinal products. In particular, where products are essentially similar to earlier "high technology" medicinal products detailed results have to be supplied for a period of 10 years from the licensing of the earlier product. The directive allows member states, if they judge it to be in the interest of the public health, to extend this 10-year period to apply to all medicinal products marketed in its territory. We have decided that this extension should apply in the United Kingdom, in line with similar decisions which we understand have been made by the majority of the major pharmaceutical-producing states in the European Community.

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

Community Charge
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider the application of the community charge in Scotland in the light of the results of the general election.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, the introduction of the community charge in Scotland represents part of a reform applying to the whole of Great Britain. The timetable for implementation is provided in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. This was thoroughly discussed and approved by Parliament in the last Session and the Government propose to adhere to it.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, may I congratulate the Minister on his promotion to the Front Bench and promise him an interesting time? May I also ask two questions? Would the Minister agree that while this matter was debated in the House, it was also debated in Scotland during the election and overwhelmingly rejected? Secondly, may I ask whether his attention has been drawn to speeches made in another place yesterday? Can I have an assurance that in the event of a rejection of the English legislation, or of any substantial amendment to that legislation, there would be second thoughts about the poll tax in Scotland?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, as regards the debate which took place during the general election in Scotland, I think your Lordships will agree that it would be absurd to suggest that the election in Scotland was fought on the basis of the community charge alone, or of any other single issue.
Referring to the noble Lord's second question concerning what happens with the English and Welsh legislation, I am confident that the fundamentals of the reform already enacted for Scotland will in due course apply to England and Wales. However, if refinements are made to the proposals we will of course consider whether any parallel changes need to be made to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Government cannot say they were not warned about what was going to happen in Scotland, will he take heed of that warning? The Government
120
lost more than half their Members; they lost three Ministers, including the Minister who piloted the Bill through the Commons. Are we to understand that they are not thinking about it at all? Indeed, they should be thinking about whether they have a mandate to introduce any legislation for Scotland at the present time. They have even had to rope in an Englishman to be the Scottish Whip.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, that question from the noble Lord, Lord Ross, points, I think, to the fact that he recognises that the Conservative Party did have a problem in the general election north of the Border. However, I should like to say to him, with all humility, that he and his Welsh colleagues made it possible for his English colleagues and himself to sit in Cabinet in 1964 and 1974 to the delight of his political friends in the United Kingdom and to the frustration of English Conservative Members of Parliament who were in the majority at that time in England.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, should not those who at this stage are so critical of the community charge bring forward a viable alternative, since they are all people who have said that the present situation ought not to be allowed to continue. To use it as an excuse for saying that it affected the results of a general election is nonsense.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. We discussed this matter at great length—there were 10 full days of it—in this House and there was unanimous agreement between the Alliance and the Government Benches that what we were about was the abolition of a discredited property tax.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I cannot allow the Minister to get away with the idea that we supported the community charge. Is he not aware that these Benches have always put forward the idea of a local income tax instead? There was no such support.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that that was not my intention at all. I said that both the Alliance and the Government Benches were determined to get rid of a discredited property tax.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I join in congratulating the Minister on his rather speedy promotion to the Front Bench. Is he not aware of the grave reservations expressed about this form of tax by a former Secretary of State for the Environment, his right honourable friend, Mr. Michael Heseltine, and by a former Minister of that Department, Sir George Young? Bearing in mind that two such prominent members of the Conservative Party are expressing grave reservations and that they will have the support of a substantial number of their own people, is it not illogical and inconsistent that a Bill brought before another place and your Lordships' House and which will be substantially amended will leave Scotland completely at a disadvantage? Is this not the height of folly and the worst case of hybridity that we have had in this House within living memory?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his kind good wishes in the job that I am undertaking. If he had listened to what I said earlier on he would know that we shall of course note what happens when the English and Welsh Bill comes before your Lordships' House and another place. The Government have made it clear that their commitment is to securing the introduction of this reform. However, as I have said— and I think I ought to repeat it—if refinements are to be made to the proposals we shall consider them in relation to the Scottish Act if and when that is necessary.
Lord Galpern: My Lords, can the Minister say whether any representations have been received from officials of local government regarding the impossibility of introducing a change in the rating system by 1989?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has received the CoSLA representations. At the political level, local authorities in Scotland oppose the concept of a community charge. In many cases that is not new. However, the new system is the law of the land and it is quite wrong to suggest that local authorities in Scotland will not comply with the law.
Lord Galpern: My Lords, in that case will the Minister be prepared to provide the necessary additional staff in order to effect the change in the rating system?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I think that it is a matter for the local authorities themselves to come forward with their ideas at the appropriate time.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, finally may I ask whether the Minister is aware that the last time a poll tax was introduced in this country was in 1380 and that it was followed by the Peasants Revolt? Is the Minister not equally apprehensive about the application of this law which has been rejected by the people of Scotland at this tme?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I recall that when this Bill was being debated in this House the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, was insistent that a local income tax was his choice and that of his party. But I have to point out that it was discussed thoroughly during the passage of the Bill. The local income tax which he suggested would neither be sufficiently perceptible nor provide a sufficiently wide tax base to achieve the accountability which the community charge will produce. Community charge rebates will ensure help for those who need it. I may say that I heard very little about rebates in the debate in Scotland during the general election.

University of Ulster: Co-operative Studies
2.50 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: 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 are their views on the future of the co-operative education and research training unit attached to the University of Ulster.
Viscount Long: My Lords, this lies in the hands of the authorities at the University of Ulster. I have been advised that the university is fully committed to the continuance of the co-operative education and research training unit and of the course which leads to the certificate in co-operative studies.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that encouraging and sympathetic reply in the light of the teething troubles in establishing both the unit and the course. However, will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's intention to increase the training facilities for co-operative leaders of the kind provided by the course at the university, especially in view of the emphasis which has been laid by the Government and by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the encouragement of co-operatives, particularly in the inner cities and elsewhere, where there are experiences of deprivation and unemployment?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. The university intends to carry out an evaluation of the course and it is to be structured to give a greater emphasis on research and development aspects. The teaching staff are on short term contracts which end today, 30th June, but the staff will be able to re-apply for research posts. This is happening through advertisements at the present time. As to the university, there are at the moment 26 students on the course. As to the future of the course, the Government of Northern Ireland and the small businesses wish to keep it going because it will be very important to Northern Ireland employment in the future.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am encouraged by the first reply, but a little nonplussed by the reply to my supplementary question. If the Government are committed to the continuation of both the unit and the course, it seems strange to me that the existing tutors are on short notice and that notice has been given today. Will the Minister assure the House that he takes the long view and not the short view, and that in establishing a course and a unit of this kind he considers it essential that they be given enough time to play themselves in before any firm conclusions are drawn? Otherwise the Government will be guilty of simply using words and not putting their money where their mouth is.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am interested in what the noble Lord says. I shall certainly pass it on to my noble friend the Minister, because at the moment I do not know what will be the future contracts of these people.
Lord Morris: My Lords, surely my noble friend has no alternative other than to take the long view?
Lord Blease: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency is in consultation with the university at the present time in respect of this unit and its functions and duties? Is the Minister also aware that a spokesman for the university has informally indicated that the existing 26 certificated students will be allowed to complete their studies and sit their final examination in June 1988; that the existing CERTU—which is the equivalent of the education and research unit—is under review, with a proposal to relocate the unit within the university; and that these matters are under discussion with the department responsible at the University of Ulster and the Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency?
Viscount Long: Yes, my Lords. I listened to the noble Lord with interest, and I shall also pass on what he said to my noble friend the Minister because I do not have the facts as to what is to happen to these students, and so on.

NHS Hospitals: Admissions Records
2.55 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the basis on which they record the number of in-patients treated in National Health Service hospitals, whether this includes re-admissions, and in particular whether it includes patients repeatedly admitted for renal dialysis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the basis on which records are kept is as follows. In-patients are persons who have gone through the full hospital admission procedure and are occupying a bed in the in-patient department at the time of the count, which is taken during the night. The figures on the number of in-patients treated are based on discharge, or death, at the end of an in-patient stay and they include re-admissions. Patients who occupy a bed during the day only, for purposes such as renal dialysis, are excluded.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on his appointment to his present post which we warmly welcome. However, in doing so let me say that many of us will deeply regret the departure of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and will wish that we were speaking on agriculture, because she was, and still is, a very popular Member of this House. But I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his Answer, and for the frankness with which he admitted that re-admissions, however many times in a year, are considered for the record as new patients. I should like to ask him whether his Answer does not show that every statement made by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Social Services or any other
124
Minister or spokesman about the number of patients treated in NHS hospitals is, in fact, incorrect, because that information does not exist?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his introductory remarks and I shall, of course, pass them on to my noble friend Lady Trumpington. I agree with the noble Lord that a proper basis of comparison should be the number of patients treated which, as the House will know, has increased by 1 million since 1979. I am aware, of course, that there could be some anomalies in this calculation and it is a matter at which the Government are looking.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for agreeing to consult with his noble friend, as I think he did, about the method of determining patients. The noble Lord said that the House would know that there were 1 million more patients treated than in 1979. On what basis does he make that bold statement? Is it not true that with the ageing population many more patients are re-admitted; that, with the more rapid rate at which patients are dealt with, more patients are re-admitted, and that there is simply no basis at all for claiming that there have been 1 million, 500,000 or any other figure more patients treated than were treated at any other time in the history of the nation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the fact remains that in 1978 5,400,000 cases were treated and in 1985 that figure had risen to 6,400,000—an increase of 1 million.
Lord Ennals: Including re-admissions.

Broadcasting: Programme Balance
2.58 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that during the election campaign the broadcasting authorities fulfilled their obligations to provide entertainment in view of the large increase in political programmes.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the broadcasting authorities are expected to provide programmes of information, education and entertainment. It is for them to decide how to fulfil this obligation at all times.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, was not the balance of programmes, which is imposed by the Broadcasting Act, somewhat upset by the enormous increase in the number of political programmes, in that they were more than doubled as compared with 1979? As half the viewers appear to have switched off those programmes after 15 minutes, would it not be wise for the broadcasting authorities to carry out an opinion poll to discover whether the electorate—and,

125
incidentally, the licence payers—would not prefer rather less politics and rather more entertainment in the future?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is of course up to the broadcasting authorities to determine if that is the case. But since 1979 there has been the introduction of breakfast-time television and Channel 4, and the figures for 1983 to 1987 are perhaps the more reliable. They have increased, but not to such an extent as from 1979 to the present time.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us thought that the political programmes that were shown were hilarious and very entertaining?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am glad to note that the noble Lord thought some were hilarious. I thought that some were quite serious too.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, following upon the supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, could the Minister say whether he considers there is any necessary incompatibility or even dichotomy between politics and entertainment?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the noble Lord thinks that, the noble Lord is entitled to his thoughts.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a general election is a special event of great importance in a democracy and that public service broadcasters regard it as their duty to provide adequate coverage? Is he also aware that the BBC scrupulously scheduled its programmes to ensure that there was always an alternative to the political programme on the other channel and that ITV attempted to do the same although its were more dispersed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as a general election comes round only every four or five years I think that the broadcasting authorities would have been failing in their duty if they had not given it sufficient coverage.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, was not one of the funniest and most entertaining aspects the comic turn put on by the two Davids?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it appears that their performances did not do them much good with the electorate.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Australia no political broadcasting whatsoever is allowed during the election period? I myself, happening to be there during the last Australian election, was prevented from speaking on a non-political subject like nuclear disarmament. Could we not follow a similar plan and devote the whole of the period of the election to an entertaining programme? It seems that whatever happens in the
126
campaign the result at the beginning of the campaign and at the end of the campaign is precisely the same.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I always thought that the result came at the end of the campaign.

European Communities Committee: Select Committee
3.2 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I should perhaps mention that the Committee of Selection agreed at a later date to add the name of a Member of the Liberal Party to this Committee to replace the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who retires under the rotation rule.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Community proposals whether in draft or otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about them, and to make reports on those which, in the opinion of the Committee, raise important questions of policy or principle, and on other questions to which the Committee consider that the special attention of the House should be drawn;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the Committee:—

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Attlee, E.

Bancroft, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Cranbrook, E.

De La Warr, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Gallacher, L.

Goff of Chieveley, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Kearton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Middleton, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Nathan, L.

Nicol, B.

Rodney, L.

Seebohm, L.

Serota, B.(Chairman)

Shannon, E.

Walston, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Young, B.

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the Committee; that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairmen of Sub-Committees, but that such Sub-Committees have power to appoint their own Chairman for the purpose of particular inquiries; that two be the quorum of such Sub-Committees;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a Sub-Committee;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committees have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee or any Sub-Committee from time to time shall, if the Committee think fit be printed and delivered out;
That the Committee or any Sub-Committee appointed by them have leave to confer and to meet concurrently with any Committee of the Commons on European Legislation &c. or any Sub-Committee of that Committee for the purpose of deliberating and of examining witnesses; and have leave to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman for any such meeting.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Science and Technology: Select Committee
3.3 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Science and Technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

Adrian, L.

Blakenham, V.

Butterworth, L.

Carver, L.

Errol of Hale, L.

Ilchester, E.

Kearton, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Lockwood, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Shackleton, L. (Chairman)

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

White, B.

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and that such Sub-Committees have power to appoint their own Chairman;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on the Committee or any Sub-Committee;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee and any Sub-Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed for the general supervision of arrangements relating to leave of absence and the reimbursement of Lords' expenses; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Denham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Stedman, B.

Tordoff, L.

—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Thursday last by the Baroness Young—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
3.4 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I re-open the debate this afternoon concentrating on home affairs and the environment. May I first congratulate my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Strathclyde who so ably moved and seconded the Motion following the gracious Speech last week.
I look forward with interest to the contributions of your Lordships from all sides of the House. Indeed, it is a strong and distinguished list today. In the limited time available to me I shall attempt to outline the Government's programme for the coming Session on home and environmental affairs and I apologise if I am unable to cover everything. However, I know that my noble friend Lord Belstead will answer as many as possible of the points raised by your Lordships during the course of our debate.
I will start by mentioning a Bill which is already familiar to me and to many of your Lordships, the Criminal Justice Bill which had its First Reading yesterday and will be published tomorrow. It is, of course, a near relation to the Bill which your Lordships granted a Second Reading on 27th April,

129
but most of which fell at the dissolution. Its main themes are the same: strengthening courts' powers to deal with serious crime; greater emphasis on compensation for the victim and the overhauling of court procedures.
In particular, we shall be pressing ahead with the revision of our out-dated extradition laws. The Bill provides a statutory right to compensation for criminal injuries, and takes other steps to help the victims of crime. It allows child witnesses to give evidence through a live video link and thereby be spared the ordeal of a court appearance. And there are also important proposals on confiscation of offenders' assets, and on the admissibility of documentary evidence and on juries.
Like its predecessor, the Bill will contain a provision allowing the Attorney-General to refer Crown Court sentences for the opinion of the Court of Appeal. In our debate in April when the earlier Bill received a Second Reading several noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway argued that it should be possible for an unduly lenient sentence referred to the Court of Appeal to be increased by the court. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is giving active consideration to that possibility, and I shall make his conclusions known during the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House. My Lords, it will not therefore surprise you that the provision in the Bill when it is published may therefore not be our last word on the subject. Nevertheless we remain clear that there must be some means by which unduly lenient sentences, which can do such damage to public confidence, can be referred to the Court of Appeal.
I have only touched on a few of the provisions in the Bill. It is a large and complex measure, and I am sure that it will benefit from your Lordships' close scrutiny in the debates to come.
Another measure which the Government will bring forward is a Bill to reinforce the system of firm but fair immigration control. This will close a number of loopholes which have developed in the 1971 Immigration Act and improve the effectiveness of the control. The Bill will emphasise that people from abroad who claim to be British citizens with the right of abode here must establish that claim before arriving at our ports.
The Bill will also repeal Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act which preserved the pre-1973 position of Commonwealth citizens who were settled here when the 1971 Act came into force, their wives and children. It will also ensure that men can bring only one wife to live in this country. Although polygamy is not a common immigration problem, the Government believe that its practice is not acceptable to most people in this country. Indeed, the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended that the law should be amended. The Bill will also strengthen the provisions for enforcing the control by making it a continuing offence to overstay leave to be in this country.
130
The great majority of people in this country drink sensibly but we recognise that there are some who abuse alcohol. We do not believe that restrictions on opening hours in the afternoons inhibit such abuse and experience in Scotland tends to confirm our belief. It is our intention, however, to take steps to identify and co-ordinate measures that will be effective in this area and it is in this context that we shall present a Bill to effect some relaxation in the licensing hours.
The Bill will enable licensed premises to open for any part, or all, of the period between 11 a.m. and 11 p.m. but this will not extend to Sundays where the law on opening hours will remain unchanged. Also, the courts will be empowered to restrict the opening hours of individual premises where this is necessary in the interests of public order, public safety and amenity.
As was made clear in the Queen's Speech, the Government will carry out their plans to increase the resources available to the police.
On 20th May last year my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced manpower increases in the establishment of provincial forces in England and Wales of the order of 2,000 police officers over the next few years. Over the same period he expected increases of about 1,350 civilian staff, resulting in the release of at least 650 further police officers to operational duties. He also announced increases of up to 1,200 in the police officer establishment of the Metropolitan Police over four years, together with increases of up to 600 in the civilian staff ceiling. The extra civil staff are expected to lead to the release of at least 400 officers to operational duties.
The Government have given and will continue to give a high priority to crime prevention. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, mentioned violence against the person. It is important to remember that violent crime accounts for less than 5 per cent. of the total of recorded crime and that less than one-third of 1 per cent. of crime involves violence endangering life, rape or armed robbery. Under the Labour Government, it grew at an annual rate 50 per cent. faster than under the present Government. Although the trend is better, it is still clearly far from satisfactory.
Crime prevention is now far broader in scope than many would have thought possible a year or so ago. The crime prevention partnership has embodiment at national level through the Ministerial Group on Crime Prevention and the Standing Conference on Crime Prevention. It is important that the growing range of activity and commitment at local level is also linked in an effective way. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will now begin consultations with interested parties about the establishment of a national body for crime prevention.
The main aims and objectives of this body would be to co-ordinate, stimulate and support local crime prevention activity. It could provide an umbrella organisation for neighbourhood watch schemes and crime prevention panels and a means of developing links between these, the work progressing under the community programme crime prevention initiative

131
and the many excellent activities related to crime prevention supported by voluntary sector agencies. The association might also take the lead in disseminating good practice in local crime prevention initiatives. We are determined to tackle the problems of crime and, in conjunction with the other government initiatives aimed at rejuvinating the inner cities, we shall be giving priority to preventing crime in such areas.
My noble friend Lady Young stressed the importance of education in her excellent speech. A principal task of this first Session of the new Parliament will be to revitalise our schools. We must take the best that we have and infuse the whole system with that quality. That means making our education institutions more responsive, more purposeful and more accountable to those they serve. In that process and by that process we shall raise standards.
We intend to legislate to give governing bodies and head teachers of all secondary schools and the larger primary schools control over their own budgets. We need to push down decision-making to the level where the choices really matter—in the schools themselves.
We shall require local education authorities to allocate resources to their schools on a basis which puts the emphasis on pupil numbers. Schools must have incentives to recruit and respond effectively to parents' needs. Good schools must not be penalised financially. We intend to prevent local education authorities putting artificial limits on admissions to popular schools in order to prop up the less successful. The Bill will also enable maintained schools to opt out of local authority control where parents and governing bodies wish to run their schools. Such schools will attract 100 per cent. grant for their recurrent expenditure from the Department of Education at a level of funding equal to what they would have obtained as a local authority school.
We shall secure the basis of a network of city technology colleges to provide greater choice to parents and high quality education in inner-city areas. We shall also reform the structure of education in inner London by giving local choice to inner London Boroughs to opt out of ILEA so as to make the service more accessible and more responsive to parents. We shall also legislate for a national curriculum for all pupils during the period of compulsory schooling from ages five to 16. Our aim is to enshrine best practice for all our children.
The Government's record on the National Health Service speaks for itself. There has been more spending—up by 31 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79, from £7·7 billion to £20·6 billion. More patients have been treated—an extra million in-patient cases a year since the Government first came to power. We have more front-line staff. There are now over 13,000 extra doctors and dentists and nearly 65,000 extra hospital and community nursing and midwifery staff. There are many more new hospital building schemes. Nearly 200 schemes, each worth more than a million pounds, have been started and completed in England alone. More than 450
132
others are currently being planned, designed and built. This is indeed a record of which we are proud.
We attach a great deal of importance to the problem of dealing with poverty in this country. The Government believe that the most effective way of combating poverty lies in developing a competitive and thriving economy, reducing the burden of taxation on the low-paid, protecting the value of incomes through the control of inflation and targeting help on those in need.
Poorer families with children are a primary target of concern. We have therefore raised in real terms the supplementary benefit children's rates which help families not in full-time work, and we have restructured and improved family income supplement (FIS) which goes to low-income working families. Since we came to office we have increased FIS prescribed amounts by up to 20 per cent. in real terms and have restructured the benefit to ensure that families with older children get more help.
I turn now to a subject mentioned by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. A merchant shipping Bill is to be introduced which will contain measures to assist our shipping industry and update law on ship registration. Three initiatives to help the industry were announced last December. These were the establishment of a merchant navy reserve, assistance with training of seafarers and help with costs incurred in crew reliefs in distant waters. The Bill will also revise law on ship registration. In the interests of maritime safety, it will provide for controls on shipping registers of the dependent territories.
The next step in the privatisation programme—the privatisation of BAA plc (formerly the British Airports Authority)—will take place in July. This provides a further opportunity for wider share ownership and for employees to take a stake in the company for which they work.
The Government have already proposed new grants of some £4 million in each year to encourage the development of on-farm diversification of business enterprise. This was set out in detail on 15th May 1987 when the Government published a consultation document entitled Farm Diversification Scheme. These imaginative proposals suggest capital and marketing grants for a wide range of on-farm activities including on-farm tourism, recreation and sporting facilities, food processing and farm shops.
The Bill to be introduced by agriculture Ministers will allow us to complete the implementation of the package of new measures for farming and the rural economy announced earlier this year. In particular we shall be seeking powers for a farm woodland scheme providing for new annual payments to farmers who plant woodlands on part of their holdings. The Bill will also give us the power to make grants to farmers and farming groups who decide to diversify into certain non-agricultural businesses towards the cost of feasibility studies, market research and the marketing of their products.
The Government are also intending to legislate to give effect to the proposals outlined in the White Paper on legal aid which was published in March. Legal aid provides an important service; it ensures

133
that legal services are available to those who could not otherwise afford them. It is also a growing service. Some £450 million will be spent on legal aid in the current financial year compared with £100 million in 1979–80.
The Government are determined to ensure that the legal aid scheme is operated as efficiently and effectively as possible and that it provides the best possible value for money. The measures to be proposed in the Legal Aid Bill will make a significant contribution to that aim. Central to the Bill will be the provisions for the establishment of a new Legal Aid Board which will take over the administration of legal aid in England and Wales. This will provide a completely new framework for the administration of legal aid and enable a more co-ordinated strategy to be developed for the future of the service.
My noble friend Lord Belstead will deal in more detail with environmental matters when he comes to sum up. However, I think it is right that your Lordships should be told at this stage what we propose. We shall introduce a Bill later this Session to prepare the way for the utility functions of the water authorities—that is, water supply and sewerage—to be privatised. We intend that the regulatory functions such as pollution control and resource planning, land drainage and flood defence will be entrusted to a new national rivers authority. We shall be publishing a policy and consultation paper about these proposals in the next few weeks. Our forthcoming Bill will also provide for compulsory trials of water metering. Metering simply means paying for what you get, and paying for what you get is no more than good common sense. It has always been accepted for gas and electricity, and the arguments for water are no different.
We shall introduce a Bill to increase the financial limits for urban development corporations and we shall take steps to make the UDC machinery more flexible. Our older cities need a single-minded attack on the legacy of dereliction and loss of jobs which have been caused by the decline of our older industries. Urban development corporations are a vital instrument to bring back business confidence and stimulate new jobs.
We will take steps to improve housing standards and widen housing choice. We believe it is right that people who want to own their own homes should have that chance. We will maintain the right to buy and mortgage interest tax relief, and we will ensure that home improvement grants are directed where they are most needed. We also believe that we must revitalise the private rented sector and we will not forget the council tenants. They too have a right to wider choice.
Efficiency and accountability in local government will be improved. Seven years ago, we introduced competition in local authorities' construction and maintenance work. This forced their direct labour organisations to become more efficient. Since then, the more enterprising councils have extended the same principle to many of their other services too. Many authorities have found that they can make savings of 20 or 30 per cent. by contracting out services. Our Local Government Bill, which we
134
introduced in another place last Friday, will extend this discipline to all councils for a new range of services. We are convinced that competition could yield savings amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds every year.
We will also improve accountability and fairness by abolishing the domestic rates and replacing them with the community charge. The community charge will spread the burden of payment more widely, giving voters a direct financial stake in the decisions of their councils.
We will also end the system under which local businesses—which have no say—pay half the cost of any increase of local spending. We will simplify the rate support grant system. These changes will ensure that in future good stewardship is recognised and rewarded, while irresponsibility and profligacy are exposed.
I hope that what I have said will give your Lordships the flavour of the Government's programme and the initiatives we plan to take in the coming months in order to continue the strategy on which this Government have embarked. I look forward to listening to what I am sure will be an interesting debate.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like my first words to welcome back the noble Earl to the responsibilities which he shouldered with great distinction in the last Parliament. I should also like to congratulate him on dealing in his introductory speech with one of the major issues we face as a nation, that of law and order, with the seriousness which it undoubtedly deserves, even if in the content of that speech he dealt in our view inadequately with the size of the problem and the steps that need to be taken.
Again, one would not have thought—as we on these Benches most certainly do—that a crisis point had been reached in the level of crime in this country by reading in the latter part of the gracious Speech the short, indeterminate and colourless paragraph which says:
"My Government remain determined to tackle the problems of crime. They will carry out their plans to increase the resources available to the police, and will establish a national organisation to promote crime prevention. A Bill will be introduced to improve the working of criminal justice".
We are entitled to ask: what do the Government think is wrong with our social fabric? What kind of generation are we producing to face our national future? Where have we as a nation gone wrong when, for example, our rate of burglaries and car thefts is by far the worst in Europe and our football rioters are a byword overseas? An article in The Times of yesterday stated that in 1984 (the latest year for which comparative figures are available) there were 635 car thefts per 100,000 of population in Britain compared with 118 per 100,000 in Germany.
I should also like to quote from the second report of the Commons Education, Science and Arts Committee for the Session 1986–87 on prison education, printed on 6th May last—just over a

135
month ago. I quote from paragraph 12 at page 10, which states:
"The number of offences notified to the police continues to rise. In 1983 it was 3,247,000: in 1984, 3,499,100; in 1985, 3,611,900; in 1986, 3,847,400. Average annual rates of increase from 1980 to 1985 were 6 per cent. per annum: indeed 6 per cent. has been the average long term annual rate since 1955. The 1986 figures were 7 per cent. above those for the previous year. The rate of increase in the more serious and worrying offences such as violence against the person, burglary and robbery, is fully up to average. In 1985, 1,911,300 offenders were sentenced in the Courts; 444,300 for indictable offences, 413,400 for summary offences excluding motoring offences, and 1,053,700 for summary motoring offences".
I quote the last sentence with some emphasis and a great deal of sorrow:
"A statistical survey conducted two years ago by Home Office statisticians found that of all men born in 1953 almost one third had by then been convicted for a 'standard list' offence before the age of 28"
In case noble Lords wonder what a standard list offence is, it is defined as follows:
"used as the basis for estimating conviction rates includes all indictable offences plus some summary offences … but excludes most summary motoring offences and minor offences such as drunkeness and prostitution".
Yesterday The Times—with typical Times understatement —in an article by its political editor, stated:
"Mrs. Thatcher and her Cabinet are aware that law and order issues were not to the automatic advantage of the Conservative Party in the 1987 general election, which they had proved previously, and they fear that the electorate will not take them on trust again, in spite of increased spending on the police and the return of more officers to the beat".
One says amen to that.
Have we to admit that instead of being known as a nation of shopkeepers we are to be famed for having the highest rate of housebreakers and also that one of the few European championships we have won recently is to be that of the number of burglaries and car thefts in our country? Hopefully crime prevention can keep these monumental figures down.
What are the fundamental causes of this growth industry of crime? Have we destroyed respect for law and order because our present society has such a great divide between the deprived and the haves? Has our education system failed to instil that respect? Have such grave figures of unemployment among our youth turned them against a society in which they feel they have no part and thereby contributed towards crime figures which are quite alarming? Have parents fallen down on their duties? Has the erosion of religious roots, whatever be the denomination, without a substitute in their place led to a generation battered by the winds of change but left without an anchorage?
Has the frightful insecurity of an atomic age, when civilisation and law and order could be blasted into eternity in a minute, led our youth to have no faith in the future or the standards of the past which have produced such an era? Has the disintegration of family life played its part? Is nobody able, or to be asked, to diagnose or inquire into the causes of this national or, if you like, universal disease? Have the Government no contribution to make towards finding the principal causes of the critical stage of the ailment and effecting its reduction other than by
136
crime prevention, more police and stiffer sentences in already massively overcrowded prisons? Has this great national assembly of Parliament nothing more to say in this debate than that this is a great cancer in our body politic, that it is incurable and that all we can do is to try to keep the cancer's growth from growing to even larger proportions?
I now move from diagnosis of causes to deal with effects. Of course we on these Benches welcome a national crime prevention policy and agency; it was part of our policy. But we went much further. I ask the Government this. Will they, apart from setting up regional agencies and calling for more crime prevention measures, offer grants to house owners to make their homes safer? In high crime areas will they make available free or cheap security equipment for the elderly and others on social security? Will they be funding local councils to enable them to supply resident caretakers or receptionists? Will they start regular patrols by caretakers or other council employees and set up carefully located and supervised play areas for children? Will the Government by grants enable councils to invest in better lighting of streets, corridors and walkways, stronger front doors, frames, locks and windows and, where useful, phone entry systems and closed circuit television surveillance? Are they going to encourage car manufacturers to introduce standard design changes such as steering column locks, electronic locking and alarms?
Apart from making some attempt to diagnose and at least trying to cure some causes of the completely unacceptable national crime figures and attempting to prevent crime by worthwhile and practical crime prevention measures and with more policemen on the beat, what are we doing to try to persuade those convicted of crimes not to repeat them? Is our rehabilitation programme sufficient? What hopes have we got that it will be in some measure successful?
Let me turn again, if your Lordships will allow me to that second report of the Commons Education, Science and Arts Committee on prison education and see what it has to say in this report printed, as I say, last month. Under the heading of "Recividism", paragraph 14 on page 10 states:
"We find it disturbing that it would appear that society is now the victim of a spiral where a rise in the number of offences is followed by a rise in the prison population which is followed by a rise in the number of offences. One of the compounding factors in the process is undoubtedly recividism. In 1985, of 43,467 adult males committed to prison, no information is available on the previous convictions of 8,500 but of the remaining 34,967 13,832 (39.6 per cent.) had 11 or more previous offences; 9,842 (28.0 per cent.) had between 6 and 10 previous convictions; 6,247 (17.9 per cent.) had between 3 and 5 previous convictions; and 3,366 (9.6 per cent.) had either one or two previous convictions. Only 1,680 (4.8 per cent.) had no previous convictions".
The report continues:
"It is vital to exploit any means available which might tend to reduce this continuing criminality".
Forgive me if I venture upon your Lordships' patience by quoting yet one other paragraph or so from this report but it is vital that I do so. It is paragraph 19 on page 12:
"Prison is not a neutral experience: life is not suspended when a man or woman enters prison, to restart when he or she is released. Imprisonment is a very intense experience. The degrading conditions

137
in which many prisoners find themselves cannot but have an effect. In this inquiry, as in the previous inquiry, a number of witnesses, in particular the Prison Governors Branch of the Civil and Public Services Association, NACRO, and the Prison Officers Association have drawn attention to the corrupting effects of such circumstances. Such a weight of authoritative opinion can hardly be ignored. A witness representing the Prison Officers Association told us that '… if you lock prisoners up twenty hours a day in their cells they will become their own universities … they are already planning their next crime before they go out.' Later in his evidence the same witness described how, especially in remand units, more hardened criminals will corrupt men newer to criminal life, sometimes through drug trafficking. A representative of NACRO said that 'anyone who has ever served a prison sentence will say, that what they did not know about crime when they went into prison they [certainly] knew by the time they came out'".
My last quotation is the conclusion of this report on page 13, which says:
"Undoubtedly the importance of improving the physical conditions in which many prisoners are kept can hardly be overstressed".
Then, right at the end of the paragraph, in dealing with the need for work, industry and education in prisons in a way which just cannot be carried out in the present dreadful state of our overcrowded prisons, in advocating all these steps to be taken the report states:
"Not least it should enable those who have drifted into criminality through educational or social inadequacy to obtain the skills they lack and the opportunity to escape from a life of crime".
What are the Government going to do about the recommendations in that report, which might at least have some contribution to make towards reversing the tide of recidivism? What will be done about the refurbishing of the present prisons, quite apart from this new building programme which I certainly do not decry? The current position (I need not quote again from the Home Affairs Committee report on the state and use of prisons which was quoted in a recent debate in your Lordships' House) is—and I merely use one phrase—disgraceful, disgusting, uncivilised, to paraphrase exactly what the report said.
To sum up, I find the portion of the gracious Speech dealing with the crisis of law and order and the Minister's introductory speech to this debate inadequate in the extreme, completely lacking as they are in the imagination and determination for which this crisis facing us as a nation calls. We on these Benches register the disappointment, indeed the disillusionment, which we feel will be the reaction of the public at the party which in 1979 proudly called itself the party of law and order and which has presided over increasing lawlessness and disorder each and every year during which it has been in government.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I too from these Benches would like to extend a warm welcome to the noble Earl who is back in his former place. I am sure that both sides of the House greatly appreciate his conscientiousness and courtesy.
I should like to speak, although not at great length, on the subject of education and the Government's plans therein. As expressed in the gracious Speech, those are basically to raise standards throughout education and to extend parental choice. I should like to take first the second aim—the extension of choice. I take that to mean chiefly the opportunity to
138
be offered to parents and governing bodies to remove themselves and their school from the control of the local education authority. Presumably that will apply chiefly in urban areas. I cannot imagine problems of this size arising in rural areas such as mine. It is likely to become a point of issue in urban areas, which is where the small minority of local education authorities sometimes misbehave themselves.
If I were a resident of Haringey I should be extremely worried at the local education authority's proposals to discourage what it is pleased to call heterosexism and to promote a positive image of homosexuality. Surely it is not necessary to take such drastic measures to cope with such a situation. Someone has described it as taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In the last Session, your Lordships made a worthy attempt to deal with that situation. Unfortunately it was killed in the other place when the election was announced.
In the main, we on these Benches find the Government's opting-out proposals objectionable for two reasons. First, we think that they will increase centralism. We as good Liberals are opposed to that. We think that it constitutes an erosion of devolved authority. A school will merely change its authority from the town hall to Whitehall, which we do not think will be an improvement. Secondly, the proposal is likely to be socially divisive. That is not just a term of rhetoric. I can produce some evidence in this red book. I shall not read it all. I shall give your Lordships an idea of it.
It is a report from the Northern Ireland Centre for Educational Research which has only just been published. There is still a system of selective education in Northern Ireland: grammar school, secondary school, 11-plus—the lot. It will not last much longer. The researchers took a sample of 484 what were called "M grade" children. M grade children are children who are on the borderline of pass or failure at 11-plus. They took that sample of children because they wanted to see what would happen to them.
An M grade child may be accepted by a grammar school if the parents apply and if the school can offer a place. That seems to be parallel to the situation that might arise over the opted-out schools. I should stress that those so-called M grade children are of roughly equal academic ability at the time they have to make a choice between grammar and secondary school.
Some interesting discoveries were made. First, among middle class parents a much higher proportion than among working class parents wanted grammar school places. Secondly, 85 per cent. of middle class parents wanting grammar school places obtained them, whereas only 58 per cent. of working class parents were successful. I should ask your Lordships to bear in mind that those children were of roughly equal ability. Thirdly, it was found that those who went to secondary school averaged 3.8 subject passes at O-level while their peers at grammar school passed on average 5.6 subjects. Fourthly, by the third year nearly three-quarters of M grade grammar school children expected to enter middle class occupations against fewer than one-third of secondary school children. I

139
shall not bore the House with any more statistics. Those are some of the basic ones contained in the report.
There could not be more precise evidence to show that when a choice is offered it is seized by the upwardly mobile sections of society and rejected by others who perhaps really need it more; that separation widens and deepens with time; and that social divisions are thus perpetuated, succeeding generations doing what their parents did. I believe that if the opting-out scheme comes into existence it will tend to have that effect.
I think too that if all the more highly motivated (much the same as saying the most able and gifted) children are creamed off, on the assisted places scheme, to opted-out schools, to the "best" schools within the maintained sector, or to the city technology colleges, those who are left will suffer.
That point of view was expressed most forcefully by a group of 30 distinguished educationists, including eight professors, who signed a letter published by the Independent on the eve of the election. They said:
"Since all the evidence suggests that the intellectual balance of a school has an effect on its pupils' attainments, a poorer intellectual balance will depress existing levels of attainment in probably the majority of comprehensive schools".
I do not believe that the Government's plans will affect the country's real educational problem, which to my mind is what we call the bottom 40 per cent.—the problem that produces 3 million-plus adults whose literacy and numeracy skills are not adequate for modern life. They are the people who cannot read a serious newspaper, cannot write a letter, cannot fill in a form, and who for those reasons are highly likely to be unemployed and remain unemployed. It does not seem to me that that problem is likely to be tackled by the Government's plans. It is rather as though instead of saying, "We shall do something about the bottom 40 per cent. by improving our schools throughout", they are saying to the top 40 per cent., "If you do not like the system, here are some ways of getting out of it".
I should like now to turn to the proposed national curriculum. I shall quote from the Government White Paper Better Schools (Cmnd. 9469) published in March 1985 under the direction of the former Secretary of State. The first sentence of paragraph 37, which deals with the curriculum, states:
"The establishment of broadly agreed objectives would not mean that the curricular policies of the Secretaries of State, the LEA and the school should relate to each other in a nationally uniform way. In the Government's view such diversity is healthy, accords well with the English and Welsh tradition of school education and makes for liveliness and innovation".
The last sentence of the same paragraph says:
"The Government does not propose to introduce legislation affecting the powers of the Secretaries of State in relation to the curriculum".
I shall be interested to know why the Government appear to have changed their mind. Is one to understand that the subjects to be taught in all schools are to be inscribed on the table of the law and that schools are to be prosecuted if they do not comply? I should like to ask the Minister for information. Are we to understand that, if new ideas in the
140
field of educational research suggest that an old subject should be dropped in favour of a new one, a new law has to be passed? Can that really be true? If so, what chances are there for curricular development and for experimentation and innovation? What happens, for example, with regard to the exciting new ideas being researched into the secondary schools of Sheffield where the straitjacket of a subject-bound curriculum is being loosened?
One is very concerned to know what consultation the Government plan. It is to be hoped that decisions in this regard will not be made chiefly in Whitehall with perhaps an input from industrial and commercial interests and without adequate consultation with those who are trained and experienced and actually working in the front line of education—the educationists and teachers. What consideration will be given to innovative ideas in proposing areas of study?
I am getting on my hobby-horse briefly when I mention one great system of education which has had an indirect influence on our primary education since the war; namely, the system of Rudolf Steiner. He believed that a child's education should pay regard to a child's threefold nature, and that the needs of the body fulfilled in activity and the needs of the imagination fulfilled in creativity should be given equal weight with pure intellectual activity, on which I believe we lay too much stress. He believed that the educational experience should be a spiritual one.
Many educationists are most concerned at the plans for attainment tests at the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16. This is perfectly acceptable if the results are used purely for diagnostic purposes—purely to discover where and why a particular child, a particular teacher or a particular school is failing. However, if children should get the idea that these results represent pass or failure, we shall be back in the 11-plus era and untold damage will be done to our education system.
That leads me back to the comprehensive idea, which one fears the Government are stealthily undermining. Perhaps the Minister can reassure me on the matter. It is wrong. I know that there are arguments in favour of selection, but I think that there are stronger ones in favour of comprehension. I will not say "comprehensivisation"; which is, the kind of word that educationists invent and which I abominate. Children need to be together—the clever and the not so clever and, yes, the handicapped—in accordance with the Warnock principles. I have seen how in one class the good work of two or three children will draw up the standard of the rest of the class. If one removes those two or three children one can see the collapse of morale in the rest who feel that they are the rejected ones. We have enough social and economic divisions in society at present without adding another; namely, a brain division.
Adults concerned with education need to learn to leave children as far as possible in their own innocence and refrain from adulterating true education with their own values of materialism and competitiveness. True education requires (dare I say it?) educationists, not politicians of the Right, the Left, the centre or the fringes. The aim of true

141
education is to kindle in a child a genuine inner enthusiasm for learning. True education, as someone very wisely said, is what is left when you have forgotten everything you were taught.
I make a plea to Her Majesty's Government that they should weigh these considerations in mind when deciding on the next step.
3.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, before the debate was adjourned on Thursday the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said how much the Members of the parties in Alliance on the other side of the Chamber will miss the not so sotto voce asides and witticisms of the noble and learned Lord who until recently sat upon the Woolsack. As the first speaker from these Benches this Session, I should like to say that those of us who sat as near to him on this side of the House share that sense of bereavement even if occasionally he dealt with us a little more roughly. We shall miss our proximity to the noble and learned Lord, but we shall not expect to be immune from his regular chastening. We wish him well among the watchdogs on the Privy Council Benches. We join in the warm welcome accorded to his successor on the Woolsack.
Those who speak from these Benches do so knowing that we sometimes feel amateurs among professionals, but we presume to go on trying to do what our predecessors as Lords Spiritual have done down the centuries because we have the care of souls and the oversight of devoted priests and deacons, men and women, at work in the inner cities, in the rural areas and, indeed, over every square yard of England. We also feel that, until this House revises its membership, we have on occasion the responsibility of speaking for our colleagues in the active ministry of the Roman Catholic Church and of the churches associated in the British Council of Churches. Some of them would have us be more bold and more forthright than sometimes is the case.
On the important matter of housing legislation, about which the gracious Speech indicates there is to be a major reform in the present Session, the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in this country highlighted the profound choices to be made when their conference stated:
"Housing is more than economics, it is a matter of humanity and morality as well … Those of us who have must be prepared for policies which require sacrifice for those who have not. It is the manifestation of such a willingness which will persuade and empower a Government to release and direct necessary resources."
Such thoughts as those have been echoed by the Methodist Conference, by the Archbishop's Commission on Urban Priority Areas and, more recently, at the launching of the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. We on these Benches warmly welcome the promise of a national crusade on housing announced by the new Minister of Housing and Planning, Mr. William Waldegrave, at the annual meeting of the Institute of Housing on 19th June.
If the Government's proposals ultimately do allow people to obtain houses more easily, do diminish the number of people who are homeless and do give
142
people more control over how and where they live, then those proposals are to be most warmly welcomed. There are many agencies at work in the housing field, voluntary as well as statutory. The legislation proposed will be of the greatest importance to them, especially those provisions that will affect the rented sector.
I hope that even at this early stage the Minister will be willing to answer two questions. First, given that rents under new schemes may not be constrained by fair rent regulations but allowed to achieve market levels, will the housing prospects of low income households be improved? If, as I hope, they will be, then, may we assume that there will be a commitment to increased housing benefit not only for the payment of rates but also to meet increased rents?
My second question, put very briefly, is to ask who is going to be responsible for providing accommodation for homeless families if housing functions are removed from local authorities. This duty surely cannot be allowed to lapse. When my right reverend friend the Bishop of Southwark moves a resolution in the General Synod of the Church of England next month welcoming the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless he will also be asking the Synod to urge Her Majesty's Government to increase the stock of low-cost rented accommodation and to widen the obligations of local authorities towards homeless people. I know that he will be greatly helped in his task if the Minister can answer the questions I have raised.
I have the honour and the great responsibility to be the current chairman of the National Old Peoples' Welfare Council, better known now as Age Concern England. Like all other charitable bodies, Age Concern has looked carefully at the Green Paper, Paying For Local Government, and at the provisions of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, to discover whether charitable rating relief is likely to continue in England, and what will be the consequences for residential homes, both registered and unregistered, and for day centres.
I should like to ask the Minister when he replies to give the House an assurance that rating relief will continue under the new system for premises occupied for charitable purposes. I hope that he may also be able to give an assurance that the Government will fulfil their intention clearly stated in the Green Paper to
"preserve the benefits of existing rate relief arrangements for charities in the form of a discount from collective community charges".
Age Concern England responded positively to the previous Green Paper of December 1981 because it had long wanted changes in a domestic rating system which placed an unfair burden upon that third of all pensioners who live on their own. In 1981 Age Concern inclined to the option of a local income tax, collected nationally and with different rates, as the fairest of the various options then under discussion. The current proposals will not prove, in our judgment, the most equitable for single pensioners and for those with the lowest incomes.
But Age Concern's greatest objection to the proposals in the Green Paper is centred on the combined effect of the planned social security

143
reforms and the community charge proposals. Even if the implementation of the Government's policy will share local taxation among a more representative section of the population, our fear is that it will also spread the worry of debt and financial uncertainty throughout the ranks of the retired. I ask the Minister to take account of these fears and to do everything within his power to see that they are proved groundless.
As the Government settle down to their third term of office I hope that we may see a greater readiness to listen to the views expressed on all sides of this House. If the spokesmen on all our Benches had been listened to last year there could well have been a Shops Act 1986 to general advantage. No less than five alternatives to complete deregulation were put forward. If one or other of those had been accepted, the Government would have been saved from defeat by their own supporters on the night that Libya was attacked. I hope therefore that the Government will be more ready in this Session to listen to the views expressed in this Chamber on such matters as housing, education, rates and licensing, all matters on which we in this House ought to be able to achieve a consensus of opinion. I, for one, steadfastly refuse to regard consensus as a dirty word. I covet for this House the role of reconciliation as well as of revision. I believe that we are at our best when we avoid confrontation and when, in the words of the prayer we say every day, we
"lay aside all private interests, prejudices and partial affections"
so that
"the result of all our counsels may be to the public wealth, peace and tranquillity of the Realm".
4.7 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, it is no surprise that education figures so prominently in the gracious Speech. Great changes are very overdue. How are our children to be taught? What are they to be taught? I do not know how many noble Lords were present when Mr. R. A. Butler moved the Second Reading of the 1944 Act. It was an occasion that I shall never forget, and our hopes then were very high. But by the end of the 1950s or the beginning of the 1960s the Act was already faltering and very soon after that, large parts of it were a dead letter.
We now have to ask the question again. How should responsibility be shared between local authorities, teachers, parents and the Secretary of State? For my part I fully support Mr. Kenneth Baker's structural proposals, hoping that the opting-out provision will prove to be more of a threat than a reality. However, I must say that I do not know any better way to deal with the minority of local authorities who persist in disregarding parents' wishes.
I am anxious about the teachers. I am uneasy about their morale, the competence of some of them, and their scales of pay and allowances. To keep our place in the world today we shall depend upon them more than at any time in our history. Ministers may give power to head teachers and parents. They may provide the money for the best buildings and
144
equipment. They may insist on a sound curriculum. These are all very desirable objectives, but they are all in vain if there are not enough teachers and if those that there are are not up to the job.
We have no time to lose. We are in a desperate hurry to raise standards in an increasingly competitive world. We must ask whether enough resources are being provided to train teachers before and in service to the highest standards. Then we must ask whether the rates of pay and allowances have been set at the right level to attract and keep men and women with the necessary qualifications. What about the teachers' unions, especially the NUT? No doubt almost all its members are competent and committed to their careers, but too often their leaders seem to be less interested in the children's education than in inter-union rivalry and politics.
The Secretary of State has to get his relations right with the teachers. If he does not he will be baulked when he comes to carry out the excellent provisions of his Bill. He has to persuade rival, sometimes politically motivated, groups to co-operate. I suppose I am very out of date and very old-fashioned because it is such a long time since I was Minister of Education, but experience in similar situations has shown me that there is only one way to get sulky rivals to work together. One must be able to offer enough money to hold out the exciting prospect of raising the level of the whole system.
I want to ask your Lordships to consider why this is essential today and how we should proceed to do it. After the collapse of the Burnham Committee the teachers were given a £600 million increase in salary. That was a very welcome step forward, but I am not sure it is enough to be certain that subjects such as maths, science and engineering will be really well taught in all the appropriate schools.
I also think there are not enough teachers who know how to show children how to do things as well as how to look at pictures showing somebody else doing them on television. I am very doubtful whether the present salary scales fit the great reforms that the Government propose to make.
Recently I had lots of fun electioneering in my old constituency. Lo and behold, Mr. Kenneth Baker descended upon us in a helicopter to visit a school in Chippenham. While he was trying to distract the attention of children playing games on computers I had a talk with a mathematics master. He was a young man and well qualified. He liked teaching. At the end of the term he was leaving. Industry had offered him a very big advance on his teaching salary. He could not resist the money, and I could not blame him. This is no isolated case. As the economy picks up it will happen again and again.
I shall be told that to find enough money to revitalise the whole of British education will be very difficult unless the economy keeps growing. But how can the economy keep on growing unless education provides young people with the knowledge and the skills for which industry is looking? That is a very serious dilemma and it has to be resolved within the framework of the policies decided on at the election.
Conservative and Alliance supporters rejected Mr. Hattersley's dolled-up socialism and his call for

145
higher taxation and bigger borrowing. Instead they voted for prudent finance and private enterprise. Certainly that is the best way to create wealth without inflation, but then social problems arise because free markets are bound to create wealth unevenly. The rich get richer much faster than those at the other end of the scale. One only has to look across the Atlantic to see that during the time of Mr. Reagan's Presidency there has been an explosion in consumption, but agricultural and industrial workers and blacks are really no better off while the number of millionaires has shot past 100,000. In Britain, one-half of the population is leaving the other half further and further behind. The election results show how unevenly private enterprise spreads wealth.
The Government won a splendid majority and with it a mandate to put the less prosperous half of the country in a position to earn a bigger share of continuing growth. Of all the actions contemplated in the areas of high unemployment to achieve that result, education is the first and basic necessity. How will it be done? In the first place, many highly qualified teachers must be persuaded to work in areas where the background is not always congenial and discipline is often poor, not to mention the erractic behaviour of some local authorities. How are these teachers to be persuaded to go there? Obviously the special allowances will have to be adequate, but even that will not be enough. The whole community will have to share in the effort to make their schools as good as any in the country.
Then where is the money to come from? Nobody on this side of the House wants to raise taxes. Taxes such as Labour proposed would once again put to sleep the enterprising goose that lays the golden egg. Therefore other sources of revenue have to be found. Many companies and individuals are doing very well out of the prosperity created by private enterprise. Surely they have a duty to help redress the disparities between the North and the South. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate has just said on that subject. He reminded me that it was, I think, Joseph Chamberlain (a Tory radical if you want to find one) who asked what sacrifices were the property owners prepared to make to keep their property. We might ask how much is the prosperous half of the country prepared to contribute to raise the standards of education in the other half, if only to keep the economy moving forward.
I am told that some Conservatives believe that the money could be found by privatising the maintained schools. I suppose parents would be given a voucher or some sort of credit which they could cash at the school of their choice. Given the present distribution of wealth, this proposal would be unfair in any part of the country and unworkable in the depressed areas. The division between the two halves, already stretched by economic forces, would be extended and deepened. Any of my friends who think that privatising the maintained schools would do anything to help the North and Wales cannot have learnt the lesson of the election.
In conclusion, we all talk of a united nation. We do not always act to bring it about. A large increase in unity would soon be achieved if the strong accepted the responsibility to help the weak. In the field of
146
education there are literally millions of men, women and young people who are manifestly weak. They are disabled by their lack of knowledge and skills. Anyone who wants to help them should first insist that the whole system of education, from nursery schools right through to universities, is adequately funded and then do whatever he or she can to contribute to that end.
Therefore when Mr. Baker's Bill comes to this House I ask your Lordships to debate it in the knowledge that broad agreement between the political parties on how our children should be educated is essential to the future of this country. Such agreement will be a wonderful thing in itself but it will not get us very far if the system is not adequately funded.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I was deeply sorry when I heard the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, use the words "in conclusion", because it seemed to me that we had just reached the really important and interesting point of what he was going to tell us. It has shown us beyond doubt that the present distribution of wealth in this country is seriously at fault in some respects. One important aspect of that is the inadequate education which some receive compared with the opportunities open to others. As the noble Viscount put it, the strong ought to help the weak. I was anxiously waiting to see how that was to be done. It could, I suppose, be done by taxation, but that was exactly what the noble Viscount had ruled out. We shall have to wait until he next addresses the House for the further instalment of what has been a most stimulating and impressive speech.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, spoke of the need to revitalise education. That suggests that it is, to say the least, moribund. I hope we are not going to run away with that idea. It is an idea that propagandists in various fields are trying to put about—that our education is in a desperately sorry state and that drastic measures are needed to put it right. It is true that one can always make improvements and that the demands of technology for the production of wealth make the problem of providing adequate education for everybody a larger and inescapably more expensive job. But let us not run away with the idea that the great majority of our schools are falling down on their job.
I want to draw attention to a very simple set of statistics that were provided not long ago in a Written Answer in the other House. They show that the proportion of school-leavers obtaining five or more high grade passes at O-level or CSE over the past 20 years has risen steadily year after year. This has gone along steady with a moderate and not widely excessive increase in the amount of money spent on education—which confirmed the view most commonsense people had, that if you want education to be better it will cost you a little more.
We have heard over and over again the statement that you do not cure a problem by throwing money at it. This statement is used as an excuse for not spending enough money on essential public services. In fact the improvement in pupils' examination

147
performances has gone hand in hand with a moderate but steady increase in the amount of money spent per pupil, with a reduction in the ratio of pupils per teacher and, interestingly enough, with a steady decline in the number of grammar schools compared with comprehensive schools during the period of about 20 years. Actual experience contradicts the idea that our education system has been unnecessarily expensive and has not produced the results, and it contradicts the idea that the spread of comprehensive education has been attended by a fall in academic standards.
The other fallacy that is spread about—no, not fallacy. If one speaks on education one must be precise in the use of words. A fallacy is an error in logic. What I am referring to is an error on matters of fact. The other error is that our schools are nests of indiscipline and bad behaviour. What do Her Majesty's inspectors of schools have to say? They have after all considerable opportunities for looking at this kind of thing. The report of the inspectorate says that,
"the overwhelming majority of schools are orderly communities in which there are good standards of behaviour and discipline: poor behaviour is unusual, and serious indiscipline a rare occurrence".
That is not to say that it does not occur at all, and where it occurs it is often given considerable publicity. But it is not true that our schools as a whole are indisciplined.
Many years ago the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, put me on a committee to deal with the problem of litter in public parks. One of the things we discovered was that it is quite an illusion to suppose that it is school children who litter our parks. It is invariably adults, who seem to have slipped into bad behaviour after they have left school. While they were at school they were still well behaved. So let us not start with the idea what our schools are all down at heel and that we have a desperate problem on our hands. We have a serious problem, admittedly, of trying to meet the demands that modern technology makes on the kind of education that our children need.
How are we going to do it? What worries me about the Government's approach is, first, that they are too much inclined to start by making the elementary error of thinking that our education is very bad. Then they make the further error of putting forward proposals which do not appear to have been thought through at all. One of the chief remedies proposed is increased parental choice. It is not realised the extent to which parental choice determines which school a child goes to. The great majority of parents get their child into the school of their first, or at the very least their second, choice.
Since there can be no law of nature that the number of children whose parents want them to get into a particular school will always equal the number of places in that school, some parents and children are bound to be disappointed. If you say that children ought to go to the school of their parents' choice, it should be noticed that the one area in which this quite definitely does not occur is that of church schools, where in the end the head teacher and governors have the right to decide whether the child shall go into that school. Is it the Government's intention to alter that?
148
They have not said so. If they intend to alter it, have they entered into any discussions with the religious denominations? They will find that quite a long task.
The point I am making is that the Government throw out the idea that there ought to be more parental choice without apparently considering what will be involved in that. If you come to the point where the number of children whose parents want to get them in to a particular school is greater than the number of places in the school, what do you do then? It was at this stage during the election that the Prime Minister came forward with the bright idea that possibly the schools might charge fees. This unhappy kite was briskly shot down by Mr. Kenneth Baker, or perhaps one should say that this cat was put back into the bag from which it had been so imprudently liberated too early in the proceedings.
We have had comment since on the fact that schools charge fees for certain rather specialised services. Therefore the argument was that if they do it for some why not for others. Could we have a clear statement from the Government that they do not propose to alter the law as to what things schools may charge for and what they may not? If they give us a clear statement on that we should be relieved of the anxieties that started when the Prime Minister first raised this matter.
Alternatively, if you have more children trying to get into a school than there is room for and you want to show as much regard as you can for parental choice, some say that the schools must adopt some method of selection or, to put it bluntly, that they must go back to the 11-plus. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, put the case powerfully against the old 11-plus selection. To what he said on that I need only add that the essence of the 11-plus was the idea that, by having some kind of test when the children were about 11 years old, you could decide what kind of education they should have thereafter and what kind of job they would be fit to take up in their adult life.
That was always a most dangerous and misleading proposal and we were glad to get rid of it. But now we find this is particularly liable to be dangerous in areas where there is a large proportion of recent immigrant population, because the child of the recent immigrant is obviously at a disadvantage with regard to achievement when it is about 11. It simply will not have had time to get over the difficulties of coming into a country where there is a new language to be learnt and all kinds of new problems to be faced.
Any selective process therefore is liable to work particularly heavily against immigrants. I am sorry to say of course that one of the arguments in the minds of some people for the 11-plus examination was that it could so easily be used for the purposes of social and racial discrimination. The Government would be very ill advised indeed if in their pursuit of parental choice they allowed themselves to be drawn to anything like the old 11-plus system.
I may be told that I am raising unnecessary alarm; that they have no intention of doing any such thing. If they have no intention of doing any such thing I hope they will make that plain at the earliest possible moment, because the word "selection" has been

149
thrown about in a way that makes one believe that this might be in the minds of some of them.
There is one other question I should like to ask. We were told when we were debating, I think, the last education Bill but one that parental choice is particularly important in recruiting the governors of schools; that the proportion of governors who represented parents ought to be increased so that the parents' voice should be more powerful. Why is it then that in the proposed new city technology colleges there is no mention whatever of any representation of parents on the governing bodies? I waited on those occasions when the Government made their pronouncements about city technical colleges to see whether the parents were ever going to get a word in on the governing body. Apparently they are not. Why not? What have the Government really in mind in this talk about parental choice?
With regard to schools that can opt out, if they have opted out once can they opt back again into the local authority system if they want to? If they cannot, that means that their status is determined permanently by the parents of the children who were in the school some three or four years earlier. Inevitably the governors represent the parents of children at the school at a given time. Is that judgment made by those parents to be permanently binding on the fate of the school or can a school once having opted out opt back? One would have expected the Government to have thought as far as that but they are again silent.
There is one image that comes to mind, that of a school in a fairly prosperous urban area—as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, pointed out this is not a problem that will arise greatly in rural areas—with parents of rather above average income, who have got themselves well represented on the board of governors and have opted out. That is the kind of school where the parents are expected to make gifts to the school.
Sometimes the gifts are of things that are not essential to education but are a help to it. Sometimes—and we find that this is now happening—the parents are expected to help supply the school with books and with necessary equipment. They are bound, when they are using their power to choose which child shall come to this school and which not, to ask the question, "Will the parents of this child be able to make generous contributions to the various school funds we are raising?".
If that happens it will mean that parental choice will inevitably thrust further and further apart the schools where the parents are mainly rich, or at any rate comfortably off, and those where the parents are mainly poor and cannot subsidise the school's necessities by contributing to school funds, fêtes and the various other ways of supplementing the necessary income for the school.
This would surely be a disaster. It would mean that the 40 per cent. who do not do too well out of our education system would be thrust still further and further away from the chance of the education that they need. I ask the Government therefore if they are going on this tack at all to please think out a little further what is involved in their proposal.
150
At present they appear to be starting from a wrong premise—from a belief that our education system is in a desperately bad way and that one must do something about it—and going from there to say, "Well, at any rate let us do something, but don't let us bother to think out too much in advance what it is". That will mean that the people with prejudice, the people with axes to grind, the people who want to reintroduce selection at 11-plus and every kind of discrimination, will more and more have their way. This is a disaster that we ought at all costs to avoid.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, speaks with great authority on education, and it is indeed a subject of wide interest to your Lordships. I must therefore apologise for turning to an entirely different subject, and that is Scotland. I do not believe that we could consider the Government's programme for the forthcoming 14 months or so without paying some attention to what happened at the general election in Scotland. At a time when the Conservatives won a striking victory over most of Britain they won exactly 10 seats in Scotland as against 62 won by the Opposition. The Labour Party won 50 seats, the Alliance nine, and the SNP three.
This must be a matter of concern to us all. It can be brushed aside only if you think that representation is unimportant—Liberals have suffered for a long time from being under-represented but I think that no-one who takes part in parliamentary procedure can say that the representation of Scotland does not merit close consideration—or you consider that the Scots are not a nation. That seems to me to be very near to what is sometimes said.
The Prime Minister said in an interview that the Tories can claim to represent all Britain because the Labour Party got fewer votes in some regions than the Conservative Party did in Scotland. But the Scots do not think of themselves as a region. Furthermore, the whole of the proceedings of the Scottish Grand Committee contradict the view that Scotland is a region. If that is the Government's view, it is a very dangerous one.
It seems to me that the situation in Scotland, not only during the election, clearly points to the need for devolution. Seventy-five per cent. of Scots are in favour of it. It is only 12 years since the Secretary of State for Scotland himself came down quite unequivocally on the side of devolution. Therefore, to my mind, it must be considered. Some of the arguments surrounding this matter seem to me to be totally invalid. It has been argued, I understand, that the Government have been very generous to Scotland. I do not dispute that. It is said that the Scots should be very pleased with the sort of philosophy associated with the name of the Prime Minister. That may be so; but the fact is that by asking for devolution, the Scots are not asking for more help. On the contrary, they are asking for the right to help themselves—rather sympathetic to the Government's view, some of them think. They are asking for the right to run their own affairs and—I emphasise this—for any devolution to be accompanied by the right and duty—of a Scottish parliament to raise taxation.

151
It is said the Scots have taken a great part in running Britain. Indeed it is said they may have been over-represented in Parliament, exercising more influence than their numbers would warrant. That again may be true; but again this is not a plea for more influence over England. On the contrary, it is a plea that the Scots should be freer to devise ways of running their own affairs and therefore leave the English, the Welsh and the Northern Irish freer to run theirs.
To my mind, any serious devolution must mean that the Scots withdraw to a great extent from direct influence on English, Welsh and Northern Irish affairs. But of course there will be matters such as macro-economic planning, defence, foreign affairs and so on, which will certainly be a matter for Britain. There are probably others, too, that will remain the concern of the British Parliament as a whole.
It is wrong to fear that if we grant some devolution throughout Britain this is going to lead to the breakup of Great Britain. All experience shows that it is by refusing reasonable reforms in time that we get into a situation, as we have in Ireland, where the demand for total separation grows too strong to resist. Therefore, I make a plea that the Government and Parliament should consider devolution. It is a difficult subject. But your Lordships' House is a very suitable arena in which to consider the various difficulties and to come up with some suggestions before the Scots are driven further into what may become a rather ugly mood.
Certain problems in Scotland are rather different from those in England. Many parts of England and Wales suffer from unemployment. But the decline of heavy industry has been particularly serious in the central belt of Scotland. The new industries which have been introduced—I pay tribute to the fact that a lot of new industries have indeed been introduced—are mostly not controlled by Scots. One of the most serious aspects of the Scottish economy is the lack of decision-making within Scotland. This means the drift of top people away from Scotland with serious effects on social life, on ancillary industries and so forth.
My next point is that the inner-city problem in Scotland is rather different. In Scotland there is no question of the loony Left which has been made so much of. On the contrary, the Strathclyde authority, as most people admit, is very well administered. The problem in Scotland has as much to do with abandoned villages and smaller towns as it has with the inner cities.
As to agriculture in Scotland, a serious situation is developing for small farms. These are of great importance over a large area of Scotland. One alternative put forward is forestry. Forestry is arousing considerable antagonism because of what it does to the countryside and because it involves absentee landlordism. I am not saying that forestry should not be encouraged. On the contrary, I think that it should. But it is being encouraged to a great extent by large subventions from the taxpayer when, in fact, there is no great evidence of a very large market—at present at any rate—for Scottish timber. Large areas of Scotland are being covered with fir
152
trees. This, in the view of many people, does not represent the best type of landscape. We want consideration within Scotland, from our own point of view, of a problem which is not confined to Scotland but which is certainly important in our country.
The rundown of oil will have serious effects in Aberdeen and other parts of the north of Scotland. I should like to know whether the Government are doing any planning. So far they appear to have treated oil as revenue when it should have been treated as capital and its revenues invested rather than simply being made to support the public service borrowing requirement. Some local authorities, like my own in Orkney and Shetland, have shown considerably more wisdom in dealing with our oil revenues. One must hope that the Government have some plans for dealing with the rundown.
Next, there is the question of nuclear waste disposal. Three sites, I think, were selected by experts for the burying of nuclear waste in England. When it was discovered that all were in Tory-held constituencies the proposal was thrown out. And, of course, the leading "thrower-out" was the Chief Whip. I do not blame him; but I warn the Government that if they hope now to dump this nuclear waste in Scotland they are going to be in very serious trouble indeed. It would be taken as a sure sign that the most extreme criticisms of their treatment of Scotland—that they think of it as a rather unimportant colony—will have some truth. I do not believe those criticisms have much truth, but they are certainly being made.
Another factor which has led to those criticisms being made is the poll tax. I would have thought that the poll tax should be withdrawn. But if it is not going to be withdrawn, it must be inflicted upon the English. I hear rumours that the English are in revolt. I hope that if there is any weakening on this, at least two or three Ministers in this House will resign, because they are committed up to the hilt. They promise us that the Scots are not going to be used as guinea pigs and that the English will suffer just as much as anyone else. I do not wish the English any particular ill, but I wish them to be fellow-sufferers. And then, I believe, we shall get rid of the tax.
Warnings have already been given about treating Scotland sensitively. I cannot say that anything I have read in the newspapers shows that these warnings have so far been heeded by the Government. I cannot say that the gracious Speech, which makes reference in three lines to Scotland, shows any appreciation of Scotland's real problems.
I finish by saying this. I do not think that Scotland is in anything like the same position as Ireland. But, in the middle of the last century, Ireland could well have been set upon a perfectly peaceful course within a United Kingdom if only some imagination, sympathy and knowledge had been applied to its problems. The throwing-out of Irish home rule by the Conservatives and some—I must say it—renegade Liberals was the greatest domestic disaster of the last 150 years. Do not let us repeat it. Let us get down to studying the political aspect—it is a political feeling in Scotland—and see how the legitimate desires of what is a separate nation can be met within the United Kingdom as a whole.
4.49 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, on the subject of Scotland. That is partly because he having decided to speak in the home affairs debate, which was also my instinct, shows that I was right to do that rather than to put my speech within a foreign affairs context. One says that because the outcome of the election really seemed to show that we in Scotland and some of the North as well are, or want to be, in a degree foreign to the rest of the country. It is quite clear from the election results that Scotland is extremely unhappy over what has been happening in the past eight years. This afternoon I aim first to develop the reasons for that situation, and secondly to suggest an immediate remedy which could help a great deal.
First, I address the question of why there were such dismal—I can use no other word—election results. There is no one answer to that. It is a combination of many factors. There is a feeling among the Scots that they have had enough of English and Whitehall domination with what they feel is the Government's disregard for Scotland. There can be no better illustration of that than what happened as regards the poll tax. Why should Scotland be the guinea pig? I do not say that it was the only reason why Scotland voted against the Conservatives, but it was certainly one of the things that the Scots did not understand. Why was there such a rush, and why did it have to be tried out in Scotland? When the Government took office, they promised that this measure would be brought in in England. Why not do it all at once? Whatever may be said, we in Scotland had the feeling that the Government did not care.
I am quite clear and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and many others of your Lordships' House are also clear in our belief that Scotland can best run its own affairs. I shall develop that point later when I come to the question of devolution. At this stage I want to give one or two illustrations of why we feel that the Government and Whitehall are hostile to the Scots. Let us take the case of the Scottish Development Agency which has a successful record of encouraging industry in Scotland. It invests money in various industries where it feels that there is a chance of something new happening and business being built up. A couple of years ago Whitehall said that it should look into the Scottish Development Agency and see whether its activities were proper. The sequel was a long battle in which Whitehall tried to interfere and dictate to the Scottish Development Agency some of the activities that it should undertake, not leaving the agency to get on with its job. Happily in the end the Scottish Development Agency won.
Another example concerns the body called "Locate in Scotland" whose purpose is to sell to the outside world the advantages to industry of locating in Scotland. It is run jointly by the Scottish Office and the Scottish Development Agency and does a splendid job. It has representatives abroad, particularly in the United States, who have been immensely successful in attracting industry to Scotland. My Lords, what happened? A year or two ago Whitehall said, "We must look into this. This will not do.
154
Scotland cannot have representation on its own. Let us scrap it and have United Kingdom representation".
Again a long battle was fought and happily Locate in Scotland was accepted and it was allowed to continue its own representation. It was, however, a hard battle. It is not uninteresting to note as a sequel that when a poll was taken in the United States on the question of which of all such bodies, be they Irish, English or any other, operated best to encourage outsiders to come into their countries, Locate in Scotland won the vote hands down. It was a near thing that we were able to go on doing that job at all.
I can give further examples: for instance, the row over Guinness and Distillers. The Government may say that it had nothing to do with them, but the fact of the matter is that London gave a written promise that a Scot would be at the head of the unified body and that the headquarters would be in Edinburgh. There was a great fuss about it. Scottish institutions decided that, having obtained that promise, everything would be all right. They were wrong. They were tricked. The bad feeling remains. Why did the Government not insist that the City's word should be kept?
Turning to the question of devolution, since the election many commentators have rightly said that devolution must come about. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has explained why he feels that that is right and I go along entirely with him. I have for long advocated a form of devolution. I could not agree more with the noble Lord when he suggests that the Government should take steps to study the whole question very carefully. However, I am anxious that that study should be conducted in a good atmosphere and not in a hostile one. There is no doubt that at the moment there is hostility between Whitehall and the Government and the Scots.
What happens when devolution is mentioned? Immediately Whitehall takes on its propagandist role saying, "Oh, you know what will happen: you have a block grant which is too large anyhow by such and such a proportion. We shall cut that if you want to have devolution". I find that move intolerable. I think about all the Scottish oil that is used for the benefit of the whole country and I think of the great disadvantage under which Scotland operates in that the central industrial belt is 400 miles away from the Channel Tunnel. I think of the Scottish wool industry and the salmon raising industry which are very much farther. Given all the circumstances, I should not expect anybody who talks about a United Kingdom begrudging the idea that we should not have some small advantage.
I come to what I believe are the steps that the Government should take now to restore to some extent the belief in Scotland that the Government do care and want to help. I have in mind that the Government should announce very soon that they can assure the people of Scotland that what I call the Hunterston-Ravenscraig complex will continue. To this they may answer that it has nothing to do with them and that it is a matter for the British Steel Corporation to handle. That is a facile way of getting out of the matter. It has to do with the Government

155
and it is for them to decide whether or not Ravenscraig and the Hunterston complex should continue.
Let us make no mistake. There are great advantages to be gained, quite apart from the fact that the people of Scotland know how to work in heavy industry. Hunterston has perhaps a uniquely deep water harbour in Britain. There one can see the oil tankers and the coal and oil carriers unloading, and the development of a steel industry which could have the world as its oyster. So I hope very much that the Government will consider doing this and not leave it to the British Steel Corporation to make a judgment.
I say that for this reason. The British Steel Corporation will say "If we close Ravenscraig we can turn its quotas into the English and Welsh plants and they will be more profitable". I can answer just as well. If they close one of the plants in England and Wales, Ravenscraig and others will be more profitable. It must be a matter in which the Government take an interest and give the right answer.
I recall that a little while ago my noble friend Lord Home and I visited Sir Ian MacGregor when he was chairman of the British Steel Corporation, because we were even then very anxious about the outlook for Ravenscraig. He told me and my noble friend Lord Home that he was working on a scheme which would ensure that Ravenscraig would continue until such time as the great modern complex at Hunterston could get going. Unhappily that scheme did not succeed for various reasons. However, he told me only yesterday that the present head of the steel corporation is working on something similar. I can only say that I am sure that all your Lordships will wish him success in trying to bring it off.
Although this is a debate on home affairs and the environment, I shall not talk about the environment except to say that I believe, and I think that all your Lordships will also believe, that there is no finer environment in the United Kingdom and indeed in Europe than there is in Scotland.
I hope that my speech will not be interpreted as being hostile to England. That is not my purpose. But I think it would not be doing the English or anybody else a service not to say that there are many actions which have been taken by Whitehall over these last years which could easily be so interpreted. That is what I have endeavoured to show in the examples that I have given.
Also I am totally clear that at some moment devolution must come in and I hope that it comes in sooner rather than later, otherwise I shall be dead. So long has it already gone on that the Government should set up a study group over the next years, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. If that can be done in an atmosphere of goodwill—and goodwill can come about with the announcement that the Hunterston-Ravenscraig complex will go on—I for one will feel that something has been done which is right for Scotland and right for the United Kingdom.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I shall not conceal from your Lordships that I am taken by surprise at finding myself following my noble friend Lord Perth in a home affairs debate in a speech which was devoted so importantly to matters of Scotland. I am a fervent Scot. I believe that devolution is the wrong word for what is being bandied about today by the SNP. So far as I am concerned, devolution started when my noble friend Lord Home was made Minister of State for Scotland back in the late 1940s and it has continued ever since; so that Scotland is in a way well represented.
But I would not dare to go ahead with a debate on Scotland at this moment, because I am not in favour of a Parliament for Scotland. Much as I respect the opinions of my noble friends Lord Perth and Lord Grimond, I am reminded of Kipling's phrase:
"If you can trust yourself when others doubt you,
Yet make allowance for their doubting, too".
They may be right, but I shall not conceal from your Lordships that I think they are wrong. The idea of Ravenscraig being closed down is absolutely incredible to me. To my way of thinking, no Conservative would support any suggestion that it should be closed down. It must stay. Also Hunterston is beyond belief in the facilities which my noble friend Lord Perth described.
But I must turn to the speech that I have prepared in respect of the matter under debate. In doing so, I want to confine my remarks to the paragraph in the gracious Speech which reads:
"My Government will maintain and improve the health and social services",
etc. Your Lordships will recall that during the election campaign much of the weight of the Opposition's criticism of the Government's performance was directed to playing down the health service, regardless of the figures which were made available to all—reductions in the waiting lists, increased numbers of doctors and nurses, increased numbers of patients treated, increased hip replacements and so on. Despite all this, the Government were returned to power with a substantial majority. I am reminded of a line of Burns:
"Facts are chiels, that winna ding",
which perhaps I ought to translate as:
"Facts are toughs that cannot be escaped".
I am tempted to repeat what I have suggested before; namely, to ask whether the time has come completely to divide the two departments of health and social security; to separate them entirely as they once were. I feel that it must come some day and that the longer the delay the more complex will be the operation of disentanglement. The Government are to be congratulated on the fact that now, under one Secretary of State, there are two Ministers, one for health and one for social security. That is a step in the right direction. Would the complete separation which I have in mind be an economy? I am not able to say, but this must be considered by the Government as time goes on.
I shall now turn to the Department of Health. Much has been done and enormous strides have been made over the last few years. At the same time, all

157
agree that much remains to be done. Of course it does. It is a vast and growing subject and the possibilities are enormous. For instance, the necessary improvement in nurses' conditions is overdue and must be tackled if the drain, if such exists—and I believe it does—is to be dammed. In other words, the share of the nation's expenditure on health and social services, which is already large, is likely to be vastly increased. Why is it likely to be increased? It is because of the high cost of medication, the increased burden of advanced surgery and the new problems of AIDS treatment and prevention. Some solution has to be found. I need not mention the distractions involved today in the child abuse problem, which must be an important matter in the hands of the Minister for Health.
I have mentioned my next suggestion before. It is that in any case every possible economy must be pursued. We cannot just say, "Oh, of course the expenditure is just going to increase. It must go on and on". Nevertheless we must watch every penny and see that it is properly spent. To that end my view is that outlay could be conserved if greater recognition was given to alternative medicine. If we accept that politics is the art of the possible, we must admit that of all the available alternatives pride of place must go to manipulative therapy, chiropractic and osteopathy. In my belief the savings offered in a step of that nature can be substantial, not only in the relief of suffering and incapacity but in reducing the costs of current therapy in respect of back pain and all that that implies—sciatica, lumbago and lameness. I trust that that matter will be considered by the Government as time goes on.
If I turn to social security, the gracious Speech says that the Government:
"will complete the introduction of the reformed social security system."
That is good but one item as regards the care of the aged and infirm next winter may well be worth pursuing. It is many years now since I succeeded in having purchase tax removed from night store heaters. Since those days the technology of the use of off-peak tariffs has advanced and I urge that before next winter more compact heaters and simpler switch-gear may be available so that the current programme of house insulation, draught prevention, double-glazing and the like may be augmented by the use of off-peak electricity. I refer to its further use because of course it has its place at the moment in our tariffs structure, but that is not in my opinion of any importance. However, I believe that existing rates could be reduced, but that is a subject for tomorrow's debate.
5.12 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I shall be speaking on a topic that has not perhaps been raised so far in what has been a very interesting debate. I shall concentrate my remarks on housing and the inner cities. The housing crisis is portrayed by the Government as some inner-city aberration that can best be solved by ending the democratic rule of Labour local authorities. In respect of housing the Government take on the role of the goodies and designate the local authority as the baddies.
158
It is true to say that they have acquired the role of the goodies from the right to buy campaign. I am not criticising that campaign but it is important for us all to realise that the right to buy arose from the fact that the people involved were on a housing register and were allocated their properties originally on housing need when they reached the top of the housing list. Therefore their housing was provided initially by the local authority. It is also important for us to realise and remember that it was the local authorities that made the first provision for homes for the elderly. That can be seen by the bungalows that were built by all the large local authorities.
The needs of the handicapped, whether they were physically or mentally handicapped, were met by local authorities. Latterly sheltered housing has been provided by local authorities. That scheme has proved so good that private enterprise is now providing that form of sheltered accommodation for a different class of people and is taking a leaf from the local authorities' books. But all the agencies which the Government are recommending for the privatisation schemes have one purpose only and that is to negate local democracy. The schemes will not be met with satisfaction and I feel sure that at some stage the Government will have to rethink. The schemes will not be met with satisfaction because they will not work if local people are not involved. It is important for us to remember that local authority councillors, especially those who are working in the large cities, work extremely hard on behalf of the people they represent and they see clearly around them the deprivation and the need for housing accommodation.
Therefore the Government will have to realise whether they like it or not, that local authorities through their local representatives will have to play in a genuine partnership with the Government if any new housing schemes are to be forthcoming. However, one of the Government's suggestions to resolve the housing crisis is to sell off parts of council housing estates. When they are sold off the Government will bring in what they call the active young home owners of the future who may help to upgrade the whole of an area. That will mean, of course, that the problems are pushed elsewhere.
If the Government are considering that form of ownership it will really mean that they are transferring the ownership of perfectly decent houses to another organisation. That scheme will not rehouse one family from the housing register. It will not provide one house for the homeless but it will make council rented accommodation carry the stigma of poverty and disadvantage.
The proposals in the Government's manifesto as regards local government state that they will reform the structure of local authority accounts and that they will stop transfers between the rate fund and the housing account. To refresh noble Lords' memories, the running costs of council housing are met in three ways: first, by rents; secondly, by government subsidy; and, thirdly, by subsidy from the rates. Most councils no longer receive any government subsidy. Those subsidies have now been abolished for a couple of years. Nearly all councils provide some subsidy from the rates. It is usually small in the case of some

159
authorities but it is larger in the large cities. Of course very large subsidies are provided in the London area, where as we all know housing conditions and homelessness are perhaps worse than anywhere else in the country.
Will the restructure take into account the higher rents that will be necessary to make up the shortfall? The extra money necessary for England and Wales has been estimated to be approximately £575 million. That will be the shortfall if the rate subsidy is taken away. As I have already said, the government subsidy has been removed. Do the Government intend that all that amount of money should be found by the tenants, on top of what will happen in the future when we have the poll tax?
We are told that market forces are a most effective mechanism. We are told that constantly by the Government. Why is it that those who are worse off—and sometimes only those who are worse off—are those to whom that must be applied? If one were cynical, it could be argued that the still higher rents that local authorities will have to charge in the future will pave the way for the private landlord and for private speculation. That would give them the opportunity to convince tenants that it would be cheaper to relinquish local authority control.
There are 200 tenants' groups in Birmingham and I have been privileged to be in contact with several of them. I can state quite categorically that there is no enthusiasm at all for a sell-out to anyone of the properties in which they are living. It may be that the tenants prefer the devil they know, even if it is the local authority, to the newer agencies and the absent landlord syndrome. Perhaps they know full well what is meant by the words "security of tenure", which is what a local authority tenure guarantees.
The phrases that tripped off the tongue during the general election included "widen the choice", "liberate people from the straitjacket of the local authority" and "choose your landlord in the future". Those were wonderful phrases and I really enjoyed the television broadcasts, which were comedies in their own right. I used to laugh at seeing people walking round the city of Birmingham in their straitjackets, wanting to throw them away! But now 76 per cent. of council tenants in Birmingham receive some form of housing benefit. What choice will they have?
It is a statutory obligation of the local authority to rehouse the homeless. Will these new agencies suggested by the Government take their share in providing for such families? It is generally understood that only the specialised housing associations offer accommodation to such groups. It is left to the local authority to pick up the responsibility for homelessness. Is the business community and private enterprise equipped for the social responsibility of housing the handicapped, the elderly, the deprived and the homeless, or will the bottom line on the balance sheet be more important?
Nothing appeared in the Queen's Speech which would make any impact on or reverse the ever-low new public housing starts of past years. So there is a bleak future for those on local authority waiting lists,
160
for the homeless, for one-parent families and, as my noble friend Lord Stallard reminds us so often, the cardboard city inhabitants in London.
Perhaps I may now direct my remarks towards the inner-city partnership. I speak with some knowledge of Handsworth in Birmingham. I wish to emphasise to your Lordships that Handsworth was represented not many years ago by the late Lord Boyle. Handsworth is not, in the true sense of the word, an inner-city slum area. It was a Conservative constituency for many years. Local councillors representing wards in the Handsworth division got a seat on the city council, as my noble friend Lord Underhill will know. It was called a very safe seat. Therefore the area is not to be compared with some inner-city areas. However, it is now part of the inner-city partnership in Birmingham. To be successful, there is a need for statutory bodies and many voluntary organisations to work together for the complete rejuvenation of the area.
The local population were called together in many meetings to make them aware of the proposals which had been suggested. As a result of their contributions at those meetings, they were able to put flesh on the bones of those proposals. The outcome has been commendable. Under the aegis of Birmingham City Council, working with private developers on the rehabilitation of property, changes are taking place. I think it is here that the Government need to align job training schemes and YTS schemes with the areas of deprivation and work more closely with the private companies who are likely to be awarded redevelopment contracts. The training thus created would be more realistic and would lead in the long run to what is called in the Midlands a proper job. This concept has already been started in the Handsworth area.
The Government must see that all the people benefit from the strength of the economy, in the phrase which was constantly used recently. The unemployed who form part of the inner-city population have contributed to that strength by being the victims of takeover bids and the shedding of labour on grounds of greater efficiency. Therefore let us give them the opportunities to be gained in the schemes for environmental improvement.
When one looks at the inner cities, and particularly at the inner city as I know it in Handsworth, the redevelopment of buildings is not the only problem. There are the many problems of the people living in the area. The statutory bodies, the police, the probation service, the education and health authorities, the social services, the transport services and the housing associations catering for special needs have moved in and are working as a cohesive group. Examples of that are school holiday schemes which are being run in the local park, a play bus provided by Rotary, and Dr. Barnardo's (I see the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in her place) running a very well-established small residential unit for children suffering from serious family problems. There are women's refuges in the area and the churches are involved in many schemes.
There has been a nurturing of the voluntary organisations in the area who have been given

161
practical support by Birmingham Voluntary Service Council. They are given guidance, for example, on how to set up creches, on how to run after-school clubs and how to set up a club for elderly persons. We often do not realise that people from ethnic minorities have a need for clubs for the elderly. However, when such people see them flourishing for local people, they also wish to set them up. There is a need to train people to run such organisations. One sees that the pooling of resources from the various statutory authorities and support from the local authority through the urban aid grant has made the whole concept possible.
The task force is working in the area but in a much tighter financial setting. Concern has been expressed in many quarters about the task force moneys and the rigidity of its allocations. Recent press reports have shown us a major underspending on task forces. In the areas of deprivation, I most humbly advise that the Government discontinue the use of the phrase "throwing money at the problem". If resources are not found you do not throw solutions. There is a need for a genuine partnership in the inner cities, with the Government providing necessary—I underline the word "necessary"—resources; local authorities having good, well thought out schemes, and the private developer working alongside to satisfy the known needs of the residents. To do that would mean the solution had been accomplished to a certain extent.
However, I am aware that the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Employment and the Department of the Environment are all haggling for the glory of the success of inner-city regeneration. No doubt heads will be banged by the Prime Minister to present the right image when she visits the inner cities during the recess.
This afternoon I have said that progress is being made in Handsworth as I know it. It is a slow process, it is working, but miracles do not happen overnight. The progress is further encouraged by the visits and support of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. I should like to quote the words of the first parliamentary counsel, Engle, in 1983 when he said:
"The preparation of legislation is seldom as straightforward as it might appear to be".
I ask the Government to play straight towards the people who live in areas of deprivation, and to give such people the opportunities to provide homes for themselves in a reasonable environment.
I heard only last week on the radio a London docklands spokesman, who said:
"What we are doing in London docklands is to give opportunities to the residents to live, work and play in the area".
Those are exactly the sentiments of the people in the inner cities.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, will not expect me to follow her speech, which dealt with matters upon which she is an acknowledged authority and which was given to us with her usual combination of hard-headed facts and generous emotion. Housing is a grave and important subject but it must be for others
162
from this side of the House to take up the points made by the noble Baroness.
Taking the liberty that we have in the debate on the humble Address I wish to refer not only to matters in the gracious Speech but also to its omissions, particularly since I was delighted with one omission. There is no mention of a Bill to alter the financing of higher education.
I say this because it is of the utmost importance that the Government, the Secretary of State and others should devote themselves to rebuilding as soon as possible relations of confidence between the Government and the universities which have so sadly been lacking in recent years. It is essential for the health of this country as a major industrial nation and a leader in many scientific and cultural enterprises that its universities should flourish. I believe that the Government accept that view but they have not always shown themselves able to see how it can best be made effective.
There is a new opportunity offered on the side of universities. The Sunday papers, in particular the Sunday Telegraph, reported the first press conference given by Sir Mark Richmond, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester, as new Chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. In that press conference he pointed out that, although universities had undoubtedly suffered from the cuts in financing of the last few years, the effect had not been wholly disadvantageous. They had now come to a situation in which they could look at their position and take a fresh look at where matters now stood. Nevertheless, there is not much point in an olive branch from the universities unless the Government are prepared to take it up. I fear that those of us who have been concerned with higher education are extremely worried about this matter.
In the debate in your Lordships' House on the Croham Report, and indeed in this beautiful book, the so-called White Paper (which is mainly pictures), Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge, we understood that the Croham recommendations were to reconstruct the system of central financing, with a different structure for the new funding council. However, the intention was basically to give the universities the maximum autonomy, and in particular the financial horizons, they need in order to plan their interlocking responsibilities for research and teaching.
Since then there have been circulated to universities two documents which were intended (or apparently intended) to make plainer the Government's point of view as set out in the White Paper. One of the documents is called Universities Funding Council and the other Contracts Between the Funding Bodies and Higher Education Institutions. I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen these documents—presumably only noble Lords who have some university connections, as they have not been generally published. On reading them I was enormously depressed. Here were documents coming from the Department of Education and Science which gave no impression that their authors had ever seriously considered or understood what universities are about, how they function and how they carry out

163
or propose to carry out their intentions. The only analogy I can think of is a treatise on oceanic navigation written by someone who had never been nearer the sea than a half-day excursion to Southend.
Noble Lords may say that I am accustomed in this House to state matters with a certain brevity and perhaps brutality. Therefore, I propose to do what I very rarely do; namely to read a long quotation. It is as follows:
"Having considered these further documents we do not understand the statement that the Government accepts 'the broad thrust' of the Croham recommendations. Specifically and crucially, Croham defined the 'principle responsibility' of the University Grants Council as being 'to construct a national strategy for the investment of public funds', supporting strengths in the universities, responding to their initiatives, and providing co-ordination, and to seek funds from Government to implement that strategy; and of the three main objectives in reshaping the U.G.C., the first-named was to secure its independence. We look in vain in the later papers for any reaffirmation of these points. We find instead many reasons for fearing that these fundamental principles of the Croham report … have been quickly and quietly abandoned … We now foresee increasingly direct intervention by Government in the affairs of the universities and we greatly fear that short-term considerations will more and more determine the way in which universities are run. We do not think that we have read too much between the lines in supposing that the Government believes that, given additional flexibility by the removal of 'tenure', university faculties will be seen as a method of production which can be switched on or off as the 'market' may dictate—the market being assessed by a central view of what society, or rather the economy, needs. Our anxieties are not removed by the passing references in the papers to the 'advancement of learning' and 'areas of learning and scholarship which at most have an indirect relationship to the world of work'. The longstanding tradition, emphatically endorsed by Lord Croham's report, of a strong and independent body, standing between the Government and the universities, appears to have been overturned".
I apologise for the long quotation but it is the official reply of the University of Oxford to these two discussion papers, or rather an extract from the official reply which is printed in the Oxford University Gazette. It is not, I think, everyone's bedside reading and therefore I thought it desirable that these paragraphs at least should be printed in Hansard.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals met on Friday for the first time, I think, since these documents were published. I do not know whether other universities feel as worried as the University of Oxford, but I know that the University of Manchester has serious worries.
It seems to me that this demands a serious rethinking by the Secretary of State. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said earlier this afternoon that you get nowhere in school education without the teachers; so clearly you can get nowhere in higher education without the universities. Either there must be collaboration between the Government and the universities or in a system in which public finance is bound to be overwhelmingly important there will be decline.
Again, in this morning's papers we read of another report from the Royal Society about the brain drain in some of the major scientific disciplines. I do not know, and it would not be for me or indeed for the universities to say, what is the proportion of public expenditure that should go on higher education. That is a matter which could be reasonably debated and reasonable men might come to different conclusions. There are other important calls. There are calls for
164
housing, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, referred. Whatever the amount of money that the Government see proper to allocate to universities, that money must be spent in ways which enable the universities to fulfil their proper functions. It is impossible to do this in a series of short-term expedients.
The idea that you can contract with universities in the way in which one business contracts with another for a supply of widgets is an absurdity which could only have emanated from the deepest recesses of bureaucratic Whitehall. I have been trying to imagine the kind of contracts which universities might enter into. One occurs to me which might have been suitable for the University of Cambridge. The Department of Education and Science proposes to supply certain equipment; to wit, one apple tree, Grannie Smith for preference. The University of Cambridge in return undertakes that within a period of 18 months more or less, making allowances for statutory holidays, a member of its staff, one Mr. Newton, will invent gravitation. Is that the kind of contract which is thought of in Whitehall as an appropriate method of financing universities?
It seems to me that there is a total misconception of the way in which knowledge is forwarded and teaching is illuminated by the forwarding of knowledge. It is impossible to do it in the form of cut and dried targets. You can have a target for the number of places on a particular course, you can have a target for the number of staff, but you cannot have a target for what knowledge or learning is going to be in a given number of years. If those of us—and my university experience goes back over half a century—who remember what was considered important and vital in universities of the 1930s had, like Rip Van Winkle, been asleep in the interim, we should hardly understand the language which is now used to describe what is vital.
If we are too poor a country to have 45 universities we may have to have fewer. If we are too poor a country to have more than a few universities of international rank, we may have to accept that. But one thing we cannot do is to pretend that we can have universities which are not universities. Therefore, it seems to me admirable that there is no mention of higher education in the gracious Speech. This means that pleas—and I am sure they will be from more powerful quarters than mine—will now come to the Secretary of State seriously to take account of what Sir Mark Richmond said and seriously to look for a genuine concordat with the universities. We hope that this may actually happen.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, there is still a very long list of noble Lords who wish to speak and I feel that in their interests I must be very brief.
I am not sure that this kind of debate is as fruitful as it should be, but that is how we have arranged our affairs in the past and we are very slow to adopt innovations in our method of working. Quite honestly, I think that the gracious Speech from the Throne should be abolished. I cannot believe that it is appropriate, for example, for young teenagers on unemployment benefit to learn of the adverse change

165
to be made in their conditions from the lips of Her Majesty in person in this House, surrounded by her family and noble Lords in robes and ermine, with all the signs of power and wealth and with the Prime Minister and her colleagues, who were the source of it all, standing at the Bar as silent onlookers.
That is not the way in which we ought to be doing it. I do not think that we should continue putting in the mouth of Her Majesty the programmme of mistakes and follies, as well as wisdom, of her Majesty's Government when setting out the agenda, in their words and not hers, for the benefit of the country and Parliament.
On three occasions I was on the Cabinet Committee on the drafting of the Queen's Speech and we had the inevitable difficulties which I am sure occur today. One difficulty is its length and the other is the language to be used. What I failed to do was to get some informality into the language of the Speech from the Throne; but tradition triumphed over a Labour Government, as it nearly always did.
However, I shall leave that matter. I really do not know how near I can get to proposing an amendment to the Royal Prerogative without being out of order, but it is one of the matters that ought to be considered. Here we are, urging the whole country to review its institutions, ourselves putting some of the long-standing institutions through the mincer of Parliament, and yet we are slow to adapt to changing conditions.
How does one explain to the young people coming on that although Parliament has wrenched power from the Crown we still keep all the traditions and the embroidery of the Monarchy and its role in society as if we had not done any such thing? I must not go on. The longer one sits through a debate of this kind, the more one stumbles upon the subject that we should speak about in preference to the chosen topic that one thought of outside the Chamber.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon started his contribution, by referring to crime. In sepulchral tones he convinced us before he had finished that the Kingdom of Heaven is not yet. I thought of the day when I first entered a Labour Government in 1964 and we thought of our legislative programme and what we would put in the Queen's Speech. We had put in our hands a booklet containing a report of an informal committee of great talent presided over by my noble friend Lord Longford entitled Crime—A Challenge to us all. That was 23 years ago; we are still talking about it; and there has been a Labour Government in between.
We are dealing with one of the most ineradicable problems of mankind. It is necessary to bear in mind the depth and extent of original sin. There is no solution to it. One can only try to cope with it, try to provide the conditions under which it will not flourish and the education which may reduce its incidence in society.
I should like to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on the subject of teachers, but that too is where I came in. I was chairman of the committee on teachers' pay. We gave them the highest proportionate increase in their salaries they have ever had, before or since. The noble Viscount said that
166
teachers measure public esteem in terms of money rewards. Of course they do. All public servants measure public esteem in terms of money. The trouble is that they all claim parity of esteem. When we give something to one of them, the others think that they should have it.
What happened to the over 30 per cent. that I gave to the teachers? What happened to the restoration of their esteem in the public mind? For one reason or another, which I cannot account for, they frittered it all away. They ignored the exhortation and the inspiration that I wrote in the chairman's preface to the report. They went straight to the appendices to see how much was involved. When they got it, they thought that it was enough to be going on with and that they would be modest for a little time. They let that position slip. Now the trouble in the teaching profession is largely that the teachers have fallen so far behind that it becomes politically, if not economically, impossible for them adequately to catch up. That is the old, old story.
Now I come to Scotland. I was a member of the Royal Commission on the Constitution which was appointed in the name of the Monarch on the recommendation of the then Home Secretary, Sir James Callaghan, but for no reason of inspiration, either behind the Government or anyone else, for separate government or devolution for Scotland. It was caused by Mrs. Winifred Ewing who won a by-election for the Scottish National Party in Scotland which put the wind up the Labour Government and all Scottish Labour Members who thought, "My God, if we do not stop this in its tracks, we shall all be out." So they set up the Royal Commission on the Constitution, largely for the benefit of Scotland.
I was the strongest Scottish Nationalist on that commission. What did we do? We recommended an elaborate scheme of devolution. We then of course had Northern Ireland for at least part of the time as our model. We leaned heavily on the success of the devolution of government in Northern Ireland, until it was blown up by bombs. Then we had to think of something different.
When the Government changed in 1970, we sent our chairman to see the Prime Minister, Mr. Heath, to ask him whether he was still interested in the work of the Royal Commission on the Constitution. He dismissed it as one of Harold Wilson's gimmicks and said that if we could produce a quick report on regional government in England and Wales he would be more interested. We could not do it in the time, but we did finish the job on Scotland.
Now we must obviously begin all over again. I nominate my noble friend Lord Ross as the first Governor-General. One who was the longest serving Secretary of State is eminently equipped to be the first Governor-General of Scotland. Seriously, it seems as if the problem of this Parliament will be the insurrection of Scotland. Are we now replacing Ireland by Scotland in the troubles of the United Kingdom? I cannot be sure.
I have spoken for nine minutes, and I have not yet dealt with the matter that I originally wished to raise. I shall do that in the next couple of minutes because my theme is something that no one else is likely to

167
raise. It is about animals. That will not surprise any of your Lordships. There are many noble Lords and Members of Parliament who can talk endlessly about the human condition but there are so few who can talk about what human beings do to animals.
My particular interest at the moment is that there is nothing in the gracious Speech about animals. I noticed that some women writing in the weekend newspapers said that there was nothing in it about women either. They said that in 1983 there were lines and lines about animals but only two lines about women; and in 1987 there were no lines about women or animals. As I have already said, we cannot put everything into the Queen's Speech.
Dog control—fancy coming down to dogs—farm animal welfare and the review of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 are all worthy causes. I shall finish on this note. I believe that cruelty is the greatest evil of mankind. If only we could get rid of cruelty to children and to animals. Such cruelty comes from the same innate wickedness of the human species. There are those who say that people must come first. I say that kindness should come first. It is the most ennobling intellectual and spiritual condition that man can possess and so frequently does not possess. That is because nature has endowed us with the innate need to survive, and to survive in nature one frequently has to be extremely cruel.
I urge the Government to persevere with the good work on animals that they have already started and to take care on two counts especially. Do not let the pressure of farm incomes, which I fear we are likely to have, be taken out on farm animals. The danger is that the welfare of farm animals may become economically less acceptable to the industry in times of stringency than in prosperity.
With regard to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, I have already notified the Minister that I am anxious that the Government pursue the search for alternatives to laboratories. The 1986 Act will be tested in terms of public opinion by the reduction in the numbers of animals used. To reduce the numbers, it will be necessary to find alternatives in physical terms and in terms of new technology for information retrieval, data banks, avoidance of duplication and avoidance of unnecessary use of animals where the information required already exists. That is my message.
6 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I count myself extremely fortunate to live in a beautiful area in the country on the Wiltshire/Dorset borders, so I welcome specifically the Government's stated intention to help farmers to improve the environment with the planting of more broadleaved trees. I have only 53 acres, half of which consists of sadly neglected woodlands and the remainder of wide valleys of permanent pasture crossed by public footpaths; but the future now looks brighter, at any rate for generations for many years to come. Planting the many species of trees that are available to all of us if we so choose will give me personally tremendous pleasure in the knowledge that I am enhacing the countryside.
168
I am well aware of the many organisations available to give advice and financial assistance. Can my noble friend tell us when he replies whether the thinning and felling licences are being dealt with as expeditiously as possible? I understand that in some cases the process is very lengthy, which seems a pity. It obviously follows that the grants for replanting or new planting will not be slow in coming. I seek that assurance.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I wish to speak about the Scottish question following the general election result. We have heard two able speeches today, by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. I agree with much of what they said. I should like to congratulate the new Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden. I hope that he will have a happy time in his new office, though I rather doubt it.
The question of what to do about the Scottish position will not go away during this Parliament. It will certainly not go away with the Government asserting the constitutional right that they undoubtedly have to govern by their United Kingdom majority or stating that there have been Labour Governments without a majority of English seats. There never was any United Kingdom Government who held one-seventh of the seats in England. There never was a United Kingdom Government who had less than 25 per cent. of the English vote. However, if one applies this to the Scottish position, that is the situation.
Part of the difficulty undoubtedly lies in perceptions. We Scots tend to regard ourselves as Scots first and therefore British. It appears to us that the English regard the words "English" and "British" as co-terminous. The Scots regard the Act of Union as a marriage of partners. The English seem to regard Scotland as a colony which they regret they have not quite absorbed.
We in the Labour Party in Scotland—at least at this time—do not want a divorce; neither, as I understand it, does the Alliance. Those who are not Scots must appreciate that since the 1978 devolution Act the strength of feeling in Scotland that power must be devolved has increased greatly both in the Labour Party in Scotland and in Scotland as a whole. As far as I can tell, it exists still in considerable proportion in what remains of the Conservative Party in Scotland. This movement in strength of will could well increase and, if ignored, it could lead to a desire for separation.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, mentioned the analogy with Ireland last century. We would not wish to see that happen in Scotland, but it is a potential danger if the problem is treated wrongly.
It is not my wish—nor is it within my ability—to attempt to analyse why the Conservatives did so badly in Scotland. Part of the reason is quite clear: it was regarded as an English party representing an English Government, headed by an English Prime Minister speaking for England and not for the United Kingdom—certainly not for Scotland. The Conservative Party lost seats to all the other three

169
parties. This reduction in its vote—in one of the 1950s elections the Conservative Party had over 50 per cent. of the vote in Scotland, and the figure is now down to 24 per cent.—represents a massive rejection by the Scots of the whole philosophy of the Government.
The other important factor to bear in mind is that the Labour Party won in Scotland where it obviously did not elsewhere. It won not only against the Conservative Party but against all parties. The Labour Party won one seat from the Alliance, who won two seats from the Conservatives, although the Alliance vote went down in Scotland. The Labour Party won two seats from the Scottish Nationalist Party, who in turn won three seats from the Conservatives. The Labour Party won six seats from the Conservatives and lost none. That is the arithmetic whereby the Labour Party has 50 out of the 72 Scottish seats.
This success is not to be explained by saying that Scotland is a vast council housing scheme with everyone living in the past and on state handouts. It is not to be explained by saying that the alleged economic miracle that the Conservatives claim to have achieved has not yet reached Scotland.
Mr. Taylor, the Member of Parliament for Southend, was a Member of Parliament for the Cathcart seat in Glasgow until 1979. In the Guardian he wrote recently about a visit he had paid to his old constituency. He pointed out that since he left it, as a result of readjustments half a large council housing scheme had been moved out of the constituency and there had been transferred into it what he described as,
"a lovely high grade commuter suburb".
This is the present seat of Glasgow—Cathcart. He also pointed out that in the owner-occupied middle class areas there were no Tory posters to be seen, only Labour posters. The result was a Labour majority of 11,000. If one transferred that sort of constituency to the South of England, one would expect at least a Tory majority of a similar figure. The vote is not simply because of unemployment but because of a method of treatment that the Scots consider to be wholly inadequate.
Why is the Labour Party in Scotland regarded—in Mr. Taylor's description—as "decent, respectable and patriotic"? Why is socialism so well regarded in Scotland? Do the Scots read different newspapers? To a certain extent they do, but the same television is broadcast to both areas. I cannot give other than a personal view, based on having been an active member of the Labour Party for over 40 years, first in Glasgow and then in Edinburgh. It will perhaps be said that I am not representative because I am too Right-wing of the loony-Left which the Tories seem intent on portraying as the Labour Party. All I can say is that for the last three years running I have been elected by the Labour Party in Lothian to be its chairman, and Lothian is supposed to be the "baddie" in the Scottish regional areas.
Why is socialism regarded as such a sin by the Conservatives? Why does Mr. Steel repeatedly demand a left-of-centre non-socialist party? I cannot understand their idea of socialism which they rarely try to define. For me, socialism is based on the idea
170
of equality of opportunity, of fairness in meeting the needs of the less fortunate, and of an attitude to property which involves an element that property is held in trust for society.
It may be that these ideas are accepted in Scotland because Scotland is a more cohesive society and less individualistic than England. That may be unfortunate for England. It is not only in socialism that one finds these ideas; they go back much further than 2,000 years. But for me, and I suspect for most Scots, the point of the parable of the Good Samaritan is not that he had the money—as has been suggested—but that he treated others as he would have wished to be treated himself.
These are the ideas which make those of us in the Labour Party support comprehensive education rather than selective education. The speech that the House heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was very much on the same lines and we should pay attention to that. We are confirmed in our view that comprehensive education is right by research presented to the American Educational Research Association in April, which showed that comprehensive schools in Scotland—where, as I understand it, they are more widespread than in England and Wales—have raised standards generally, improved examination results, widened opportunities for the children and reduced inequalities. Are these developments all bad? That is one of the reasons why people in Scotland support comprehensive education and do not want selective education.
Of course we in Scotland want more money to be spent on education. The key to the future development of wealth in any country is that the population is properly educated. It seems appalling that this Government have spent so little on providing adequate resources for education. For these reasons we regard selection and opting out as both dangerously divisive and wrong in principle. It is because of the desire for fairness that Scotland clearly rejected the poll tax. One can hardly think of a better example of a totally unfair tax that has nothing to do with ability to pay.
We believe that the National Health Service must be adequately funded even if that means higher taxation. It seems to us ridiculous that a new kidney unit in Edinburgh cannot be used and that patients have to be sent to Dundee because of inability to pay for the nursing staff. That seems a kind of idiocy. Equally, in England, it seems to me tragic to see, as I did yesterday, a young lady who had been assaulted and had a terrible scar across her face and who had had to go for private hospital treatment because three years after the attack she was still on the waiting list and not receiving treatment. We think that that is wrong.
We have seen no evidence that a reduction in levels of taxation on the rich has done anything to improve the society in which we live. These ideas are the basis of socialism for me and, I think, for the majority of the Labour Party in Scotland. Any idea that the works of Mr. Trotsky are totally acceptable in the Labour Party is so out of date that it does not need to be looked at. If noble Lords disagree I wish that on occasions they would come up to Scotland.

171
The other difficulty that it talked about is ownership of businesses: state control. It may be that the Liberals do not like this, and that this is what they mean by a non-socialist approach. I had the impression—I may be wrong—that the Alliance certainly opposed gas privatisation, or spent some time debating it. However, like them, we see no advantage in changing a public monopoly into a private monopoly. We see great danger in regarding profit as the only measure of success. There must be some form of social control and social responsibility imposed on companies which are controlled not by their shareholders, who hold shares as investments, but by their managers, an increasingly small group.
I regret that I have taken so much time. It appears to me that the philosophy is that we must develop some form of social control over companies. It is ridiculous that there should be a risk over Ravenscraig. But if the philosophy is profit and nothing but profit, Ravenscraig will close. That must be wrong. We do not believe in pure market forces. The Clearances are only one example where pure market forces were allowed to work and they did not create happiness.
I revert to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, about democracy and the need for devolution. The main demand by Scotland is for some real say in its own affairs, in running its local areas. The Government say that they will improve housing but they have prevented local authorities in Scotland doing precisely that for years. The Government are refusing to devolve power to Scotland. It is useless to drool and drivel about power to the people. Apparently, from the gracious Speech, this entails altering school councils in Scotland, which is not a very major scheme. The Government emasculated locally elected bodies and refuse to allow Scotland to choose the type of local government it wishes. If one believes in giving power to the people, that must mean devolving power down to the local authorities and to Scotland.
6.20 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I had wished to make two points this afternoon, but I am constrained to make a third. I shall put the third first. It is to refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I found it a fascinating speech, one which I both enjoyed and respected. With his customary intellectual clarity the noble Lord asked a number of very pertinent questions on why crime is as it is and why the state of our society is as it is. The questions that he asked ranged from matters of religion to problems of the nuclear age and of family life.
With each question the noble Lord put his finger on a very sensitive button and the conscience pricked. I do not think that it is for me to seek to answer those questions—nor indeed did he seek to do so—other than to say that I wonder whether in part at least it is due to the fact that the values of family life and the ability to bring up children in the broadest sense of those terms have not become slightly topsy-turvy. I hope that the noble Lord's inquisitive mind will not cease to ask these questions, to seek the answers and to stimulate others to do so.
172
I was glad to see in the gracious Speech the intention of the Government to improve housing. Housing is always a sensitive subject. I suppose I should declare an interest in that I am a landlord and a tenant. In the past it was the desire to assert the right to buy. Now the change is to assert the right to rent, both in the towns and in the country. This new right to rent implies an ability to rent. Renting was always the first rung of the housing ladder for young people. It enabled mobility. When seeking work, it is essential to be mobile and that is never more important than now. Indeed I remember that my first home was a rented home. It had three rooms. The bathroom, which we used once a week, was upstairs in the landlady's place and the lavatory was up the garden path. It cost £3 a week and it was a delighful house to have.
For 30 years the national conscience has been directed, understandably, to protecting the tenant. The natural balance between the landlord and tenant—it is a balance and it is a good system—has got out of kilter. The low levels of rent, while being advantageous to the tenant, have been an active disincentive for landlords to repair properties. That is bad for the tenant, it is bad for the landlord and it is bad for the housing stock. The security of tenure has resulted in owners being deterred from spending proper and correct sums on housing because the property frequently is lost for the foreseeable future and is frequently let at an inadequate rent.
These two factors—the level of rent and security of tenure, which have both been prescribed quite correctly in the interests of the tenant—have frequently operated against his interests. Not only had the quality of housing deteriorated but the owner has in many cases sold a rentable property to a would-be owner-occupier. As a result there have been fewer houses to rent other than council houses, which have been an essential part of the system.
I have a horrible feeling that what has been done frequently in the interests of tenants has often worked against their interests. That is another example of what I once had the temerity to call "Ferrers's law" which says that everything has the reverse effect to that intended. I welcome the fact that the Government intend to see that there will be more houses to rent.
My second point is that I was delighted to see in the Queen's Speech that the Government intend to support agriculture and to encourage forestry. I suppose I should declare an interest in so far as I am involved with agriculture and I am a director of a forestry company. But it is no secret that the agricultural community faces the future with considerable concern. It cannot see the way ahead. To know that the Government intend to support it in this new existence, whatever that may be, is of great comfort. Everyone, including the Government, is rightly concerned about surpluses and the huge cost of the common agricultural policy. I applaud the Government's determination to take a lead and to try to bring these under control. It is easy to blame the common agricultural policy. It is easy to blame agriculture for the surpluses, but agriculture both here and in the Community has correctly taken advantage of the new advances which science and

173
research have produced. It is quite wrong for any industry to turn its back and to operate without the new advances produced by research and science.
Now is not the time for detailed consideration of these matters, but I should like to put forward these thoughts. First, to deal with surpluses, cutting the price is not the answer. That stimulates production to overcome the effect of the price cut and often has the reverse effect of that intended. Pursued to its ultimate it will bankrupt people. A prosperous countryside is essential. The converse, a derelict countryside, is quite unthinkable. Too many businesses other than farms depend on the countryside—for example, those who supply into agriculture, those who trade in and on and manufacture its products. One has only to look at the agricultural engineering industry to see what happens to an industry when the squeeze is put on agriculture. Because of the nature of agriculture, the effects of adversity are slow in showing. Because not many farmers have yet gone bankrupt, it would not be right to think that agriculture is not undergoing severe strain.
I believe that the correct answer is to prevent surpluses by paying people not to grow the crops. That is far cheaper than paying for the storage and for the subsidised sale of crops which have been produced and which are not wanted. That is where the cost goes. It does not necessarily go to the agricultural community.
Alternatively, in my view there should be a tax on nitrogen, which is the greatest stimulator of growth both in crops and grass. It is applied only because it is economical to do so. Once it is made uneconomical it will not be applied and yields and surpluses will be reduced. Everyone says that it cannot be done. I remember my noble friend Lord Belstead saying that when he operated on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture. I have no doubt that he will say the same thing now that he speaks on behalf of the Department of the Environment. I can never see why it is not possible. It merely means the application of a simple tax which would be imposed throughout the whole Community, and I believe the results will be considerable.
The last point I wish to make is to urge the Government to ensure that there is an agricultural policy. That is not meant to be platitudinous or even impertinent, but because of surpluses agriculture is becoming almost apologetic for its existence. The buzz word is "conservation". Conservation is important. There are very few people who do not believe strongly in conservation. But a policy for conservation is not an alternative to an agricultural policy; it is complementary to it. A policy for conservation on its own is not a rural policy, though it is an essential part of it. We cannot afford to see, and nor would it be right to aim for, the countryside become the equivalent of a national wildlife park. The infrastructure, the social life, the prosperity and the earning capacity of the countryside require more than that. Most people in the countryside want to aim for a proper balance. I wish the Government, and particularly the new Minister of Agriculture, the president of whose association I have the honour of being, the greatest of success in tackling a very difficult task.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the House will perhaps be relieved to hear that for once I do not intend to deal with penal matters. I must make one reference because the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to a committee of which I was chairman in the 1960s. I think I am entitled to speak on behalf of the octogenarians of this House although there has not been an election. We look upon the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, with great envy and admiration. We see him as our senior prefect and we were very proud of him this afternoon. We hope that as time goes on we ourselves will reach that standard.
Since the noble Lord mentioned that committee, perhaps I may say that there were various good outcomes. Noble Lords opposite may be aware that the parole system was recommended by that committee and was introduced by the following Government. The abolition of hanging, which I think would have happened anyway, was recommended by our committee—and seeing the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, reminds me that his famous ancestor was hanged with a silken cord. I am against hanging whether or not a silken cord is used. It probably does not make the operation any less painful. If only the measures recommended by our committee had been in force in the days of the noble Earl's ancestor, he would not have been hanged at all, with a silken cord or whatever.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Earl because I did not think that he was going to get on to that subject. I would merely say to him that although I admire greatly his courtesy and generosity towards my forebear he will understand that I take a view contrary to him on the subject which he has raised.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we cannot choose our ancestors but I gather that the noble Earl was at any rate pleased with the fate that befell his distinguished forebear. I was about to say that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, dealt with these matters thoroughly in the short time available, and I endorse what he said. I also endorse the warm tribute he paid to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who we are glad to see is carrying on at the Home Office.
The division of subjects, according to the custom of the House, into foreign affairs, defence, home affairs and economics works pretty well on the whole. Before I get on to my subject of home affairs in general I must say a few words about defence policy. Mr. Hattersley, the deputy leader of my party, wrote an arresting book not long ago in which he laid it down that you can be a good Socialist without having any particular views on foreign or defence policy. Anyone who knows the history of my party will be aware that that must be so. When I became a member of the Labour Party, 50 or more years ago, the pacifist, George Lansbury, had just been supplanted by a gallant soldier, Major Attlee. We can be Socialists without, as Mr. Hattersley will explain, taking up any particular position. We all have our positions on foreign affairs and defence.
The Conservatives have often been sharply divided on defence policy. Older Members of the House will

175
be well aware that before the war they were split from top to bottom between appeasers and non-appeasers. It has always been understood that Conservative Central Office at one moment was trying to extrude Sir Winston Churchill, then in opposition, from his seat. So this difference of opinion in foreign policy is not confined to one party.
I shall add only one more word on this subject. I do not believe that the Labour Party will ever come to power unless it produces a defence policy more convincing than the one it produced on the last occasion at the election. That is my personal view, shared I should think by a great many others in the House and elsewhere. I cannot forget that it was the Labour Government of Clem Attlee and Ernest Bevin, of which I was a very minor member, who laid the foundations of the foreign policy of this country which has been followed from that day to this.
However, I turn now to home affairs. The question I am asking the House this afternoon—and I shall speak briefly—can be put very crudely. Why did many more British citizens vote for the Conservative Party than for the Labour Party at the last election? Why was it? If one were writing a history of this period, what would be one's analysis? Some will say that the campaign came into it. It is my view that on balance it did not come into it one way or the other. Mr. Kinnock fought a wonderful campaign and I am proud to think that he will be leader of my party long after I have passed from the scene. I hope the same will be true of our Labour leader in this House, even if he is somewhat older. At any rate those personalities were established and we can all be grateful for the lead given to us by our leaders during the election.
On the other hand, I am bound to say that on taxation it was very hard for the ordinary elector to know exactly where he stood. To put it mildly our taxation policy was not presented in a coherent way. So taking the campaign as a whole I agree with what I think I heard somebody say at some point earlier—it seems a long time ago—that perhaps the result would have been just the same if the election had been held on the day it was called as it was when voting finally took place.
We have to look a little beyond that if we want the answer to that question. Even if the Conservatives have won three elections running one cannot dismiss the British public as total morons. When one loses an election one is often inclined to take a rather jaundiced view of the electorate, but one cannot see matters in that way. I want to ask the question and provide the most general kind of answer.
The most general answer is that more people thought that their material interests would benefit under a Conservative Government than under a Labour Government. That was no doubt the reason. I am not saying that everyone votes entirely according to his material interests. There are 150,000 charities in this country. I would say that public spirit is as high today as ever it was and perhaps higher. I am sorry that the bishops are not here today otherwise I would have congratulated them on the stand they took—or a number of them took—which
176
came as near to taking our side as was compatible with an episcopal role. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham was particularly helpful; and as neither he nor the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is present I shall not pursue their argument. However, we ought to have some very good exchanges between that distinguished pair as time goes on.
I return to the fact that more people voted for the Conservatives. In the past week I happened to meet two gentlemen who were previously Labour voters but who voted this time for Mrs. Thatcher. One of them had bought British Telecom shares and told me—I do not know whether it was quite accurate—that his shares had trebled in value. He said, "You won't be surprised that I voted for the government that produced from my point of view a very satisfactory result". The other one had been enabled under Conservative legislation to buy his council house. He said he bought it for £20,000. He reckons that it is now worth £50,000. Here you have a couple of typical gentlemen who had switched under these material inducements. Those stories were told to me after the election by people who had switched accordingly. We have to weigh up these matters from the electoral point of view and the moral point of view. I am not saying that because you win votes by some course of action that is necessarily the right thing, but in the Labour Party we have to ask ourselves how far—and this is my crucial question—our traditions, what is fundamental and what makes us join and stay in the Labour Party, are compatible with the sort of development which has occurred in the Church the laity of which in this country is presided over by the noble Duke opposite, the Catholic Church.
For instance, take Vatican 2. Who would have thought when I joined the Catholic Church in 1940 that you could have anything like Vatican 2? The changes have been tremendous. I think they are called developments, but they are changes in ordinary language. To put it bluntly, what the Labour Party needs is a Vatican 2. I put it in the simplest way possible.
The question is: what is fundamental and what is ephemeral, transitory, to be discarded with changing circumstances? Fundamentally—and this seems to me to be at least as true as when I joined the Labour Party—what distinguishes us as a party is our belief that all human beings who come into this world are of equal and infinite significance in the sight of God and ought to be treated in that way by human government. That is the fundamental approach of all of us in the Labour Party. When I say "all" I mean all, black, white, yellow or brown. That cannot be changed. If that had been changed the Labour Party would have gone out of business. That is fundamental.
The question is—and I am not going to answer it but just place it before your Lordships—in the light of the examples I gave, how far is it going to be possible in the years ahead for the Labour Party, compatible with its beliefs and its honour, to win over the electorate?

177
There was a poet called Crosland—I believe no connection with the famous Anthony Crosland—who once wrote these lines:
"I trod the road to Hell.
But there were things I might have sold and did not sell."
The Labour Party have not exactly gone over to Hell but they are still a long way from Heaven.
My submission to everybody—and of course particularly to my colleagues here and outside—is that we have to be quite sure that we do not betray our birthright, and I do not think there is any question of that. But if we want to be something more than a party of protest in the years ahead, in my time and after my time, then we have to ask ourselves in the changed circumstances of today, and in view of the changed requirements of the British people, what we can do to adapt our historic party.
6.43 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I want to hold up the House for only a few minutes to discuss matters arising out of one proposition in the gracious Speech; that is:
"Legislation will be introduced to enable the water and sewerage functions of the water authorities in England and Wales to be privatised".
This matter was explained by the noble Earl who started the debate today. I am grateful to him because he indicated that we should in due course have a White Paper describing how the Government approach this matter; and so at this stage we cannot discuss any detail.
I interpreted the wording of the Queen's Speech that there will be legislation to enable this to be done not to mean that during this Session of Parliament privatisation will come along. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, when he comes to reply, can confirm that. Perhaps it does not make much difference because if it is a two-stage project then presumably the first stage, which is enabling, really subsumes agreement on the ultimate aim; otherwise you would not produce the enabling legislation.
My own view—and I think this is shared by my noble friends here—is that any proposal to transfer responsibility for any undertaking from the public sector to the private sector, or indeed from the private sector to the public sector, ought to be examined, considered and decided eventually on its merits.
I recognise that during a general election all issues are presented to the voters in a very truncated form; you might almost say in a very dogmatic form. I think this is true of the proposal to privatise—to use that horrible word—the water and sewerage functions of the water authorities. But when Parliament meets and has to consider these matters then we must try to get rid of that attitude and get down to the facts of each individual case and how it ought to be dealt with.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his very acceptable speech seconding the Motion for the humble Address on 25th June used these words at col. 14 of the Official Report:
"it has always been my view that the private sector provides better management, a more loyal workforce, greater quality for the consumer and an efficient industry".
178
With great respect to the noble Lord—and I have mentioned this matter to him—I think that in saying those words he expressed his prejudices rather than the result of any careful study of the facts.
I think we all of us have prejudices. I certainly have. The important thing when we come to decide on issues and the crunch comes is that we know that our prejudices are prejudices and really get down to the facts. I would only say one thing more on that subject and that is that this week we have all been enjoying—at least I think we have—the euphoria arising from the great success of the privatised British Airways. I am delighted to read and hear of it. But it should not be forgotten that the success of British Airways in its first year as a private company is almost entirely due to work done in previous years when it was not a private company but in public ownership and management. Incidentally, it was under the same distinguished chairman, my noble friend Lord King of Wartnaby.
As regards denationalisation, or privatisation, of water facilities with the water authorities, or those parts to be privatised according to the Government's plan, my noble friends and I—perhaps it is prejudice—do not think that it is a good idea. One of the advantages—and there are advantages on both sides—of privatising these public authorities is that an element of competition can be brought in, but that does not seem to apply in this particular case.
We may have a multiplicity of water companies supplying water in different areas, but presumably in any particular area it will be one company providing the water. There will be no possibility of the householder saying, "I don't want your water; I want water from that friend of yours over there". This would be quite impracticable. Obviously the same applies to the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage, so that this is not going to introduce a competitive element into the operation at all.
For those reasons, as I have frankly admitted, my prejudice, if you like, is that we should not support this operation. But as we have been told that we are going to hear more about it, and as in due course definite proposals will be put before us, I hope that we can refrain from discussing the details of the matter any further at this stage.
There was one other matter referred to in the gracious Speech that I thought of mentioning. That concerns the proposed help to the shipping industry. I have an interest here because I spent two-thirds of my working life in the shipping industry and I know how difficult life has been for that industry over many years now, going back before the present Government.
The outline given by the noble Earl of the ways in which some help was going to be given did not strike me immediately as enormously important, though I am sure that every little helps. Here again, when the issue comes forward we shall be able to have a much fuller discussion. I know that many noble Lords in all parts of the House think that we ought to have a discussion about the position of the British shipbuilding industry and the way in which it has diminished.

179
It is rather interesting that when the matter is occasionally raised at Question Time, the Answers are usually given by the noble Lord who represents the Ministry of Defence, as though the only thing that was important was that the British shipping available to us here was sufficient to support the military operations that are likely to arise. The Falklands action is often quoted as an example of having sufficient ships to support the operation.
I had the privilege of working in the Ministry of War Transport during the whole of the last war, and of course the vast majority of the shipping which we had to organise and use was not engaged in supporting the military operations but was engaged in feeding and supplying this country. The shipping required for that is much greater than that for supporting particular military operations anywhere. I hope that when we come to discuss in more detail the future prosperity of the shipping industry, that will be borne in mind.
Thanks to the noble Earl's introduction and help, I think I can cut my speech down to no more minutes than those I have taken.
6.51 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I wish to use my brief contribution to this debate on the gracious Speech to welcome and endorse very strongly the proposed legislation concerning education. The leader of The Times on the 26th June hailed the gracious Speech as "A Speech of Liberation". Nowhere is this more true than in the plans to liberate the parents in their choice of schools, to give schools the opportunity of liberation from meddlesome local authorities, to give local authorities in London the chance to liberate themselves from ILEA and, in higher education, to liberate polytechnics and certain other colleges from local authority control.
Of course, storm clouds of resistance to these liberating proposals are gathering: some of them in evidence here today. I therefore wish to explain why I believe that these proposals are principled, necessary and urgent and why I do not believe that there is a strong case against them.
First, the case for extending parental choice: the 1980 Education Act increased parental choice both in principle and in practice so that now many parents do indeed have the satisfaction of seeing their children accepted in the school of their first choice. But for far too many parents this is not the case, and they are often desperate. And it is particularly galling for them when they know that there are vacancies in their chosen school but they are forced to send their children to a school that they do not like in order to keep that school viable. This is of course because a large number of good schools have been forced by their authorities to cut back on their intakes, even when they have the space and the staff to accommodate more pupils. Now, with the proposals for open enrolment, those schools will be able to take applicants up to their full capacity.
Of course there is an immediate outcry that this will lead to the creation of "sink schools" for those who are left behind in the less popular schools. But that is a non sequitur for two reasons. First, too many
180
pupils and teachers are already trapped now in schools which are educational disaster areas. Why should others be forced to join them? Does spreading the misery make it better?
Secondly, as my noble friend the Minister pointed out in his opening speech, if more pupils are allowed to go to schools which their parents believe are good that will create an incentive for those less popular schools to be more responsive to their parents' wishes. I would suggest that that is no bad thing. I would rather trust the parents than the bureaucrats.
This is likely to be a very popular measure and it is not an act of centralism, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, indicated. It is rather a true devolution of power to the people. Indeed, I have already been asked by parents how soon this provision is likely to come into effect. I would be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister could give me an answer to that question, if not today then perhaps in a letter subsequent to this debate.
The second liberation will allow schools to free themselves from local education authorities. This is perhaps the most radical of all the proposals and would make this legislation the most significant since the 1984 Education Act. No school has to opt out from local authority control: there is no coercion here. But the kinds of schools which might eagerly embrace this freedom include, for example, those good comprehensives which are desperately trying to retain their sixth forms against local authority threats to remove them and to send their sixth-formers to tertiary colleges; or schools where teachers "walk in fear", as one head recently described it, of victimisation for infringing the political commitments of their local authority, such as those teachers in Brent who are now subjected to surveillance by what are known locally as "race spies", of whom 50 of the proposed 177 have already been appointed at vast public expense. These teachers also have the memory of the treatment that was meted out to Miss McGoldrick; and they are talking of the relief that opting out would bring.
This option of opting out may also appeal to schools where parents are frantically worried about ideological teaching in the classroom, and particularly about the promotion of so-called "positive images" of homosexuality with young children. It is perhaps no coincidence that reports are coming in that already seven schools in Haringey are getting ready to opt out from their authority.
Some opponents try to frighten those who are thinking of opting out by asserting that it would be impracticable. But there are plenty of precedents for autonomous schools funded by direct per capita government grants. I am sure that your Lordships will remember those excellent direct grant schools which were so tragically abolished by Labour in 1976.
I should like to take this opportunity to raise a related issue. There are now a growing number of new schools being established up and down the country by parents and teachers who are so desperate and dismayed by the poor academic moral and spiritual education in their local schools that they are prepared to make great sacrifices to set up their own alternatives—which are, incidentally, proving very successful.

181
I have recently had both the pleasure and the privilege of visiting two such new schools in very different locations. One is a new Christian school, the King's School in Witney, near Oxford, set up by local house churches. I understand that there are now about 40 similar new Christian schools which have sprung up in different parts of the country. The other school was the splendid John Loughborough School set up by the West Indian community in the inner city area of Tottenham. I shall never forget one of the parent governors of John Loughborough School saying to me that the local state comprehensive schools were so inadequate academically and in terms of moral and spiritual education that he used to have to send his children back to Jamaica to get a good old-fashioned British Christian education, but that was no longer necessary now that John Loughborough School had opened in Tottenham.
What an indictment of our education system! How we have failed parents and pupils! They are not wealthy people and the sacrifices that they have had to make lead me to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he would ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to consider taking the proposed legislation a little further than just opting out and also to consider the possibility of allowing some of those new schools to opt in to direct-grant funding.
Briefly, my third example of proposed liberation will allow local education authorities in London to opt out of ILEA. I know that ILEA, in its former guise as the old LCC, rightly earned the respect and affection of countless people, but tragically it has changed in many ways. It is now a battleground for political dispute, militant disruption and ideological interference, and of course it is the pupils who suffer. Although ILEA devours massively disproportionate resources—£2,275 per secondary school pupil is vastly more than that which goes to other deprived areas such as Bradford and Manchester—despite generous funding the level of attainment achieved in its schools compares very badly with the rest of the country. Perhaps that is partly because resources are spent on ideological distractions such as "anti-racist maths" and anti-heterosexism" which, according to the latest issue of ILEA-funded GEN now permeate down to day nurseries.
Resources have also been squandered on unacceptable teaching materials such as the notorious Auschwitz pack which caused such offence that eventually it had to be withdrawn. So perhaps it is not surprising that some local authorities believe that they can provide better education with autonomy, apart from ILEA. Such local authorities include not only Conservative-controlled Kensington, Wandsworth and Westminster, but also, according to the Sunday Times, Alliance-controlled Tower Hamlets and the independent City of London. If they so wish, those authorities should be granted autonomy as a matter of urgency.
Finally, there is the proposal to give autonomy to polytechnics and certain other colleges and take them away from LEA control. This must also be welcomed for reasons similar to those which pertain for schools. However, I should like to make one further plea for an additional freedom which has not been mentioned but which I and many others would like to see in this
182
Bill of liberation. I refer to the freedom for students in higher education not to have to join the closed shop of the students' union. There is a strong case for voluntary membership of student unions. I shall not make it now but I hope that I shall have an opportunity to do so when this truly radical Education Bill comes before your Lordships' House.
I conclude by reiterating how much I commend and support the Government for putting forward this charter for freedom on behalf of those who are most vulnerable: the young. So much is at stake not only, though of course most importantly, for them but also for all of us as a nation.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I cannot be expected to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Quite frankly it would be very bad for my blood pressure, because her views and the views of many of her colleagues in a document that has been published recently are reactionary in the extreme. Her remarks come badly at a time when we all know that our education system has been deprived of money, books and essential equipment. The standard of education had been dictated by the amount of money allowed to our schools to such an extent that parents have had to buy books for their children. Naturally all decent parents want a fair chance for their children, some of whom are slow developers.
To me basically it all smells of snob appeal. I believe that if these proposals are carried through the whole education system of Britain will find itself in chaos. One fact that emerges quite clearly from the gracious Speech is that further attacks will be made on local government. Local authorities will be made increasingly subject to dictation from Whitehall and local democracy will fade in the face of government autocracy. I can assure your Lordships that there is considerable concern about the situation in local government circles, including those with Conservative majorities.
Councillor Newton, the leader of my local authority, the London Borough of Bexley, has warned of the inroads that Whitehall is making into local government and of its financial effects. Those of us whose public service began in local councils and those members of all parties who still serve bitterly regret the weakening and undermining of a service which for many years has been the foundation stone of Britain's democratic system. The abolition of domestic rates, the introduction of a poll tax and consequent new arrangements for local government finance to a great extent will remove the power of local electors and councils to decide what is best for local interests and needs. The local authorities with elected members from the population that they serve know best what is needed for their district.
An even worse situation is that local authority housing services now face almost complete abolition. At the moment as a result of government policy the only way that some people, especially the young newly married, can obtain a home is to purchase it. With house prices rising to ridiculous levels, especially in the South-East, a mortgage can become a millstone which may even wreck a marriage. In

183
many areas old but well built Victorian houses are being demolished in order to make way for expensive one-bedroomed flats for sale. Some are being converted to flats for disposal at high prices or high rents. In my area a one-bedroomed flat can in some cases fetch £40,000. New housing is being developed near my home on land that once harboured a very well known children's home which had plenty of open space and trees around it. Houses are now being built there that have handkerchief-sized gardens and cost upwards of £134,000 for three-bedroomed accommodation. In this area as elsewhere council housing stocks have been depleted owing to the success of the Government's selling campaign.
No opportunity has been given to local authorities to maintain their stock of housing for letting, which is essential. It so happens that during my days in another place for a long and happy period I represented the City of Norwich, which is a very large housing authority and a go-ahead city. The Stationery Office wanted to move out of London and Norwich wanted the Stationery Office, so houses were made available for key personnel and essential staff and the Stationery Office moved to its own advantage and that of the people of Norwich. That was due to the fact that the local authority was progressive and also had a stock of council houses available and was building others.
I am all for home ownership and freedom of choice. If I said otherwise I would be a hypocrite, because now in the end I own my own house. It has taken a long time but at least I have it now. But there must be a quota of rented accommodation made available for those who are unable to afford a mortgage and for mobile labour. For the poorer paid there must be a quota of subsidised accommodation.
There may be a shortage of skilled labour in the South-East, but there is no attraction for an unemployed skilled worker in the North to sell his house at the lower prices obtaining there and to buy—that is the only option—another house in the South-East at the grossly inflated prices now prevailing. At the moment at least there is no chance to rent. That is the problem facing mobility of labour. A certain Minister once said, "Get on your bike", but it is no darned good getting on your bike if there is no house to live in at the end of the journey.
There is not only the problem of skilled labour. My local hospital is seriously short of nurses and midwives, with only agency staff available, which is neither economic nor desirable. Advertisements have been placed in provincial newspapers all over the country but have not achieved any results. The fact is—and this applies to many areas in the South-East and to London in particular—that nursing staff simply cannot afford to buy houses at inflated prices and they have no alternative. So you cannot get the nurses and in the case of industry you cannot get the skilled labour.
Let me add—and this is significant in view of the remarks of the noble Baroness—that this also applies to teachers. Rented accommodation is still in short supply. I know the Government say that they will do something about the position, but it seems to me that
184
they are more concerned to give better hopes to landlords and not so much to tenants. But the Government must meet the need by direct action and encouragement.
I very much regret that there is no mention in the gracious Speech of the need for consolidation and revision of allotment garden legislation. I am sure that the noble Lord would expect me to bring that in. There is also no mention of the implementation of the Thorpe Report (Cmnd. 4166) of October 1969. That puts blame on Labour governments as well as on Conservative governments. The House is well aware of my frustrated effort. But I am still willing to help the Government should their minds become a little more receptive. I chatted at the State Opening with one junior Minister who was very interested and who promised to get a copy of the Thorpe Report. But I shall not mention the name and shall keep it to myself for the time being.
There is another bee in my bonnet for which I make no apology. Too many houses are being built today with the minimum of garden space. Inner cities cry out for development and government intentions in this regard are very welcome. I hope that with the maximum co-operation with local authorities, Members of this House and elsewhere action can be taken on the right lines. Here is a great opportunity to improve the environment with adequate open spaces, trees and the provision of plots of land to grow our own flowers, fruit and vegetables.
Unfortunately, vandalism and crime continue to grow due to homelessness, unemployment and the crumbling decay of inner-city areas with the consequent despair. Young people have just got fed up. The trouble is that they have taken the wrong road and that is why there are so many problems today. Family life is often lacking—very much so today—but family life depends on a home, decent surroundings and adequate social amenities.
Finally—I may be a little controversial here—the Government obtained their majority mainly from the prosperous South and South-East. There is no doubt that much prosperity exists in those areas for some people, but to a great extent it is prosperity founded on mortgages, credit cards and share deals. Personal debt, as we all know, is increasing rapidly and could have a serious effect in the course of time not only politically but on family life and the welfare of the nation as a whole.
In conclusion, I repeat that Britain needs a return to the values of the home and closely knit family life. The Government have a responsibility to set the lead for the people to follow, but I am sorry that the proposals in the gracious Speech do not seem to go very far to meet that ideal. I wish that they did, but I cannot at this time see that being achieved.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, the recent election proved once again that Britain or at any rate England is a very conservative country. I often recall the leader in The Times at the end of 1945 when it said that it was unlikely that there would be another Tory administration before the end of the 20th century. By

185
contrast there have been Conservative governments during about 25 of the last 40 years including 13 consecutive years between 1951 and 1964.
I think it worth recalling that during that period there was a significant almost unparalleled increase in the standard of living. It was then that the foundations were laid for the development of the North Sea oil industry by the Government in partnership with private enterprise upon the success of which our present prosperity is largely based. It is also worth remembering that it has been the development of industries under public ownership which has enabled them to be sold off at immense profit during the last few years thus enabling the Government to reduce the burden of direct taxation. This in no way seeks to diminish the success of many aspects of the current Government's policy, but credit should be given where credit is due and every government of all parties are entitled to some recognition for the contribution that they have made to the greatly improved prospects which we are told lie ahead of Britain today.
It has been basic to the political philosophy of the Tory Party long before the Earl of Beaconsfield's speech of 1872 that it should seek to maintain our institutions. The personalities who lead us come and go, economic theories and practice change with almost every decade under the influence of forces over which the Government have only very limited control. Social problems and codes of public and personal morality tend to alter from one generation to the next. But the stability of this country and ultimately its continuing prosperity and strength depend upon the maintenance of those institutions which time and the wisdom of successive generations have evolved to ensure the good government, the unity and the freedoms of the nation. The first of these major institutions is the monarchy; the second is the high court of Parliament; and the third is the system of local government, older than Parliament and almost as long descended as the monarchy itself.
I cannot resist adding that my own town of Colchester is the oldest recorded borough in the country. It was a town when London itself was simply a village on the swampy margins of the Thames. Colchester has a had a local administration going back for at least 792 years.
If I understand the pronouncements of the Prime Minister correctly we have now in power in this country not a Conservative Government but a radical government. Radical conservatism is a contradiction in terms. It was clear in the last Parliament—and this is carried further by the proposals in the gracious Speech—that, owing to the financial irresponsibility on the part of a few local councils, the social criteria adopted by others and the inability (for a variety of local reasons) of others still to meet the educational standards adopted by the Government, the powers previously exercised by local authorities everywhere will be increasingly centralised in Whitehall.
I fought my first election against the dogma of the then Labour Government that the "Men in Whitehall know best". I did not believe that then and although those men have changed, I do not believe it
186
now. I fear that the new found radicalism of what was once a Conservative party will destroy confidence in and the ability to recruit able men and women to serve us in local government throughout Great Britian and will undermine the whole system.
The Parliament which will govern this country during the next three or four years will be concerned with a mass of legislation designed to reduce the powers and responsibilities of local authorities great and small over finance, development, education, housing and the various consumer services which over the years county councils and district councils and civic corporations had responsibility to provide. Why is that? It is because in certain areas, London and Liverpool for instance, local authorities have been elected to power that consist of representatives whose policies are unacceptable to the Government of Westminster.
I strongly support the policies set out in the gracious Speech that a special effort should be made to tackle the problems of inner cities. If I have reservations it is because I doubt whether the encouragement of small-scale enterprise will solve the social and environmental problems of, let us say, Toxteth or Brixton and that the building of Canary Wharf will solve the problems of Tower Hamlets or that the development of the Liverpool docks will make much impact on the problems of Croxteth. What I find difficult to accept is the justification of arguing from the particular to the general. That because some local authorities have been financially irresponsible, all local authorities should be penalised; that because the Government do not like certain of the attitudes of the ILEA towards education for instance, control of education should be centralised increasingly in Whitehall and that the ILEA should be eventually abolished.
I am not the first of those who have spoken in this House and in another place to warn the Government that the institution of the poll tax instead of rates on property is administratively impracticable and socially and morally unjustifiable. Up to now there has been a balance between the powers of central government and local government and noble Lords on the other side of the House will remember that that was particularly true when the Labour Government were in power. Now that balance will be upset. The result will be that, so far from the average elector becoming more actively involved in the many matters which directly concern his living standards, he will find that he is farther away from the real centres of power which can influence them for the better. For instance, if a private contractor fails to clear his rubbish, a complaint to his councillor will in future apparently get the reply that he should write to his Member of Parliament.
Local councillors with diminished responsibilities and powers will gradually lose heart and will be replaced by others with lesser abilities and perhaps lower standards of public service. Whatever may be the weaknesses of locally-based public administration, and no one denies that there are such weaknesses, its virtue is that it is local. A system which may or may not be more efficient but which is remote and impersonal removes that cardinal virtue and will ultimately breed alienation and discontent.

187
We criticise our councils and those who serve them. We grumble, but a local councillor who can be of help is only a telephone call or a bus ride away. Despite our grumbles I must emphasise that there is a sense of pride in and an identification with familiar institutions which cannot be replaced by the theoretical advantages which centralisation in Whitehall may produce.
A couple of weeks ago Mr. Peregrine Worsthorne wrote a leader in the Sunday Telegraph. His theme was that when a Conservative government shed their conservatism and adopt a radical approach to issues and institutions there is nothing left to protect the public from the damage that such policies may have for the long-term interests and stability of the country. To this perhaps I might be allowed to add, except the House of Lords.
That is a role which within the constitution we do not have the powers adequately to perform. But in the course of this Parliament I hope that we shall be able to mitigate the emasculation of local government in Britain as outlined in the policies of the gracious Speech. In so doing we shall be rendering a service to the country as a whole and we on these Benches will at least have the satisfaction of knowing that we have done something to maintain the real traditions and principles of the party to which we belong.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord would not expect me to follow him into the realms of local government reform. I wish to make two brief comments in the field of higher education. Before making such comments, I should perhaps declare an interest in that I am privileged to be a pro-chancellor and chairman of council of a university.
I listened with very great interest to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, earlier today when he commented that a new dialogue between government and universities was necessary and desirable. I agree with that but I think that part of the necessity has arisen because the adaptation that many people had hoped to see in the direction of universities has not been entirely fulfilled. Adaptation even in such ancient institutions as Oxford, whose reply was quoted this afternoon, is desirable and necessary. We had a lecture from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on a number of changes which we should make in this House itself and I see no reason why the universities should be in any way exempt from that. Nor indeed is there any real evidence that they would wish to be.
One of the main reasons why certain areas of the dialogue between government and universities have been bitter is that the instruments to the hand of government are blunt; that is to say that when applied they do not necessarily achieve the objects for which they were originally intended. Thus the 1981 changes instituted through the financial constraints operated by the University Grants Committee are a very blunt instrument to produce any change in universities.
The Government presumably desire some form of restructuring. They believe, as do many people and as
188
is widely thought in industry, that the universities needed to change and adapt to prepare themselves and those they educate for the next decade and beyond.
The problem, as a result of using such an instrument, was that many of the changes were adverse; that is to say that in various ways and by various means the cutting down of certain departments led to the departure of the wrong people or the wrong departments in the wrong university. I repeat that I believe that that was because the instruments were blunt. I share the noble Lord's view that it is unlikely that the reconstruction of a university funding council of itself would make very much difference to such developments from that which pertains today under the University Grants Committee.
But where I disagree with the noble Lord is in his dismissal of one of the most fundamental necessities for restructuring, which is to take up the question of tenure. The problem lies in the fact that the most equitable course is to say that only new appointments will be affected in that way. The difficulty is that it would take 30 years to achieve any change. That, by any standards, is quite a long time.
The second possibility would be to look at the problem in terms of tenure and promotion. That would indeed shorten the period in which restructuring could take place, but only by something of the order of 10 or 15 years, which brings us into the next century. I believe that we must look at the more radical solution of tenure as a whole with appropriate, reasonable and equitable safeguards. Then, when the University Grants Committee or its successor is asked to look at questions of contracts, arrangements or university grants, it will look with a very different approach at where selectivity and building on the strengths of various universities can take place.
I must confess that I shudder slightly when I hear people talking about cutting down the number of universities and when they speak, as the noble Lord, Lord Blake, did in our recent debate in this House on higher education, about the bottom 15 universities not doing research. What is a university if it does no research? Is it truly a university then? I begin to wonder. I am therefore anxious on that score. I believe that if there is a possibility of restructuring within the system in the way in which I have mentioned, then the universities can not only protect themselves but can, in the long term, protect the interests of the public which they also have to serve.
My second point is a much more parochial one in the sense that there should also be a better governance of universities. I use that term advisedly because I do not want to confuse government and the control or running of universities. I hope that I do not incur the immediate and violent wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, if I say that one of my feelings on this matter is that we should reduce the representation on governing councils of members of local authorities. I say that for a specific reason. Although it is perfectly possible that all such representatives are excellent people, well motivated, interested and knowledgeable in university affairs or the affairs of

189
education, unfortunately that does not always happen. For far too many people it turns out to be yet another committee.
As one who is deeply interested in the governance of universities, I very much want to see properly motivated and useful people on the councils and governing bodies of universities. Those are the people who can help to improve the dialogue which is necessary and who can bring into universities the outside money, the outside research interest, the connections with industry and the continuing education programmes which are going to be so vital in this field in the coming years.
These two steps which I have mentioned briefly tonight and which I hope to raise again on another occasion seem to me to be difficult to tackle. But it is necessary to tackle them if we are to achieve again a better relationship not only between government and university but also between whatever committee is put in place of the University Grants Committee and the universities themselves.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging, interesting and challenging debate. I hope I will be forgiven if I deal with one matter in the gracious Speech which has not yet been mentioned—the subject of Northern Ireland. I have perused the references to Northern Ireland in eight Queen's Speeches as reported in the official records of this House over the past 10 years. I have found very little change in the text of the separate references. The gracious Speech we are debating today follows that set pattern of phraseology.
Perhaps the unchanged framework of words sadly reflects the nature of the basic political situation in Northern Ireland. It is a situation where the scope for constructive consensus for change is becoming politically fossilised. Some measure of responsibility for the present entrenched political position and for the consequential stunted economic outlook must be directed towards the elected representatives and other public leaders at all levels in the Province.
At the same time, it must surely be the overriding duty of the sovereign Parliament and the elected Government to make certain that suitable measures are designed and effectively implemented to ensure that the lives, the safety and the wellbeing of all law-abiding citizens are adequately protected and upheld.
Today, many people in Northern Ireland are earnestly striving for changed and realistic political attitudes. That new thinking and efforts at constructive consultations are taking place at many levels—in churches, in commercial and industrial undertakings, in the public services, in trade union organisations and especially among many of the voluntary community bodies. Surely it is not too much to expect the Government earnestly to commit every possible resource and support for the encouragement of full community participation in the parliamentary constitution processes. Encouragement is needed which actively seeks a constructive dialogue and a more open political campaign of explanation about relevant security matters and about the provision of equality of citizenship rights.
190
The building of confidence in the parliamentary processes and the defeat of terrorism involve much more than policing, security provisions and prisons, although these are necessary and the people who provide such services do a magnificent and heroic job. There is also the battle for the hearts, the minds and the commitment of the people and especially of the young. I do not wish to decry the considerable efforts made by various United Kingdom administrations during the past 20 years to build peace and to prevent the continuing and unnecessary toll of human misery and suffering in Northern Ireland.
Some of the most heartfelt moments for me in this House during the past nine years have been the occasions when noble Lords from all sides of the House have risen to express their genuine concern, their compassion and their support for Ministers of the Conservative Administration and of the previous Labour Government as they, in their ministerial offices, honestly strove to tackle some of the tragic and deepseated problems of the Province. I am glad to be able to say that while there is no formal bipartisan arrangement in Irish affairs, I have been impressed by, and grateful for, the sympathetic understanding and trust that is so readily extended from these Opposition Benches and from all parts of the House to Government Ministers, both here and in another place, who shoulder the difficult, demanding and dangerous burdens of the Northern Ireland Office. I am confident that the same approach and spirit of active understanding will prevail in the challenging days ahead.
Many parts of the Queen's Speech are of major importance to the people of Northern Ireland, as they are to those in other regions of the United Kingdom. The 49 words that directly concern the province mention a three-fold commitment. The commitment is to seek an agreed basis on which greater responsibility can be devolved to representatives of the people, to work unremittingly for the defeat of terrorism, and to build upon the constructive relations established with the Republic of Ireland in security and other matters.
Before attempting to deal with those three issues, I wish to mention my concern about the omission from the gracious Speech of a vital commitment given on previous occasions. The omission is the commitment to promote the social and economic welfare of the Province. Far-reaching proposals for development have been announced inviting the help and encouragement of public and private investment and the active co-operation of employers' organisations, trade unions, local authorities and community organisations. Those proposals include imaginative developments for Belfast and for urban and rural areas; for energy resources and for the construction industry; for concerted efforts by the Department of Economic Development to stimulate new technologically-based enterprises; for measures to promote production, employment in agriculture, in textiles and manufacturing industries; also the commitment to Harland and Wolff shipbuilding and to Shorts aircraft production. Surely in the light of these provincial commitments the omission from the gracious Speech of this usual brief reference is an unfortunate oversight. Perhaps when winding-up the

191
Minister can give a reasoned explanation and an assurance of the Government's commitment to these matters.
I wish to welcome the three-fold commitment by the Government as stated in the gracious Speech. The commitment deals with a devolved administration for Northern Ireland; the defeat of terrorism; and the existence of the Anglo-Irish agreement. Noble Lords who are acquainted with Irish affairs need hardly to be told that these are highly emotional issues which have become intricately welded together by the complex political stances.
The successful pursuit of the commitment is largely dependent upon the establishment of a framework for real constructive political dialogue between the United Kingdom Government and the representatives of the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. It will be evident to all concerned that the success of such round table talks will require sympathetic understanding and considerable political skill, together with utter frankness and honesty. The initial approaches should be deemed as consultative and exploratory rather than negotiating positions.
A recent election for the United Kingdom Parliament was something of a watershed in Ulster politics. Gone is the blanket negative intransigence. There are widespread impressions of a new willingness to explore the possibility of a constructive way forward. Already some of the younger party political activists are publicly indicating their views which give a ring of hope for constructive change. One such statement, while not exclusively relevant because it was written by a prominent member of the Ulster Political Research Group Mr. John McMichael, is worthy of earnest consideration. The statement reads:
"Whilst we have no doubt that compromise and accommodation can be reached between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, it is impossible to compromise on the existence of Northern Ireland itself—it either exists or it doesn't. At present it exists and is a part of the United Kingdom. This situation may not be the whole-hearted wish of everyone in the province but must be recognised to be the wish of most. Surely then this is the logical place to make a beginning.
It is our firm conviction that the vast majority of both religious communities long for peace, reconciliation and the chance to create a better future for their children. But longing is not enough; there must be a mechanism created to harness the love, generosity, courage and integrity of Ulster people in both religious communities and direct its great power towards the light of a new beginning."
In the pamphlet Mr. McMichael goes on to suggest a mechanism which includes a devolved legislative government in Northern Ireland, a written constitution and a Bill of Rights. He concludes this particular statement with the following words which are worth putting on the record:
"There is no section of this divided Ulster community which is totally innocent or indeed totally guilty, totally right or totally wrong. We all share the responsibility for creating the situation either by deed or by acquiescence. Therefore we must share the responsibility for finding a settlement and then share the responsibility of maintaining good government."
Another such statement was issued by the Northern Ireland Women's Rights Movement some five weeks ago, and was widely reported. Part of the statement said:
"As women in working class areas who bear the brunt of the poverty, and the violence, we are no longer prepared to sit back and
192
say nothing, as we know that over the past 20 years our children have seen nothing but violence and we live in a community of hatred.
Our families and especially our young people have experienced violence first hand, sectarian beatings and killings. We can assure you that such things are most terrifying and of course most people think that these things only happen to other people and not to themselves. Whose child will be next?
Our young people are very much at risk and we have youths who are crippled, in body and mind. We reject methods like knee-capping as a form of punishment. These children need more help—after all they learn from the godfathers.
We demand that the murderous attacks stop immediately, whether it be on civilians, police, soldiers or victims of plastic bullets. As such we are prisoners in our own communities, not able to move about the city freely for fear of attacks, this is especially true for young people.
As women's groups in the community, some of us have overcome this situation and we do now meet in each other's areas. But still this is only the beginning and we want other women to join in with this kind of activity, so that communities are not afraid of each other.
We believe that some of these politicians who say that they represent us are as guilty as the gunmen, in that they do nothing to try to bring the people together. Almost none of the politicians try to bring Protestant and Catholic together, in fact we think that the division of the people benefits the politicians."
I have read that statement because the women of Northern Ireland have set down a challenge to us all and especially to many of our politicians.
The Irish Congresss of Trade Unions and its Northern Ireland Committee have a proud record of promoting reasoned co-operation by workers and management in the maintenance of peace. Various attempts have been made to escalate the violence and disruption by murder, intimidation, sectarianism and by discrimination in and at the work place. The Committee and its trade union affiliates are working closely with the Northern Ireland Office on a "Guide to Manpower Policies and Practice".
At the annual conference of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions being held this week in the city of Cork in the Irish Republic, Mr. Billy Wallace, a Belfast trade union official, will seek the adoption of a policy document which commits the trade unions in Ireland to equality of opportunities for all. I should like to quote the conclusion from the 10-page document, which states:
"Whilst the Northern Ireland Committee's record on seeking equality in employment has been consistent and progressive throughout the last two decades, the Committee is not complacent about what needs to be done. Whilst the Committee believes that progress would be greatly assisted by the rapid development of new job opportunities, it specifically rejects the view which is sometimes put forward that progress is impossible in the meantime. Change can be effected by a combination of clear objectives, proper procedures and programmes, and the application of a political will by all those involved, especially Government, employers, the FEA, [Fair Employment Agency] Unions and their members, employees and communituy organisations."
In the long run it may be argued that the economic situation has more serious implications for the people of Northern Ireland than the political situation. This could be an obvious reason for the all out onslaught by terrorists to bring about industrial instability.
One of the important bodies in Northern Ireland representative of workers, managers and the universities, is the Northern Ireland Economic Council. This body has worked unceasingly to influence community attitudes and public thinking, as well as government decisions to stimulate radical improvements in Northern Ireland's economic performance and industrial development. The

193
chairman of the Council, Sir Charles Carter—an economist of considerable international standing—on the 11th June stated:
"Ulster must develop a leadership for the settlement of its own problems: presenting the British Government with an agreed package which that Government could not possibly turn down. You will say that this is impossible, given the personalities of the political leaders and their problems with their own parties. But, if it is impossible, things will not just go on as at present: they will get worse, and the Province will slide into a situation in which it is derelict and ungovernable. So, I am not prepared to accept 'impossible' for an answer. I recognise the extreme delicacy of any negotiations which might take place between Ulster leaders, and the need not only for confidentiality but for proper preparation and for mediation. Private funds could, I know, be found to support such an effort".
Sir Charles Carter calls upon the Government and other organisations to join in a campaign of this nature in Northern Ireland.
As the one speaker in this debate who lives in Northern Ireland I thank your Lordships for your patience, and perhaps I can plead for your indulgence in getting down these comments in black and white. I end with these words. There can be no doubt that a commitment to Northern Ireland by the Government is going to be difficult to fulfil. I have tried in my speech to indicate that there are positive signs of change and hope. From this side of the House we wish the Government success in the stated aims concerning Northern Ireland.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am very happy indeed to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blease, with his unrivalled knowledge of Northern Ireland—a place with which of course the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was at one time also quite familiar.
This may be an appropriate moment to welcome the new Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, Mr. John Stanley, and at the same time to pay a tribute to his predecessor, Mr. Nicholas Scott. I think I speak for many people both in Parliament and outside in expressing our thanks and admiration for the long and dedicated service he put in.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, mentioned the results of the election in Northern Ireland. These to my mind show a major victory for moderation in spite of the crudities and distortions of the first-past-the-post method. The SDLP, I am glad to say, polled two-and-a-half times as many votes as Provisional Sinn Fein. Even the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, which has sometimes been dismissed as an ineffective and bourgeois body, secured more votes than the Provisionals. I welcome the increased representation in the other place for the SDLP, which is the non-violent nationalist party. I hope that its popular vote will soon be better reflected on the Benches of your Lordships' House. I trust that the election results will encourage all those in Northern Ireland who have been working long, hard and patiently for peace. May it give new strength to those who are prepared to negotiate and may it reinforce those who value the needs of the present day and the future more than ancient feuds and past grievances.
There is a periodical published in Belfast called Fortnight. It in fact appears monthly and it has
194
received an award from the Ewart-Biggs Memorial Trust for its balanced contributions to dialogue and to constructive political thought. Its recent interviews of Mr. Harry West and Mr. Austin Currie were, I think, hopeful straws in the wind. These two men, one of whom is an Official Unionist and the other a founder member of the SDLP, are both former Ministers and have been members of most of the recent elected bodies in Northern Ireland. They both saw integration with Great Britain on the one hand or a unitary Irish state on the other as equally impossible. Both men argued for negotiations concerning real issues with a view to devolution. Both accepted the Anglo-Irish Agreement as an incentive to negotiate. A certain amount has been said today in your Lordships' House about Scottish devolution and that may perhaps be not inappropriate in the Irish context and just a little incentive to get things moving.
I turn now to more parochial issues and first of all to the Divis Flats in West Central Belfast. This notorious post-war complex has already been partially demolished and I understand that approval has already been given for demolishing the remaining high-rise blocks. The urgency of this has again been underlined by the Evason-Blackman Report on physical and mental health in Divis. So I ask whether today the process of moving tenants out of these flats has already begun and when demolition will be completed.
The Crescent Arts Centre, just north of Queen's University and opposite the offices of the Corrymeela community, is my next point of concern. I have an unusual interest to declare in this centre. In 1979 I put in two or three days' hard manual labour preparing the building for modernisation and improvement. This centre is Belfast's only voluntary arts centre, with some 900 members, and it caters for all ages and tastes. It has provided a base for drama, dance, visual and photographic arts as well as music. It has been a showplace both for local talent and for visiting artists and companies. About 20 full-time jobs are linked with the centre. The building serves as a very special nursery and seed-bed for a wide range of voluntary and amateur groups who would have the greatest difficulties finding alternative accommodation.
The Crescent centre is partly funded by the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and by Belfast City Council but, curiously enough, the owner of the whole complex is the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment. The DoE has found that the site is not now required for a road scheme and that it would need considerable expenditure in order to comply with modern regulations. It has declared the building to be surplus to its requirements. The DoE is thus in a position to sell the building on the open market and has already asked the arts centre to vacate. This decision caused much public concern. Mr. Richard Needham, MP, the Minister in question, very kindly wrote to me enclosing a copy of a letter dated 23rd June from his office to the manager of the arts centre. It is clear that the Minister is sympathetic and wishes to do all he can to help the centre find alternative accommodation, and I am grateful to him for that.

195
I should like to take this opportunity of urging the Minister to consult his colleague at the Department of Education in Northern Ireland who has direct responsibility for the arts and for adult education to see whether together they cannot work out a joint solution. It is essential to have a continuing centre for the arts located in the middle of Belfast where all-comers can feel safe and where two deeply divided traditions and communities can meet on neutral ground to explore their common interests. It would be a disaster if the Crescent centre became homeless or were to be plagued by prolonged uncertainty as to its future. I hope it will not be said that the old museum in College Square North can replace the Crescent. That building already has its own users and should be seen as complementary and not as an alternative to the Crescent.
In conclusion, I refer to the report entitled Improving Community Relations published last year by Hugh Fraser and Mari Fitzduff. This was commissioned by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and was discussed at a conference at Stranmillis College last April. The commission will, I gather, be having further talks with Her Majesty's Government. The matter is, however, far too important to be allowed to rest there. In my view it is essential, whatever the difficulties, that the Secretary of State and his departmental Ministers should consult together and come to a common mind about the importance of positive community relations and how these may be best fostered. There should perhaps be a community relations unit within the Civil Service directly responsible to the Secretary of State, because the way in which departments, boards and district councils fulfil their normal functions and duties has a direct bearing on community perceptions and relationships.
Within the voluntary sector, the action for community employment scheme is most significant. I hope to return to that subject when we discuss the Appropriation Order. It would be helpful if there could be a single point of reference, possibly independent of government, to which the many voluntary bodies concerned with matters such as community education, community development and inter-community relations could all relate. I commend that thought to your Lordships and to the Government.
8 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I wish to deal briefly with two subjects which have not had a great deal of attention so far. One is water privatisation about which we heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the other is environmental protection. It is interesting to compare the two sentences of the gracious Speech which refer to these items. One states:
"Measures will be introduced to promote further competition in the provision of local authorities' services".
The next sentence states:
"Legislation will be introduced to enable the water and sewerage functions of the water authorities in England and Wales to be privatised".
That is the next attack—for that is what it is—in the war to remove local democracy. Here I must pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and to my
196
noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal, who both outlined clearly what is happening to local government. I wish that I had made the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alport. He has left me little to say, and I will not enlarge on it. There is a war. There is an intention to remove local democracy.
In the privatisation of local authority services there is at the moment at least the excuse of competition. We will leave aside for the moment the fact that local authority competitors have to operate with their hands tied. At least there is a thin cloak of respectability to draw over these dubious exercises. But not even the excuse of competition can be used in the case of water privatisation. What competition can there be in a service that is essential to life, which has only one source and which is at the moment a monopoly? It can only be a private monopoly as against a public monopoly. Even in the United States of America they have not attempted to make the water supply the subject of private profit.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who introduced the debate—it seems a long time ago now—told us that a necessary preliminary to privatisation will be the metering of water supplies. As a justification for that, he said that people were used to metering as they had metered electricity and gas. If he can say that, and if that is official thinking, it shows how little thought and understanding is going into the measure. Of course it is not the same. We have alternative methods of heating our house. We even have alternative methods of lighting a house. If one lights a room, it does not matter how many members of the family are there. The lighting is adequate for one member or six members. The same applies to heating. The heat that is adequate for one person will serve six. But water consumption goes upper capita. It is absolutely unavoidable.
Families with small children, with invalids or with an aged, incontinent relative use correspondingly more water. There is no way around that. Those are the families which will suffer if water is metered, unless special provision is made for them. The proposal to privatise the water industry is not unexpected. We debated it at some length last year. We now expect in this as in everything else that Tory dogma will be pursued whatever the circumstances of each case and however unsuitable the current candidate may be by any rational standards.
What is surprising in this case is that despite the wide-ranging discussions last year and the weight of opinions expressed by and on this vital industry, these proposals, which are new and different from the one discussed last year, have not been put to those most involved. For example, the proposal to abandon the much praised arrangement of integrated river basin management will need to be justified, and it has not been discussed with the industry. When even the chairman of Thames Water protests, the Government should surely stop and think. After all, the sell-off was his idea.
The gracious Speech makes poor reading for those of us who are concerned about environmental protection. The need to be positive in the control of atmospheric pollution grows ever more pressing, as does the need to be firm in protecting our threatened countryside.

197
To add to our anxieties, we have seen a Minister whom we had come to regard as having a real care for the natural environment moved to a different responsibility. I mean no disrespect to his successor, but he has still to prove himself in his new role. We have grown used to him in a different and sometimes opposite activity. It may be appropriate if I wish him well in his new responsibility. I hope that he will bring to it the sensitivity and imagination which he showed in his old role. I know he will not misunderstand if I mourn the passing of Mr. Waldegrave. I look to him to fill the vacant chair.
What now is to happen—I hope the Minister can answer; it is fortunate that he is here—to efforts to encourage the use of lead-free petrol with its consequent spin-off in the use of catalytic converters? What will happen to the impetus to clean up our existing power stations? Are we to continue unchecked in our growing use of CFC Chlorofluoro carbons, which I always find difficult to say? Are we determined to maintain our reputation as the dirtiest, least environmentally sensitive member of the European Community? Nothing in the gracious Speech points otherwise. We can only nourish our faint hopes with the words of the final sentence, and pray that somewhere in those,
"other measures to be laid before you"
there will be some concession to values which cannot be bought with cash.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not follow her line of thought. I wish to return to the Scottish scene for a moment. I welcome the programme of legislation for Scotland as outlined in the gracious Speech. It is only right that other aspects of the Scottish scene should come under scrutiny, because today there is obviously a lack of confidence in Scotland, especially when it is compared with the South of England where there is notable confidence.
One reason for the lack of confidence is apprehension about the new community charge which is not understood by the majority of people. Another is that the Scottish Office has failed to be vigorous enough in making known the real progress made in Scotland in recent years. A fundamental reason is the lack of understanding in some government circles of certain Scottish characteristics. I shall return to that point.
I wish to deal briefly with matters which I believe are of considerable importance to the wellbeing of Scotland. There is the big problem of the North-South divide, which affects Scotland. Scotland is at the top, or at the bottom, of the divide, whichever way one looks at it. All the ingenuity possible must be harnessed to try to solve that problem. It is a question of getting light industry to move to the north. That said, it would be putting the cart before the horse to try to get industry first and then see about the infrastructure. This, unfortunately, is what happened when oil exploration began off the North-East of Scotland. The infrastructure had to be hastily created after the arrival of the people and the oil industry. People will not move away from the overcrowded
198
south unless the correct infrastructure exists in the area to which they are to move.
I believe that enterprise zones are working well and are attracting new industries; so I advocate more small enterprise zones. However, there is a possible pitfall connected with getting industry by offering a carrot. It is this. The hooking of a big company is nearly always hailed as a magnificent success. In fact, it can end in disaster because the big company is often part of a multinational conglomerate. Multinational companies are by necessity very mobile in thought and action. The departure of a large company can do untold damage. Not only does the departure leave a large gap but in its wake it probably leads to the closure of a number of ancillary firms. In the long run, therefore, it is far better to land a number of small indigenous companies rather than go for the big fish.
It would also ease the North-South divide if some sections of Whitehall departments moved to other parts of the country. For instance, there is a good case for the oil section of the Department of Energy moving to Aberdeen. That really would make sense because it would be taken as a sign of government confidence, which in itself would be a great moral booster to the oil industry in Scotland.
There are of course particular problems for those parts of Scotland where the oil industry is based. About two years ago the price of oil plummeted and, unfortunately, the North-East of Scotland talked itself into near recession. However, the tide is now beginning to run the other way with the result that confidence is slowly returning. In this respect, great credit must be given to the Aberdeen Beyond 2,000 group, set up by leaders of industry in the North-East and members of local authorities to see how prosperity can be ensured for the area into the 21st century. This bold and imaginative initiative of self-help, which has the backing of the Scottish Development Agency, demonstrates forcibly that people are prepared to influence their own economic future. As such it should be an example to other parts of the country. The work of the group is, I am sure, to be applauded and encouraged.
Then there are the problems of the central belt, to which I will not refer as they have been very accurately dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond.
In the late 1950s at the Scottish Office we recognised that the three Fs were the solid base for the rural areas—farming, forestry and fishing. At that time also, we began to give special encouragement to tourism. I have little doubt that what was right then is right today. Of course, other influences may crop up in rural areas, but they probably come and go. The solid base of the three Fs along with tourism must continue. There is, however, a need for more light industry in the rural areas to obtain a better balance. Encouragement must be given to all these industries if rural areas, which form the vast land mass of Scotland, are to thrive and hold a viable population into the 21st century. All these measures are necessary if the North-South divide is to be tackled.

199
What, then, is the way ahead for Scotland? Certain Scottish chacteristics must be understood. I believe it is not fully appreciated that many Scots, especially those coming from the remoter areas, tend to be individualistic and somewhat inward-looking with the result that they dwell more on local problems than people living in the densely populated parts of England. I shall always remember that after church one day, a lady came up to me and said, "Lord Forbes, now that you are in the Scottish Office, I hope you will see the horse trough in the village is repaired". That sort of thing has to be respected. Any government must recognise that this inward-looking Scottish feature exists and that strong feelings on local issues are held by many people in Scotland.
Hence, it is not just a question of doing what makes economic sense. As an example of this, I have little doubt that it made economic sense for the Ministry of Defence to close the infantry barracks in Aberdeen. But it was a disastrous blow to morale in the North-East of Scotland where so many Gordon Highlanders have been born and now live. The result is that the North-East has lost its great tie with the regular army, and this loss cannot be quantified in cash.
Many Scots living in the remoter areas have never travelled south of the Border. I heard the other day of a farmer in Aberdeenshire who went to Aberdeen for the first time. He was asked by a friend why he did not visit more often. His answer was, "Every day away from the farm is a day wasted". Attitudes such as these exist and, although not conforming to those in the South of England, have to be respected.
Many Scots, I believe, are convinced that the grass is greener the other side of the Border. I suspect that television has a lot to do with this. Imagine the crofter in the Highlands sitting down with his wife, their meal cooking over a peat fire, and seeing on television evening after evening modern houses with fully equipped kitchens. It must be rather like sitting in front of the television seeing the Folies Bergère and knowing that you cannot get to Paris. When you get there, you probably find it is not quite what you expected, but that is another matter.
Distance alone—over 500 miles between Aberdeen and London—is a natural barrier and that is not helped by the high cost of air fares. The return air fare from Aberdeen to London is £162, the same as it costs to cross the Atlantic and back. High internal air fares do not help make one nation; they do the opposite. As I have said, Scotland is lacking in self-confidence today. To overcome this, the Scottish Office has to blow its trumpet louder and with more vigour to explain the many achievements that have been made in Scotland.
However, above everything else, anyone who has any interest in Scotland must remember that the Scots, who are fiercely proud of their ancient traditions, often place great importance on local issues. Economic considerations therefore should not always be judged the most important criteria when making decisions. If this point is borne in mind the Government will receive the co-operation of the people in Scotland, resulting in Scotland and the United Kingdom reaping the reward. On the other
200
hand, if this point falls on deaf ears in Whitehall or elsewhere, I am afraid that all will suffer because real success comes only with unity of purpose.
The Scots have been renowned throughout the ages for their spirit of enterprise, self-reliance and self-help. It is this spirit which must be harnessed to government effort in order to bring prosperity to the north if the North-South divide is to be a thing of the past.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to begin by adding my own good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in his new role. Those of us involved in agriculture are very sorry to lose him but we are delighted that we now have a Minister responsible for the environment who is aware of the cares and concerns of farmers in that regard.
We have heard a great deal about the North-South divide. The previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, referred to it. Although on this side of the House we hold the Government largely responsible for many of the problems that are encapsulated in the phrase "the North-South divide", it would be wrong to say that any government are entirely responsible. There are movements of history—the decline of the smoke-stack industries, and the movement of population from the inner cities to the suburbs—that are also involved.
However, there is another divide in our society which is the direct result of policies of successive governments. I refer to the gulf in the quality of life and expectations between people with disabilities and the rest of society. I would describe this as the "disabled divide". It has been estimated that there are 3 million people with disabilities. There are 29 per cent. of households with at least one disabled member. The shameful and central fact is that two-thirds of disabled people are either living in poverty or on the margins of poverty.
In the gracious Speech there are a number of items of legislation dealing with housing, education, rates and privatisation, all of which will affect disabled people in particular ways. I would urge the Government as the legislation goes through—or perhaps in the case of this House, if the legislation goes through—to consider throughout the effect of legislation on disabled people.
In this Session we shall also have the detailed regulations on the operation of the Social Security Act and of course the Social Fund will be coming into operation in April next year. In the time that is allowed me I should like to take two examples of the effects of proposed legislation on education and rates reform on people with disabilities. In education there are plans for a national core curriculum. There are particular implications in this for children with special educational needs. The House of Commons Education, Science, and Arts Committee dealt with this when they said:
"The proposal for defining levels of attainment including testing attainment levels, may present problems about the interpretation of individual results. A major question arises about the prospective relationship between the inability to reach the standards set and the identity of special needs as defined by the Act. The Department will need to pay close attention to the implications of these proposals for special needs".

201
In the case of opting out schools will tend to become more selective and to be judged more and more on their academic record. Catering for special educational needs could adversely affect a school's record, at least on paper. One can hear head-teachers, perhaps receiving subtle pressure from parents and governors, saying to themselves when considering opting out, "Who wants problems?" If they feel that by taking in children with special educational needs they will be increasing those problems, there could be a real deficiency in that respect.
Again, will schools which opt out have the expertise to deal with the special needs of handicapped children? These have been very much a local authority responsibility. When it comes to the control of school budgets, aids and adaptations for handicapped children all cost money. There may be a temptation to economise either by finding reasons not to admit children with disabilities or by skimping on the aids and adaptations which handicapped children require in order to control the budget.
On rates reform I had the feeling when I read the Sunday press that the sound of reversing gears of this measure was quite deafening. The poll tax will have a particular effect on disabled people. They have complicated patterns of movement between different sets of relatives in different areas, between ordinary and adapted housing, hospitals, nursing homes, short-term hostels, half-way houses and respite care. Are all these moves to be tracked down and registered? If the legislation for England and Wales is similar for that proposed for Scotland it could prove a nightmare for carers and disabled people alike to keep track of if, where and for how much disabled people are liable.
I referred to the Social Security Act. I have a question for the Minister. When will the survey of the needs of disabled people which is being conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys be available? If that survey which has been promised by the Government reveals areas of real need and deprivation—which I am sure it will—will the Government undertake to act?
I have time only to deal with two aspects of the Social Security Act. The first is the technical matter of transitional protection. I can tell the Minister that this is causing very great concern to large numbers of disabled people. The Government have promised to protect the levels of cash benefit which is currently paid to disabled people. Nobody now receiving benefit should receive any less after 1st April, 1988, unless there is a "change of circumstances". This has still to be defined. The disabled and their organisations are very worried about the definition of a change in circumstances. For example, if a disabled man with a wife and child is receiving the appropriate levels of benefit, and the child were to reach 16 or 18 years, is that a change of circumstance? Will that affect the benefit to the disabled person? There are other aspects of transitional protection. Will the protected level of benefit which has been promised be frozen at the level of April 1988 or will it be uprated for inflation?
The measure is required to prevent a reduction of benefit levels for those who are now receiving them.
202
But what about the newly disabled? I give one example. A severely disabled man who is now receiving £88 a week in additional payments, which enables him to employ two carers, under the new rules would drop to £52·50 a week—a reduction of £35·50 in his income or 40 per cent. That is without transitional protection. But the new and lower rate to which I have referred would apply to that man if he were newly disabled and not receiving the level of benefit now. I can tell the Minister that people with disabilities are convinced that the new income support scheme will mean reduced benefit for the newly disabled and frozen benefits for those who are now receiving benefit.
The introduction of the social fund means that a regulated entitlement to benefit as of right will be replaced by a discretionary system of loans and grant. There will be a subjective and unreliable definition of need. Disabled people will have the degrading requirement to prove both poverty and disability. The fund will be operated by social fund officers. The draft manual of guidance for SFOs is in the Library.
I do not have the time to point out all the many examples of bureaucratic insensitivity enshrined in the manual. I give just one example. Social fund officers are told to consider the availability of help to applicants via credit and store cards. These, as your Lordships will know, have a true interest rate between 25 and 30 per cent. per annum. In fact the manual is advising people on income support to rely on usury. I am surprised that pawnbrokers were not also mentioned as a source of help.
There is another puzzling aspect of the social fund on which I shall be interested to receive an answer. Is it to be cash limited or not? The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, told the House on 15th July last year:
"We have decided, however, that the fund will not at first be subject to a formal cash limit on its introduction".
Yet the draft guidance manual says quite clearly:
"It is the responsibility of each local office to keep within its budget".
In heavy type it emphasises:
"The total cost of payments made by any local office must not exceed its budget for the financial year".
SFOs are clearly instructed to,
"consult the system to be aware of the budget position before making payments".
It seems that a cash limit by any other name will squeeze just as hard.
How does all this injustice and anomaly come about? How can a government justify refusing £150 million to implement the Clarke Act and the representation of the disabled on the grounds of lack of resources and then spend £164 million on advertising and fees for the privatisation of British Gas? Do Ministers and the civil servants advising them really sit down to devise a benefit system that will mean that a severely disabled man who now receives £88 per week in additional payments, would receive only £52.50 per week if he were newly disabled? I think I know how it comes about. Here I should declare an interest as a parent of two children born with congenital handicaps. I am all too familiar with the well-meaning mixture of insensitivity, incomprehension and inefficiency which is the daily

203
experience of disabled people and which lies behind much of the muddle and injustice of government policy. There is an inbuilt attitude that disabled people somehow have to prove their worthiness to be helped.
I was struck by a revealing remark in the election campaign made by the Prime Minister when she was asked to give her philosophy. We heard that she wanted a family man to be able to support his family, buy his house, buy some shares, pay for his healthcare if he wanted to and even to pay for his children's education if he wanted to. Then, almost in a throw away line, he could, if he had a surplus, give some to charity to help others.
That attitude lies at the bottom of many of the problems affecting disabled people. As it was put to me by somebody in the disabled world, so much of the policy seems to be telling a one-legged man to stand on his own two feet. People with disabilities want a proper income as of right with due allowance for the extra costs of disability. Only when they achieve that shall we have closed, I hope forever, the "disabled divide" to which I referred at the beginning of my speech.
8.36 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, in the gracious Speech it is stated:
"my Government will have special regard to the … inner cities".
As Her Majesty's Government are to target their interest on finding a solution to the problems of the inner cities of this country, perhaps I may make the plea that the focal point of social development should be centred on the maintenance of the family unit and indeed on the extended family. There is not the time to develop this theme.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers referred to the golden value of family life when he was speaking about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
I focus my speech on three aspects of deep concern to families and to broken families. It is well known that one in three marriages breaks down. The first of these aspects is family courts; secondly the National Family Conciliation Council and thirdly—bearing in mind the statement in the gracious Speech
"My Government remain determined to tackle the problems of crime"—
the juvenile justice system in England and Wales compared with the panel system in Scotland.
I shall first deal with family courts. I ask my noble friend the Minister who is to reply to this long debate—it must seem very long to him—what is the position of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the setting up of family courts? In paragraph 113 of the Green Paper published in 1986 it is stated that a review of civil justice, which will include family courts, is to be carried out by the Lord Chancellor's department. Her Majesty's Government will be issuing the findings of that review by December 1987. Yet in The Times of 17th June 1987 it is stated that the Treasury has indefinitely shelved proposals for setting up family courts in England and Wales, despite wide support from all sectors of the legal profession, except perhaps one. Support comes from Womens Institutes, the Conservative Women's
204
Policy Unit, the probation and social services, the local authority associations—and I could go on.
It would appear that there are two objections. One sector of the legal profession and one only—the Bar Association—objects, so I am told. Are the extraordinary discrepancies between courts in the same area in their policy and practice in custody cases fully appreciated? From the point of view of the families themselves a single unified family court would be less confusing than the present system of different courts—magistrates' courts, the county courts and the High Court. I believe that family courts could offer a more effective service than is given at present.
The second objection I imagine must be that family courts would prove too costly. I support Her Majesty's Government in seeking to be economic in public expenditure. But the present system is not economic overall. Public expenditure resembles a coat of many colours and many pockets. I submit that the Treasury looks only at each pocket separately instead of the coat overall. Family courts could prevent children from coming into public care. Children in public care are very costly, both economically and in terms of happiness. Family courts could assist separated parents to make wise decisions. From the point of view of the wellbeing of separated parents and the children of a marriage the cost in emotional terms is incalculable as it would be in fiscal terms.
Then there is the conciliation service, which solicitors up and down the country find of inestimable value, particularly at the point of the breakdown of the marriage. It is cause for concern that the Treasury through the Lord Chancellor's Department has not seen fit to help with the training of the National Family Conciliation Service. There is a need for interdisciplinary training of solicitors, judges and magistrates so that they rely less on their personal opinions, against, for instance, joint custody, and more on empirically based research.
My third point concerns the juvenile justice system. As chairman of a committee, New Approach to Juvenile Crime, we have looked at, visited and researched the juvenile justice system throughout the United Kingdom. Based on both personal experience and research, the committee, consisting of all those statutory and voluntary sectors dealing with juvenile delinquents, believes that the panel system now well developed in Scotland, with the reporters as clerks to the panels, offers the best service both to justice and to an effective method of dealing with juvenile delinquents and particularly of helping their families.
It would be inadvisable of me to touch in detail on the present situation which has arisen in Cleveland, and in any case the matter is sub judice. I say only this. Had we in England and Wales adopted the panel system with its reporter, there would not have been the need for the different legal actions to take place nor the welter of subjective emotions to be indulged in. The Cleveland affair provides a classic example of the legal gaps in our system—the place of safety order before the magistrates' court, the appeal to the High Court under wardship proceedings and finally the proper intervention of Lord Justice Watkins, the senior presiding judge in the High Court. In Scotland the reporter would objectively have dealt with the

205
submissions of the medical profession, of the social services department, of the police; and as I said earlier there would not have been the welter of subjective emotions. Most important of all, the children and families would have been dealt with in a manner more dignified and humane than has been the case.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will look again at the juvenile justice system in England and Wales. Will he say who is responsible for the juvenile justice system—the Home Office or the DHSS; or could it be that the Lord Chancellor's Department will include the juvenile justice system in the review it is carrying out at the moment and on which it will report in December? I am the only person to speak on these matters in this debate but I believe them to be vitally important to the carrying out of the message of the Queen's Speech. I hope that we will all look deeply at this matter although some of it is little known to many noble Lords. I ask my noble friend the Minister to answer the questions which I have asked.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should like to commence by offering my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on his transfer, promotion or whatever it may be to the Department of the Environment. I know that according to the Queen's Speech and the Government's intentions he will carry a heavy load over the next two Sessions. Though I and my colleagues on this side of the House will probably disagree with quite a lot of what he will be dealing with, we nevertheless have the utmost regard for him and for his integrity as a Minister at the Dispatch Box.
There are some myths being spread by the Government at present that are a continuation of myths that were spread during the general election campaign. During the few days of proceedings dealing with the gracious Speech various speakers have referred to the general election campaign. I do not wish to do so because it is history and water under the bridge, but if somebody presents a case that is factually and historically wrong it is the duty of people like me to put it right. I should like first to deal briefly with the Government's proposals for the privatisation of the water supply.
I remember a Conservative press conference at which the Prime Minister was a central figure. She was flanked on her left by Mr. Norman Tebbit, who was then the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and chairman of the Conservative Party. On this morning they were launching their privatisation proposals. Mr. Tebbit was asked why they were leaving out the Post Office. I may not be word for word correct in what I am saying because I am speaking off the top of my head, but the message was that the Post Office was not being privatised at this point in time because it had always been a public body and that the water authorities were being given back to the private sector where they belonged.
With your Lordships' permission I wish to quote briefly from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in seconding the motion for the humble Address. He said:
206
"Noble Lords will have noticed that the Government intend to continue their excellent record of returning nationalised industries to the private sector in the shape of the water and sewerage functions of the water authorities".—(0fficial Report, 25/6/87; col. 14.)
I do not have the exact percentages but the overwhelming majority of water authorities in this country before 1983 were publicly owned in one way or another by local authorities. I happened to be the leader of Manchester City Council when it provided water not only for itself but for 17 other local authorities from the Lake District to Manchester. It could be said of Manchester at the time that excluding Liverpool and Merseyside it was the water authority for the whole of the North-West of England.
That responsibility was removed from our ownership by the Conservative Government of Mr. Heath. The Secretary of State was Mr. Walker and the Minister given the responsibility for carrying out the exercise was Mr. Eldon Griffiths, who is still a Member of another place. Manchester had pioneered water supplies—and I do not claim credit for my own party because years and years ago it was first done by Conservative councillors and Conservative aldermen. When that exercise was carried out those holdings, which had been built up over the years and paid for by the citizens of Manchester, had a huge value. They were taken from them with the end result that when the water board was set up the authority which had created it all did not get a single place on it.
If the Government are saying that they are returning the water authorities to the private sector—and I should like the Minister to answer this point though I know he will have a hell of a job to answer everybody—they should get the historical facts right. Are the Government saying that if the local authority in Manchester, with which incidentally I have no connection, so desired it would be able to make a bid for the valuable holdings that were taken from it and which belong to the ratepayers of Manchester? Are the Government saying that? If they are not saying that, I think that the whole phraseology of returning water authorities to the private sector where they belong is either a grievous mistake and a mathematical error, with somebody providing a brief to the Government having got it wrong, or, if it is not an accident and is being done deliberately, it is as far from the truth as it is possible to be.
I have reason to believe that as much as 80 per cent. of water supplied in this country before the Water Act 1973 was in one way or another under the control of local authorities or joint boards of local authorities. The Government ought to come off this one of saying that they are giving it back to private people where it belonged. It never belonged there anyway.
As a Mancunian born and bred I resent the fact that so much misquotation is taking place. If it was done by accident I accept it, but if it is being done deliberately it is a sleight of hand that is unworthy of the Government, and they ought to come off it and put it right.
Secondly, I want to deal with a question that has been raised and about which the right reverend

207
Prelate the Bishop of Rochester spoke at great length earlier. It is regarding housing. The Minister will forgive me if I do not go into too much detail tonight because the time is not opportune, and no doubt we shall be able to debate later in more detail what is in the Queen's Speech when the Bills emerge.
I do not say in any spirit of sarcasm or cynicism that I welcome the fact that the Government are going to concentrate on the problems of the inner cities. Over the last two to two-and-a-half years your Lordships' Chamber has debated those and related problems more regularly than they have been debated in another place. I can recall the debate that took place about two years ago on the Duke of Edinburgh's report, which was so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. It was generally agreed then by Members from all corners of the House that there was a problem that unfortunately was not being recognised.
Then I jump a bit, because I want to come to February this year when we debated Faith in the City, the Archbishop of Canterbury's report. Unfortunately when it first appeared it was rubbished before it had been read, but when it had been read in detail it was accepted as a super work and a non-political analysis of what was going wrong. There was a long and exhaustive debate in your Lordships' Chamber, which I think was opened by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman.
Those reports were brought forward by people with no political axe to grind. They were not reports of the Labour Party, the Liberals or the SDP. They were reports of people who covered the whole of the political spectrum. At the end of the day they came to one conclusion, and that was that there would have to be a substantial input of public money to deal with the situation in the inner cities of today.
I wish the Government success in their endeavours. But if they think that by suddenly extending their philosophy of urban development corporations they will solve the problem, I have to tell them that that is nonsense. I have no time at all for obstructive councils that attempt to stop progress where it can be made, but if the Government in order to get their way attempt without proper negotiation to impose something on local authorities, it is doomed to disaster.
I think that the Prime Minister is serious in her intention that she wants to do something about the inner cities, but when we are talking about investment I refer to the fact that people have said that huge sums of money would be required. There has been mention of as much as £75 billion being required to deal with our housing stock across the board. Significantly enough the biggest deterioration in our housing stock has not been mentioned in the Queen's Speech. It is the owner-occupied sector. The deterioration in the owner-occupied sector is now coming on with all the aspects of a juggernaut. It is developing very rapidly and there is no mention of it. There is no mention in the Queen's Speech that since 1979 the number of homeless families has doubled and on a percentage basis is increasing each year.
I ought to finish shortly. I do not want to go on too long because we can debate these matters later. Most
208
of these problems can be found in the inner urban areas. One of the main facets that came through both in the Duke of Edinburgh's report and in Faith in the City was that there was now a terrible imbalance in the inner cities, a genetic imbalance, and nobody had a magic wand to alter it.
I can only speak about the city which I grew up in but which I no longer live in, Manchester. Manchester had three-quarters of a million people at the end of the war. The population is now less than half a million. I think Liverpool's figures are similar. They have exported a quarter of a million people; they have got out. What is left behind is a residue of a disproportionate amount of elderly people, ageing people and young people in diminishing numbers. If you take any major city or the inner areas of London, by coincidence (or perhaps not by coincidence) they have also the highest areas of unemployment on a long-term basis. Most of the inner cities developed around the Industrial Revolution, and their industries were what were earlier called smoke-stack industries, which have gone.
I shall be as ready as anybody, and so I think will my colleagues on this side of your Lordships' House, to help in legislation which is meaningful in dealing with the problems of our inner cities. Having come from there I have touched on what I see as the problems. Those younger people who could, got out. They may have moved only three miles away. I live above the city of Leeds and can see down into it, and there is squalor in parts of Leeds that is as bad as anywhere. But the people who have had the opportunity have moved out.
I hope that the Minister will take note, and I am sure that he will, that there is a substantial number of elderly people and young people trapped in those cities. I know that they talk about the £500 million they are putting in now, but that is peanuts. They have taken £6,000 million away from the major cities in rate support grant cuts.
I am delighted to read now, and see on the television, that the right honourable Michael Heseltine has a conscience about the inner cities and is leading the fight on their behalf in his own party. I can go back to when I was in another place and he was the very Minister who started butchering housing assistance and rate support grant, which helped to bring about part of the situation that we have today.
The Government have proposals for local determination on council estates. My experience leads me to believe that where some of the major cities have had to build substantial and good quality estates outside their borders—I think Manchester built 30,000 outside its borders in nice areas—there is a possibility that tenant involvement in running those estates could take place. But if somebody can tell me, referring to the centre of Manchester, that 60 per cent. of the people occupying council property who are either totally on social security or largely on it in order to live will want to be involved in becoming their own landlords, they are talking absolute nonsense unless the Government are prepared to say, "Of course you can do all those things and we will foot the bill".

209
There is also another proposal by the Government that they are now going to stop local authorities even providing support for their housing revenue account from their rate-funded contributions. Manchester happens to be one of the local authorities which has done that persistently over the years to keep rents at a reasonable level. I have to say that if the Government are going to dabble in that type of thing and destroy local determination, we may as well forget about local government altogether unless the Government are also prepared to pick up the tab for some of the decisions they appear to be going to railroad through another place and through your Lordships' House in the fullness of time.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dean, as on so many occasions, has jolly nearly spoilt what I had decided was to be my opening sentence. The opening sentence that I decided was appropriate was that the election had had a very cleansing effect, if today's debate is anything to go on. In previous Parliaments, the debate on the gracious Speech has invariably been a replay of what had been said in the other place, and we have had all over again the partisanship and all that goes with it. That has not happened today.
Today we have had contributions where people have chosen some part or other of the gracious Speech in order to emphasise the particular points they had in mind. As regards the objectivity which should always come from debates in your Lordships' House, we could not have had a better example than the one from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who gave us a witty and wide-ranging contribution to the debate.
My contribution, for what it is worth, was not intended to deal with any particular part of the gracious Speech. I intended to make a comment upon the role of your Lordships' House in implementing the various parts of the gracious Speech when it is being transferred into legislation and eventually into statutes. Our approach should be different from that of the other place. What has been done today is right. We have no constituents to keep sweet. We are not involved to the same extent in having to justify the manifesto or to maintain a personal address in a constituency. We can recognise that in a way we are the junior partners in getting points that have been agreed onto the statute book.
The senior partners—the ones who must be treated with respect and full attention—are the Members of the other place. They have to face the people of this country and justify what they have done. Before they actually do it they announce what they have in mind in the form of a gracious Speech such as this. So we, not having to face the electorate and justify anything that Parliament has done, consequently ought to recognise just how far our role should go: to revise, to improve where we can, but not to set ourselves up in competition with the other place, with all the special powers given to it under our parliamentary system.
210
The need for objectivity, I think, can best be exemplified by one phrase in the gracious Speech when it referred to the intention to remove the domestic rate system and replace it with the community contribution. I believe that our objectivity ought to be brought to bear to its fullest when we are dealing with that and I think we ought to remember the history of it. Why is it in the gracious Speech? I believe that our role is to remind people how we have got to the point of needing to discuss this particular matter. It is because we know, whatever part of the House we sit in, that the existing rating system is unfair to the point of being dangerous to the continuation of ordered local government.
Therefore we ought not to be critical of it at this stage until we have seen the Bill itself. To try to rubbish it before we have seen the contents of the Bill is not in keeping with the sense of responsibility which ought to flow from this House. Until we see the Bill I believe that our job is to try to remind people how history has led up to the point of this matter being included in the gracious Speech.
At this stage I think we would be justified in wanting to compliment the Government on having the courage to deal with something which every party when in government over many years has said needed alteration. They have had the courage to face the problem which governments have detested and have wanted to improve but have not done anything about. If what this Government intend to do about it proves not to be satisfactory to the other place, they have all the power to deal with it if they feel that the undertaking given in the manifesto and in the gracious Speech itself proves to be unsound. I have no doubt that in the other place the Opposition will damn it hook, line and sinker—and to some extent they would be doing their duty in doing so after having seen the contents of the Bill, because it is only by giving forceful and complete opposition that one is able to get to the guts of the matter and bring about any amendments that are required.
But that is not our job in this House. Our job, when it has gone through the electoral test of the election itself and when it has gone through the test of the examination by the other place, with all the responsibilities carried by its Members in having to deal with any problems that flow from it, is not to go beyond that and attempt to kill the Bill in this House.
It is at that point that I find myself in something of a difficulty because I am in such complete opposition as regards the advice that my noble friend Lord Alport gave. I now find that he is in the pre-eminent position of occupying the Woolsack and I do not know how one can keep within the rules and defy the Woolsack. Nevertheless, on this occasion I think I shall attempt to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, had already formed a view about this matter—and it is one of several Bills that he mentioned—without having seen the Bill because it has not yet been prepared. He suggested to the House that because of our separateness and independence it might be our duty not to allow the Bill to go through. He argued that we have to preserve local government, and that is right. We all want to preserve what is best in local

211
government. However, we must not ignore the weaknesses which have developed in that same system.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, and I entered Parliament at about the same time and our general background is not dissimilar in terms of the positions we held in the party and in government in those days. I have the greatest admiration for his ability and his integrity. Therefore, I sometimes wonder why he comes to conclusions that are so opposed to my own on matters such as this. I trace it to the time when he became High Commssioner in Rhodesia and took on all the importance that goes with such high state at the top of a bureaucracy whereas I had to stay at home in my own town running my little business, employing people, sitting on the local council and keeping an eye on events in that sphere. It may well be that it was those different experiences which helped to form our opinions and which led us to draw such different conclusions. Like the noble Lord, I also admire local government. I recognise its antiquity and the great part that it can play.
However, I also recognise that in terms of objectivity and looking after the interests of local areas, even in my lifetime it has deteriorated. I have seen how local authorities which really were local have been merged into bigger units and are now on the perimeter. They do not have the same local approach. I have seen in the big conurbations how caucuses have been formed in which decisions are taken outside the council chamber and the decisions that have been taken have had almost nothing to do with the problems of the local area and have been taken out of loyalty to what is thought to be the bigger role of their party. I have seen too many instances of such authorities reaching the point of appearing to want to set themselves up as a parliament in themselves.
The noble Lord says that we ought not to let that interfere with our views on such measures as the community charge because such authorities are only few. It is only Liverpool, but Liverpool covers a big area and serves millions of people. One cannot say, "It is only part of London" because London is very extensive and has an authority and standing that is hardly equalled by any other body in the world. There are very few criminals, but those few criminals mean that we must have a police force to deal with their actions.
I do not believe that we should ignore the changing role and approach that has come from local authorities. We have to look at the way in which they obtain finance and do it in a way that will impose some sort of control to ensure that they keep within the bounds of what in the past we have all experienced as good government.
Indeed, the only advice that I would give to my noble friend about the community charge is that we may be making a mistake if we are not careful. When we brought in the re-organisation of local government in 1972 we did not also re-organise their finances and the way in which they obtain their income at the same time. That is why the re-organisation in the past did not work very
212
satisfactorily. If we deal with the financing of local authorities without also facing up to their structure we may be putting the situation out of balance and it will not work.
However, the real point of my contribution to this debate is not to attempt to praise or criticise any of the individual items which make up the gracious Speech. We do not yet know what they are. Until we see the Bills we do not know what we are criticising and what we ought to be amending. I hope that your Lordships' House will not feel that on some of these issues we should attempt to override what the electorate have shown by their vote to be the will of the country. The Bill will not reach us until it has had the approval of the House of Commons with all its authority and power and in consideration of the risks that are taken when adding to the legislation of this country. It is in the hope that we shall be able to do that, which runs a little contrary to the advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, that we shall approach the next stage of the gracious Speech.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron: My Lords, great attention has rightly been focused since the general election, and in the Government's legislative programme, on the serious problems of our inner cities. There is one aspect of those inner city problems on which I should like to concentrate and that is crime. I shall try briefly to look at some of the problems we face and also perhaps to suggest some ideas for the fight against crime.
Almost everyone—and no one more than the hard-pressed police—can see that we are in the grip of a serious and apparently growing crime wave, the major part of this centred on our inner cities. Almost every type of crime seems to be on the increase, particularly the worst categories involving personal violence, mugging, burglary, rape and armed robbery. You name it, it appears to be on the increase, while the police clean-up rates appear often conversely to be tumbling. Indeed, it is difficult to open your newspaper in the morning without being confronted by some new ever-more ghastly tale of violence committed by one, or often by more than one, Briton against another and, what is worse, increasingly against old people. It is sometimes said that you can take the temperature of a society's moral health by observing how its old people are treated. If that test were applied to some of the ghastly atrocities committed daily with increasing frequency and perversity in this country against old people, I think that Britain today would be diagnosed as being pretty sick. The question that I should like to ask is: what do the Government propose to do about it?
I must say at this point that I personally find it utterly breathtaking that during the election the Labour Party was almost able to hijack the law and order issue and to present itself successfully as the party doing most to uphold the police and the rule of law. I say "breathtaking" because the idea that the Labour Party and its would-have-been Home Secretary in particular—the party that has in its ranks as a Member of the other place someone who crowed over the death of a police constable at the hands of a mob and the party containing some who

213
condone, or at least do not condemn, mass violence on the picket line—can have presented itself almost with success as the party of law and order in preference to this Government is something that I find quite amazing and rather disturbing. The only conclusion to be drawn, in my opinion, is just how much this Government have to do in this area.
Having delivered that party political broadside, may I also pay tribute to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Rather like my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I agreed with almost everything he said, and he raised questions which I hope the Government will take some time in trying to answer.
Of course, to preside over a country that is as economically successful as Britain is certainly becoming is a matter for pride, and the Government and the Prime Minister have, quite rightly, been given full credit by the electorate for putting Britain on a path to sounder and wider prosperity. But if that society is also crime-ridden and, in addition, famed for the anti-social behaviour of too many of its young citizens in particular, that pride must be severely tempered.
Who is not appalled that young Britons could have been responsible for the carnage at the Heysel stadium, or indeed is not appalled whenever similar mob violence takes place in and around English football grounds every Saturday during the winter and now even sometimes also in European summer resorts in the summer? I am sad to say that the British hooligan is infamous throughout Europe.
Presuming that the Government find this behaviour as unacceptable and shaming as I believe the rest of the country does, I hope they will devote a significant part of their formidable energy and talent away from the purely economic scene to this national blight. I should like presumptuously to suggest a few thoughts that the Government might like to consider in this area. First, I am certain that improved education could in the medium term perhaps be the single most important force for good in that area. Therefore, I strongly applaud the brave and radical direction in the area of education that the Government have outlined in their legislative programme for the attainment of standards and excellence in our schools. A better educated country is in my view likely to be a less criminal one.
At the same time may I support what was said several hours ago by my noble friend Lord Eccles when he made a plea that this ambitious programme of education should be adequately funded. In my view an extra £1 spent today on education may save £5 tomorrow on the prison service.
Secondly, I was recently discussing our crime wave and the reasons for it with an American. He thought that there appeared to be a lack of any moral framework in Britain in 1987. I am sorry to say that I think he was right. So, as part of the new direction in education, I should like to see the Government trying to reinstil in our young people in particular that lost moral framework.
It must be accepted that this country is now, like it or dislike it, almost a-religious and, in my opinion, it shows. Of course there are serious difficulties in force-feeding religion; so if it cannot be force fed, I hope
214
that the Government will try to instil some ordinary moral values instead.
Thirdly, I should like to see the Government pay more attention to the effects of violence on television. The Guardian newspaper and those progressives in Shepherds Bush will no doubt immediately and vociferously cry "fascism", "censorship" or, most likely, a combination of both words. That is, of course, rubbish. The notion of limits on what is acceptable on television has already been accepted in principle. To redefine those limits is hardly revolutionary or draconian. If television violence is art, then, in my view, life has been imitating art to far too great an extent recently. I urge the Government to look seriously at that area and if they will not legislate themselves, then at least to support any private legislation on the subject.
Fourthly, I also want to see our people's faith restored in the judiciary. The light is getting low and I may not be able to read what I am trying to say. Our people's faith in the judiciary has recently been severely shaken by some apparently perverse examples of sentencing in criminal cases, even allowing for the notoriously incomplete and sensationalistic reports of those cases in the press. If the Government wish to restore the public's faith in the criminal justice system, may I strongly ask them to give the prosecution the right of appeal against sentence rather than the rather half-baked measure that was included in the legislation that was lost before the election.
When confidence in the judiciary no longer exists the rule of law becomes discredited and you get people like Mr. Goetz in New York who take the law into their own hands. I am sure that that is not what the Government wish. Having said that, I was gratified to hear my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Caithness, making positive noises in that direction earlier this afternoon and I hope that the Government have the courage to carry through any legislation to give the prosecution the right of appeal against sentences that they see as inadequate or too lenient. That is absolutely crucial in order to give the public back the confidence that has been lost to some great extent recently.
Fifthly, I should like to see the police properly funded. They may be adequately paid now but that is not the same as saying that they are adequately funded. In many areas, particularly inner city areas, they are thoroughly undermanned. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act has created a vast amount of new work for the police to do. There is now, purely as a result of that legislation, a need for a significant increase in the establishment of police forces, particularly in inner city areas.
I was again glad to hear from the Front Bench earlier this afternoon that something will be done in that area and that more police officers will be put in uniform and used in a back-up capacity. In some inner city areas, the protection offered to the public by the police is sometimes more illusory than real and the blue line is becoming extremely thin.
Sixthly, I should like to see the Government get young people off the streets, particularly in inner city areas. Even if it is too facile to say that unemployment creates crime, it is common sense that

215
the devil finds work for idle hands. Where the various training schemes of the Government or the job market continue to leave gaps, I hope that the Government will give serious thought to what might usefully fill those gaps. I am thinking perhaps of an expansion of the community programme on socially useful projects.
Before my concluding remarks, I should like to make two ancillary points. I have mentioned young people often. I make absolutely no apology for that. It is a sad fact that young people are responsible for an increasingly large number of crimes committed in Britain today. Only two weeks ago I read in an article in the Standard that a Superintendent Farbrother of Scotland Yard had said that it was now almost routine in many cases for young people in London to carry knives and that it was done not necessarily for aggressive purposes but sometimes purely for reasons of self-defence. That is an extremely worrying matter.
Broken homes may often be the reason for such juvenile crime and I am conscious that in speaking this evening I have not touched on the large area of social reasons that can go to make up juvenile criminals. However, I should say at the same time that the thought that a mugger or attacker comes from a broken home is very little consolation to his victim. I therefore hope that the Government will pay particular attention to attempting to diminish juvenile crime.
216
The second ancillary point I wish to make is that there are certain facts relating to the breakdown of crimes by racial background which the laws of this country prevent people articulating, at least outside this privileged Chamber. In that regard, I note that a college lecturer in south London was officially reprimanded a week ago for daring precisely to speak such facts. Let me content myself by saying this. If our citizens are gagged and prevented from speaking of the facts, then it is particularly incumbent on the Government either properly to protect the law-abiding citizen or to remedy the problem in other ways. To conceal the facts or to prevent such facts being revealed by force of law otherwise only aggravates rather than diminishes racial disharmony.
In conclusion, may I say to the Government that we must not have economic success in a moral desert where crime stalks the streets and our citizens live in fear. The Government have shown that they can use their considerable energies and talents to foster economic growth and success. Let them now be seen to devote the same energy to the fight against crime. We all know that there are no easy solutions; otherwise, they would have been thought of long ago and I would not be wasting your Lordships' time now. However, I do hope that the Government will apply sufficient time, effort and, if necessary, money to deal the crime wave the body blow for which our people are crying out.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, it is pleasant to begin in a non-partisan fashion, not, I hasten to assure your Lordships, by agreeing with the noble Lord who has just sat down, with almost every word of whose speech I found myself in disagreement, but by agreeing with every word of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. The noble Baroness and I have been on the same side in matters relating to family courts before. If there is one work that we could achieve in a bipartisan way in the course of this Parliament it would be finally to achieve the family court for which she was pleading and to remedy the inadequacies of the judicial system in family matters which has been so clearly shown up by the events of the present.
Having said that, I shall immediately continue to be partisan and controversial, because the Government's reference in the gracious Speech to the special regard which they intend to have to the needs of the inner cities was a reference which made me more than a little angry. For eight years the Government have pursued policies which have had directly and sharply an adverse effect on the quality of life of the inner cities. Unemployment has soared, housing has been neglected, the number of homeless people has doubled, health services are under stress. All of these effects have been felt most sharply in the inner cities. The Government now tell us that they have a special regard for the needs of the people in the inner cities.
The Government have made a sustained attack against local authorities, which are in the front line of facing, and trying to pay for, the needs of the people of the inner cities. They have penalised them with reductions in the rate support grant and they have imposed borrowing and other restrictions. Now these local authorities are asked to accept that the Government will have special regard for their people's needs. My deep fear is that through imposing their particular brand of solution to the problems of inner cities, through refusing to listen to and to work with the local representatives who are close to those problems, the Government's special regard for the problems of the inner cities will exacerbate them rather than alleviate them.
I came to know of the problems of the inner cities more closely when I was chairman of the Broadwater Farm Inquiry, which was set up by the London Borough of Haringey in the aftermath of what were probably the worst riots that have been seen on the British mainland this century. Riots, with all their destructiveness of life and property, are indicators wherever they occur and in whatever country that people can see no other avenues for change or protest. Ours was not an official inquiry—I wish it had been—but it was a very professional one. Its conclusions were supported by an extensive and detailed public opinion survey, a social survey. Its conclusions, which are worth reading, are similar to those drawn by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in the Brixton inquiry. But, the immediate causes of the terrible disturbances of October 1985 lay in the experience of many, many people of insensitive and often disgraceful policing. I say nothing of that in this speech, because there are signs
218
in Tottenham and Broadwater Farm that people are coming together both from the police and the community and I hope that that continues.
Underlying those causes was a terrible waste of young people's energy, summed up in the statistic which we discovered that 83 per cent. of the young black men on the Broadwater Farm Estate were unemployed. In our inquiry we also found many positive and inspiring features. The first was the extraordinary determination of the people of the estate led by a remarkable woman, Miss Dolly Kiffin, to build facilities for all the people of that area, both young and old, black and white. There was no immorality among the young people who were engaged in those endeavours. They had set up a meal service, a mothers' centre, a youth centre and a people's festival. Most recently they are working through the labour of young people on a memorial garden on the Broadwater Farm Estate. It is to be in memory of Police Constable Keith Blakelock and of Mrs. Cynthia Jarrett and is to be opened later this year as a magnificent gesture of the coming together in the aftermath of the riots. The reward that Mrs. Kiffin has had for years of selfless effort has been to be the subject of a fraud inquiry which I believe to be spurious and which I am sure will come to nothing. It was set off by a malicious press report.
Secondly, we found that the enlightened policies of the local authority responded to the demands of the people in the area for change. Our report made a number of criticisms of the authority, but we found ourselves compelled to praise its actions in setting up a neighbourhood office which tried to address the problems raised by local people on the ground.
I give two examples of how local initiatives by the London Borough of Haringey have achieved some of the very aims which appear in the gracious Speech. First, in the field of crime prevention, in the early 1980s through co-operation among local authority, local residents and the police a programme of crime prevention was initiated. The doors of all flats on the estate were strengthened so they would be less easy to break down. Entry phone systems were placed in the blocks so people could not lurk along the corridors. As a result there was a 50 per cent. reduction in crime on the estate. This was all paid for by the supposedly profligate council which is now berated by the Government as a high-spending authority. It is an example which I hope the Government in their crime prevention measures will look at, follow and fund.
Secondly, in the field of economic development the situation is that the private market will not assist local entrepreneurs. The private market shuns the inner cities. It red circles them as areas where credit terms and insurance premiums will be high. What development there has been in the creation of jobs has been conducted through loans and grants from that same local authority. It is far too little. The powers of local authorities are very limited and the funds available to them are small. However, the example which they set in encouraging co-operatives ought to be followed if jobs are to be brought into this kind of estate.
We commissioned an inquiry from a business consultancy. It indicated the enormous scope for

219
local businesses serving local needs and using local skills if the resources were there to finance them. If the Government have schemes for providing or underwriting private finance capital for business ventures in the inner cities they will be welcomed by the people on estates such as Broadwater Farm.
There is no doctrinaire attitude to the creation of jobs. They will be welcomed provided that they generate local employment and are run in consultation with local people and local government. It is here that I become fearful—fearful that the Government will impose solutions which are suited to their ideology willy-nilly in defiance of local opinion. There is one example already in the local government Bill, part of whose provisions are to prevent local authorities from inserting conditions in local government contracts which are not strictly commercial. That is the last thing the people of the inner cities want. They want local contractors to be required to employ local labour both in order to provide jobs and in order that local people should take pride in building within their own communities.
Therefore we need a unified programme for the inner cities and it must require a revamping of those clauses of the Bill. A second example is that referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in opening this debate when he spoke about urban development corporations as a vital component of policy. I can think of nothing more provocative of anger in the inner cities than a London Docklands Development Corporation-type solution with no local accountability imposed upon local authorities. The LDDC is resented enough by the ordinary people of Newham and Tower Hamlets, who are not able to buy the houses which it has built or to take up the jobs which have been created.
The third example is the ominous pledge in the gracious Speech to reform housing legislation. The inner cities have problems enough, but one of the problems they have not had since the Rent Acts of the 1964 and 1974 Labour Governments is the problem of Rachmanism. Any decontrol of rents and housing security will sharply increase the plight of the poorest in our inner cities.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whose appointment I applaud, is a man for whom I have great respect. I urge him during his ministerial term to work with and not against local democratic authorities of every political colour. They know. They care. They are respected by their people. Further attempts to undermine them will cause incalculable alienation, the consequences of which could be literally devastating.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise conscious that this is the speech for which the whole House has been waiting. It is the speech which precedes the wind-ups. I am conscious that I stand between the House and release from a long, important and I believe fascinating debate. I wish to begin as many on both sides have done by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on resuming his responsibilities and to the noble Lord, Lord
220
Belstead, who comes to this debate with a great reputation. We are all certain that he will enhance it while he occupies his place.
I also want, as a number of Members have, to refer briefly to the fact that we are debating a Queen's Speech immediately following a general election. Although for my colleagues and I the result was sad, we nevertheless recognise that it was a democratic decision. The people have made their judgment and this country, for good or ill, will be governed by the Conservative Party for the next period. That does not of course stop Members, who not only opposed the Government's election but oppose many of their policies, from taking opportunities, as we have today, to point out the enormous damage that we consider will be done to the people of this country if some of the measures contained in the Queen's Speech are concluded.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon in a sober, sombre speech, which was in my view spot on, highlighted the missing ingredient in the Government's programme—compassion and care for the people who need compassion and care more than many other groups in our society. Many people, and perhaps all in this House, are capable of standing on their own two feet and of looking after not only themselves but others. But those of us who have been Members of Parliament, especially those who have long experience of local government on this side of the House as leaders and chairmen of committees, do not need to be told about the damage that will be done to many people. They may be deprived, disadvantaged, disabled and often feckless and they need assistance and support.
The Government have given notice that they intend to introduce a poll tax, a uniform business rate, to force local authorities to privatise services and to by-pass elected councils in the key areas of education and housing. All that combines to diminish the role of local authorities and to undermine the concept of democratic accountability.
My noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal said that that was one of the true aims of privatisation. It is nothing of the sort. The true aim of privatisation is to take money out of the public pocket and to put it into private pockets. The Government have never sought to hide that fact although they have maintained the facade that their purpose in doing these things is to democratise and to make more efficient. We on this side of the House will take the opportunity during the debates to oppose such measures.
Ministers have talked about the resources that are now to be made available to the inner cities. In the year just ended, the Government spent £25 million less on urban aid than in 1980. So much for the crocodile tears about what they have discovered is wrong with the inner cities and what needs to be done.
I go on to the measures proposed to revitalise the inner cities. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, made a telling point. The inner cities and large areas of London—I live in Edmonton and I know Haringey well, as well as anyone who does not live there—will not take kindly to government measures to do good

221
to them without an input from the people who live and work there and, of more importance, the people who will be affected.
Several of my noble friends have asked about the reference to 100,000 homes. The Government talk in terms of measures to revitalise housing. What about the agony that must persist in 100,000 families? I shall not say homes, because they do not have homes. I believe that Conservative Members fail to understand the depth of human despair that there is in 100,000 families tonight. These families need sustenance and support, but they see none in the Queen's Speech.
The Government are full of giving people choices and opportunities to opt out of situations in which they find themselves. They will give tenants the right to opt out of council housing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, must know as the chief officer of a council, that will increase the management and maintenance costs and it will be a recipe for confusion between landlords. The Government talk about new housing action trusts, which will deny tenants even the right to choose their landlords. Their homes will be taken over with a view to selling many into home ownerships. This will reduce the rented stock still further. The plan to scrap fair rents for housing association tenants is bound to lead to an increase in housing benefit costs. So it goes on.
I do not know what mandate the Government feel they have to dismantle and destroy the fabric and basis of local government as we have known it not just for 10 years but for 100 years. That is what they are leading to.
As to the poll tax, all four associations—the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Authorities, the Association of County Councils and the Association of London Authorities—oppose the concept of such a tax. They can see clearly that it is unfair in principle and unworkable in practice and gives central government so much control over local services and spending that local accountability will become meaningless. Having served on a local authority for many years and having proudly led one in London in the 1960s, I often wonder what local government Conservative councillors in Enfield see as their role, apart from being place men and women and yes men and women for the man in Whitehall for whom, when I knew them, they all had derision. They are being told by central government what they can do and what they cannot do. A poll tax would cost twice as much to collect as any other tax.
The Queen's Speech then says:
"A Bill will be introduced to improve the working of criminal justice."
Reference has been made to prisons and magistrates' courts. The noble Baroness, Lady David, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and I had the privilege of visiting Brixton Prison. I attended as part of the all-party penal affairs group. We all got out alive and enjoyed the experience of having been there. The Government talk in terms of building programmes and having the situation under control. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is a regular visitor to many prisons.
222
He must come away as despairing as I did yesterday at the problems he has to face. At Brixton there are 670 prison officers in post. The Home Office Prison Department says that there ought to be 1,022. There are 300 prison officers who ought to be available for duty but who are not available. Is that not a difficulty under which to work? There are twice as many prisoners in Brixton as is laid down for the normal accommodation. There are therefore twice as many prisoners and half as many prison officers. In Brixton at the moment they are holding more than 200 sentenced prisoners who ought to be taken to places like Wandsworth and Chelmsford but who are unable to be accepted by those prisons because they are full.
I know that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is not here but my speech will be reported to him. I do not berate him for not being able to solve the problem but he ought to recognise that the problem will not go away and needs to be tackled with a great deal more vigour.
In a casual aside the governor said to us yesterday, "We are now trebling up." I asked, "What does trebling up mean?" It means that a cell built 100 years ago to accommodate one man has been accommodating two men and is now accommodating three men. Let the House contemplate the living conditions of not only the prisoners, but also the prison officers and governors who are just as much prisoners of the prison environment as anyone else.
We also raised the question of the service to magistrates' courts. Magistrates' courts rely upon the delivery to their courts of prisoners every day. Yet we found that despite the best intentions magistrates' courts are unable to get on with their work at 10 o'clock because the prison vans which deliver the prisoners do not arrive in time. At Highgate, one of the courts of which I am aware, the vans do not arrive until 11 o'clock. When we are talking about improving the criminal justice, perhaps the Minister will ensure that we have not only the grand design and scale in mind but also the nitty-gritty matters. The magistrates' courts are an essential and valuable ingredient in the chain.
In this House Ministers have goodwill but they will need far more than goodwill. They will need vision, compassion and a caring attitude to all of our people. I can see precious little of that in the Queen's Speech.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, everyone will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—to whom welcome has been given by a number of speakers and which I echo—will have an immense task in replying to the numerous points raised in the speeches in this very long debate. He will be involved in a large number of the 17 Bills which we understand will be arising as a result of the gracious Speech. Although we welcome him to his new position and know that he will do his best to steer the legislation through, we can guarantee that the Bills dealing with local government will be fiercely fought on this side of the House.
There have been 33 speeches. Some very impressive points have been made in many of them. I know that

223
it is always invidious to mention particular speeches but at this stage I should like to refer to the speech by my noble friend Lord Mishcon, to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred. His was a very impressive speech. He posed some vital questions—to which I hope the Minister will be able to reply—on the Government's attitude, endeavouring to find out the reasons for our position on law and order, and what the Government propose to do about it. Other noble Lords reflected similar questions.
The other speech to which I should refer is that of my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna. In speaking of the situation in Scotland he explained in very simple language—something which has not been done in this House for some time—how the Labour Party in Scotland has not only put forward but carried through the practical policies based on socialist idealism and socialist faith. I hope that will be repeated more and more in this Chamber as the months go on.
Before referring to particular aspects of intended legislation relating to local government, I was pleased that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was the first to raise the question of the proposed privatisation of the water and sewerage functions. That was followed up by my noble friends Lady Nicol and Lord Dean. I hope the Minister will take note of what my noble friend Lord Dean said about this theory of returning water to the private sector. He referred to Manchester. Some of us know other areas where vast schemes were undertaken. I know of that in Birmingham and the massive development in the Elan Valley. I do not think that the Welsh were altogether happy in the way their water was taken.
Some of us also recall the way in which the Metropolitan Water Board was able to collect together a massive number of local authorities throughout the vast London and Home Counties area. It functioned efficiently. I have tried to think of a word to describe the Government's policy to privatise the water and sewerage functions. Frankly, I can only describe the policy of transferring services such as sewerage and water supply to the private sector as obscene. To place those two services in commercial hands to be dealt with by market forces can only be described' as obscene. It is a shocking example of Tory Party dogma, insisting on carrying through privatisation whatever the service may be.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was the only person to refer to merchant shipping. In view of my transport responsibilities I was pleased that he did so. The gracious Speech states:
"Measures will be introduced to assist the merchant shipping industry".
At the outset of his speech the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, suggested what was meant by those few words. Frankly, they did not seem to me to tackle the serious problem of the drastic decline in Britain's merchant fleet and also the tragic growth of flagging-out of British ships. We shall wait to hear more of what the Government propose for merchant shipping.
The gracious Speech clearly shows how the Government thoroughly mistrust local government.
224
If I may say so, that was echoed well and strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. No wonder the Labour Party in its general election manifesto said the following:
"The Tory Government has undermined local democracy and plans to continue to diminish the importance of votes in local elections".
That was said before we knew what the promised legislation was to be as outlined in the gracious Speech. It must not be forgotten that there is no word of any intention by the Government to reverse their repeated cuts in central government contributions to local government. The House should be reminded that, whereas in England in 1979–80 central government contribution was 61 per cent., by 1986–87 it was right down to 46 per cent. Some people wonder why there are financial problems in certain local councils. No fewer than £17 billion has been lost to local councils over this period from 1979 to 1986–87.
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, whom we welcome as the new Minister of State at the Scottish Office, asked whether any credible alternative is advanced. I hope noble Lords will recall that the Opposition sought to amend the Motion for the Second Reading of one of the many rates Bills—there have been so many that quite frankly I cannot recall exactly which year it was; it was not so long ago—and to ask for a thorough review of local government finance. That was rejected out of hand by the Government. Another opportunity to look at possible improvements to our local government finance system was missed as recently as 5th November last year.
The leaders of the four local authority associations, representing the county councils, the district councils, the metropolitan authorities and the Scottish authorities, wrote jointly to the Prime Minister suggesting talks with a view to agreeing on a system of local government finance that,
"you and we can live with".
That was tossed aside and instead the Government decided to proceed with the abolition of rates and with the proposal for the community charge.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that we do not know what is in the Bill. We have been assured that the Bill will follow generally the lines of the Scottish Bill. Clearly little thought was given to the details when that Bill was introduced. I say with respect to all noble Lords that I hope they will read all the speeches made during all the stages of the Scottish rates Bill, the provisions of which will take effect in April 1989. During the Second Reading debate on the Bill I referred to the devastating speech of my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock. That speech should be read, and if it is read noble Lords will realise that what we said would be coming to England and Wales is true.
As my noble friend Lord Graham remarked, this Bill is condemned by all the four local authority associations. The Scottish Bill was condemned not only by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities but by the three English associations—the district councils, the county councils and the metropolitan

225
authorities—all of which said that it was an example of what would come to England and that that ought to be faced. Throughout the debate on the Scottish Bill Ministers resisted calling it a poll tax. I was surprised—although not totally surprised—when listening at home to a report of one of the very first general election press conferences of the Conservative Party to hear the Prime Minister call it a poll tax. Henceforth it will be a poll tax as far as we are concerned when we are dealing with this measure.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that we must consider how this proposal for a poll tax—a community charge—came into being. In 1983 the Conservative Government issued two White Papers. One was issued by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the other jointly by the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for the Environment. I have the White Papers before me. They give the history of how it came about. Paragraph 2.9 states in relation to a poll tax that,
"its costs would be very high in relation to the yield. The Government agree with the Environment Committee that this option should be rejected".
Paragraph 2.15 states:
"The Government recognise that rates are far from being an ideal or popular tax. But they do have advantages. They are highly perceptible to ratepayers and they promote accountability. They are well understood, cheap to collect and very difficult to evade. They act as an incentive to the most efficient use of property. No property tax can be directly related to the ability to pay; but rate rebates, now incorporated in housing benefit, together with Supplementary Benefit, have been designed to reduce hardship".
Then it goes on:
"The Government have concluded and announced in Parliament that rates should remain for the foreseeable future the main source of local revenue for local government".
That was a Conservative Government White Paper of 1983, and yet we had the Scottish Bill, and now, before we have even seen the effect of the Scottish Act, because it does not start until 1989, we have this proposal for England and Wales.
Leaving out all other points, there is unfairness. As was mentioned in the debate on the Scottish Bill, a single laird in his castle with vast estates will pay one community charge. A poor family—father, mother, and two sons or daughters over 18—living in a Glasgow tenement flat will pay four times that figure. I listened to a conversation that Sir George Young had on the radio and he gave a different example. He referred to a wealthy man in a penthouse flat in London who would pay one community charge, but a family of four adults living in a semi-basement flat would pay four times the amount paid by that person living in the wealthy penthouse flat. Figures issued by the DoE show that there will be far more losers than gainers under the community charge. This unfairness is apart from the problems of collection, enforcement, the need to get a new register, and the possible effect on the electoral role.
I should like to pass on and refer to the proposals for education. I must say frankly that I recognise the contrast in what I thought was the impressive and enlightened speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and the speech dealing with liberation—
226
heaven knows why—made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. They were two completely different philosophies as to how we should develop education.
The proposals for schools to be able to opt out of the LEAs obviously are not thought out. It is clear that answers are given as problems arise, the same as we have seen with other government legislation. We saw this vividly on the abolition Bill: as problems arose the Government thought out the answers. From the outset there was confusion between the Prime Minister and Mr. Tebbit even at the press conference as to whether there would be a system of selection and payment of fees. Now we are told that there can be payment for certain extras. My noble friend Lord Stewart dealt with this effectively in his notable speech.
There is to be payment for extras. I do not know what this means. I can recall that when I was a little boy at school we had to purchase French dictionaries. My parents could not afford the big French dictionary and I had to have a little one, which was about a quarter the cost. The effect on you when you go running to school with your friend is notable. You have payment for transport for a certain outing. You feel it when you cannot pay. I was a pretty good athlete at school. My parents could not afford to buy running shoes. I had to have shoes which were granted by the school because I needed spiked shoes in order to do the job properly. Even this question of payment has its problems.
So far as I know there has been no consultation with local government on these proposals for education. Even the Association of Head Teachers, 26,000 strong, have said that the proposal for opting out is unacceptable. I believe they had no desire, apart from the principle, to become managers in their schools. We are told that a majority of one will be sufficient for a decision to opt out. What will be the position of others who have no desire to opt out? Where will they go and what will be their position? Also, what will be the opportunity, once a decision is taken, to revert back if people are dissatisfied with how the opting-out proceeds? Will the Government make provision for a further revision to be asked for by parents or governors? I should like to know that from the Minister.
We are told that it will be up to a particular school to determine the admissions policy. That means there may have to be selection instead of the LEAs, as at present, being in control of admissions. I note from a report that on the 22nd May the Prime Minister said,
"There is nothing wrong with selection according to aptitude and ability."
I should like the Minister to tell me precisely what that means—unless it is a return to some method of selection. Inevitably this policy must lead to a diversion of resources from less popular schools to the more popular. What is to happen to the less popular schools?
What will be the position in ILEA if some of the wealthier boroughs opt out of ILEA, bearing in mind that ILEA is already in the position of being rate-capped and of not having received any grant for the past seven years? If a substantial number of schools

227
should opt out throughout the country, what will be the bureaucratic administration that will have to be set up by the department?
There is also a proposal that the polytechnics and some colleges of higher education will also be removed from the LEAs. The whole package of these proposals must weaken LEAs to the point where there are few functions left—and without education what happens to local government? How will you attract to local government the right sort of person who really wants to do a thorough job?
Ninety-three per cent. of pupils are in state schools. Surely we should be concentrating on improving morale in the classrooms and improving the general standards. Why do we see nothing in the proposals to do anything about the HMI report on the deteriorating state of vast numbers of our schools and the numbers of schools which have a shortage of school books? Let us remember that the Audit Commission itself said that in 1985 some £500 million were required to deal with school repairs.
Time is going on, and therefore I shall cut short what I was going to say on housing. However, I should like to know what consultation there has been with the local authority associations on the housing proposals. What consultation has there been on the actual principle of what is proposed? Sometimes we are told there has been consultation but it is not on the principle: it is on trying to get the Government out of a mess, and to see how the job is going to be tackled.
We have this position, referred to by one noble Lord, of the massive expenditure needed to bring both public and private housing up to a decent standard. No fewer than £19 billion will be required to bring public housing up to a decent standard. As my noble friend Lord Dean mentioned, the position is worse in the private sector. Two out of every nine homes are unfit in some way or other; and nearly half of those unfit houses are in the private sector, not in the local authority sector. There is nothing in the gracious Speech to allow local authorities to spend the £6 billion still in their reserves from capital receipts.
Why has nothing been done about that, my Lords? Frankly, the proposal whereby each council tenant has the right to transfer ownership to various bodies seems to me to be half-baked, particularly when it comes to flats. In the case of flats will there be a majority decision or must it be unanimous? Can there be flats with a number of different landlords in the same premises?
I ask the same question about the inner cities. There appears to have been little consultation with local government about the Government's intentions towards the inner cities. The noble Lord, Lord Young, who is now the responsible Minister, has stated that he will appeal directly to the people who are living in those areas over the heads of the local authorities. If it is the intention of the Government to bypass local authorities, the proposals for the inner cities will be an absolute tragedy not only for local government but for the people who live there.
228
Is there to be such an imposition from above? Surely we must all agree that any plans for the inner cities must involve government departments, the private sector, voluntary organisations and representatives of the community, but above all they must involve the elected representatives on the local councils.
My last point has not been mentioned at all by any speaker. It deals with the proposals for compulsory tendering and the banning of contract compliance. The track record of compulsory tendering has not been particularly successful. In particular there has been example after example of cleaning in hospitals that has been a complete and absolute tragedy. We have not seen the proposed legislation but if the lowest tender has to be accepted it may lead to a terrible lowering of standards of service. Surely local councils should be responsible to the people who elect them for standards of service. Already local councils are responsible to the Audit Commission for their general commitments.
All the four local authority associations are opposed to the proposed legislation on compulsory tendering and contract compliance. I must ask the Minister whether the Government intend to include in this Bill a provision similar to that included in the Bill for London Regional Transport and the last Transport Bill that under no circumstances must there be any consideration in tendering of conditions of service and work. Will it mean that a local council must put services out to competitive tender and cannot lay down conditions of work that must be complied with? Will it mean that such matters as hours of work, pensions and training cannot be considered at all? That is what the Government firmly resisted on the two Transport Bills to which I have referred.
Unless the Government make some changes in what we understand will be in these items of legislation, these measures will be a tragic blow for local government. The measures will not only be dangerous for local government itself but I believe dangerous for the democratic system of this country.
10.18 p.m.
The Minster of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, promised your Lordships' House plenty of hard work ahead in this Session, And, indeed, this afternoon and evening we have had plenty of hard work during a wide-ranging debate. We have had a broad spectrum of remarks including a reference to Irish home rule in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and a reference to the need for the Labour Party to undergo reform of a religious nature that figured in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Longford.
However, what I have not heard today in your Lordships' House, although I think it has been implicit in quite a number of speeches, is that the Government's programme for this Session is ambitious. That is certainly a comment that I have read in the press over the last few weeks. I do not deny it because I believe that the Government's

229
programme represents honest ambitions: to achieve greater fairness and accountability in local government; to provide greater choice and opportunity in housing and education; and to encourage more enterprise and more jobs in the inner cities. In that context, the unfairness of domestic rates has been widely acknowledged. I was most grateful to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls for putting his finger on it and saying that something needs to be done.
The other main weakness of rates that has become clear in recent years is that it is not an accountable tax. Only a minority of local electors pay rates directly and in full. Only one in every four local electors in, for instance, Manchester pays full rates when the overwhelming majority of local electors surely require a stake in deciding the quantity and quality of local services and how much they are prepared to pay for them. That is one of the reasons why something needs to be done about the rating system.
It must help to attract jobs to inner cities and to high rating areas if we put a stop to the system whereby businesses which have no say pay half the cost of any increase in local spending. We must remove from businesses the burden of large and unpredictable increases in their rate bill. These, together with a simplification of the grant system, which we intend to do, will be radical proposals going to the roots of the problems of local government. They will enable local electors to see where their money is going and how their local council compares with others.
But that is only half the story. We must consider not only how local government activities are paid for, but also how the money is spent. The Local Government Bill which was introduced on Friday in another place will extend the benefits of competition to a new range of local government services. Some of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, have been critical of this. I would only say this evening that the savings which have been achieved by authorities who have introduced competitive tendering on their own initiative have typically been somewhere between 20 and 30 per cent. The potential savings to ratepayers, if the same action is extended to all authorities, can run into hundreds of millions of pounds. I must say in passing that the Bill which was introduced last Friday does something else which I think many of your Lordships will support. It contains a clear and unambiguous provision to stop party political publicity on the rates.
In this Session we have a high priority to press on towards better housing and wider choice for everyone. The right to buy really has been a great success and we are going to continue to spread owner occupation through this right and through the system of mortgage interest tax relief. We are also going to do our best to tackle the problems of the rented sector. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers pointed out so rightly, controls over rents have operated against the best interests of tenants by drastically reducing the supply of accommodation. We therefore intend to decontrol new lettings by private landlords and
230
housing associations through the present systems of assured tenancies and shortholds. But there will be important safeguards. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, for whose personal remarks I was grateful, that there will be these safeguards. Existing tenants will continue to have the same protection as they do now for their rents and security of tenure and we will strengthen the law against harassment and exploitation.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester asked about housing benefit. If, in this general context, rents do rise, then housing benefit will need to rise to give support for those who require it. We will also take steps to widen the choice available to council tenants and to improve the management of their property. We intend to give council tenants the right to transfer to other landlords, building on the success of urban development corporations which have shown the advantages of a single-minded approach to specific problems of dereliction by taking powers to create housing action trusts.
I believe that these policies will have a particular impact on the inner cities, where we intend to give high priority to encouraging enterprise, promoting development and tackling dereliction. We have established five urban development corporations, which will build on the outstanding success of the existing urban development corporations in London and Merseyside docklands. We will also continue to encourage private investment in urban areas through the complex of grants: urban development, derelict land and urban regeneration grants.
We are determined to do our best to tackle the problems of the worst housing estates. Here I am glad to record to your Lordships that the estate action programme has promoted improvement schemes involving nearly 60,000 homes and for this year that budget has been increased by 50 per cent to £75 million. This year we are also providing a £50 million budget to the housing corporation for mixed funding housing association schemes to provide interim accommodation for homeless families.
Before any of your Lordships says it to me, there is of course much more to tackling the problems of our inner cities than improving the environment or physical fabric, although those are crucial. The debate which was initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, last February reinforced the point that policies have to address the needs of inner-city residents. That approach is at the heart of our policies to improve education and training and ensure that the benefits of our programmes flow directly to those who live in urban areas.
I shall just try to answer some of the points made by your Lordships on education. My noble friend Lord Eccles spoke of the central importance of teachers in the education process and asked whether enough resources were being put into both pay and training. Well, a 25 per cent. increase over an 18-month period is really as good as we feel we can possibly offer. I think that it has been welcomed in cash terms by the teaching profession. I also think that the pupil-teacher ratio at 17.6:1 last year, being the best ever, with more improvements planned,

231
shows that things are going in the right direction on that front too.
As regards training, intakes to initial teacher training are set to rise by 2 per cent. by 1989 and, as my noble friend may well know, the Government have been active in combating the shortage of maths and physics and other shortage subject teachers in secondary schools. Nonetheless, the noble Lords, Lord Stewart of Fulham and Lord Morton of Shuna, the latter of whom spoke from the Scottish point of view, both said that not enough money was being spent on education. With spending per pupil at record levels in real terms, with the pupil-teacher ratio at an all time best and plans for increased spending in essential areas such as for books, equipment, repairs and maintenance this year, I think if I may say so, that we are doing as well as any government have ever done,
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, questioned the proposals of my right honourable friend for the national curriculum. It is not the Government's aim to bring to an end the healthy diversity of responsibility for the curriculum noted in the White Paper, Better Schools. The aim of the proposed legislation on a national curriculum is to offer a framework with a guarantee of good standards for all pupils, so that parents, teachers, governors, local authorities and others involved can work together towards agreed objectives and can help all pupils to reach their full potential.
The noble Lord also spoke about what he called "opting out" that is, the setting up of grant maintained schools. He felt that that would increase centralism. With respect, my noble friend Lady Cox put her finger on it when she said that those schools would not be centrally run. Responsibility for employing the staff and for deciding the schools' policies and priorities—in short for deciding their character—would all be within the control of the schools' governing bodies working with the head teachers. The governors will be local people and they will be able to see that the school meets local needs.
My noble friend was absolutely right in saying in her most interesting speech that this is a scheme which is going to be popular because it will allow all parents to have a say in the sort of schools which their children attend. It will build on the extension of parental involvement in the running of schools which the 1986 Act has introduced and which has been widely welcomed by all those concerned with raising standards in our schools.
My noble friend asked me a direct question concerning when the open enrolment proposals may take effect. It is intended that those new arrangements should take effect for secondary schools shortly after Royal Assent. They could be extended to primary schools in due course by order of my right honourable friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, asked many questions about grant-maintained schools. If I may, I shall write to him on some of those questions. But I should like to answer the two questions I think are most important. I felt that the noble Lord was suggesting that there could, in effect, be a return to
232
the 11-plus. Grant-maintained schools will retain the character, whether comprehensive or selective, of the schools concerned as LEA schools. Any subsequent proposal to change a school's character would require a proposed procedure with scope for objections. As to the difficult question which the noble Lord asked with regard to opting back in, this is an area which can be examined in the course of the consultation exercise upon which the Government are shortly to embark.
My noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Trafford spoke about higher education and the future arrangements of the Government for the funding of universities. Both my noble friends acknowledged the force of the recommendations in the Croham Report. The main recommendation of that report concerning the reconstitution of the University Grants Committee was accepted by the Government in the White Paper Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge.
My noble friend Lord Trafford recognised the need for universities to adapt to changing circumstances and for that change to be constructively managed. The legislation we are proposing will facilitate that. My noble friend Lord Beloff expressed some criticism of the two consultative papers on the new university funding committee and on contract-based funding. Those documents have been the subject of some misinterpretation and I should like to take this opportunity to emphasise the Government's firm intention that the new arrangements should accommodate and respect the essential nature and purpose of the universities.
I shall try to answer as quickly as I can in the time available the general questions which your Lordships put. The debate started with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, speaking after my noble friend Lord Caithness. The noble Lord spoke about the increases in crime and questioned the reasons for those increases. I would not for one moment cross swords with the noble Lord, with his great experience in such matters, by saying that the levels of crime we have in this country, and indeed in the whole of the developed world, do not give great cause for concern. But for the record, it is interesting that recorded crime in the first quarter of this year did at last show some slight slackening of the rate of increase, if that is any comfort. That said, the noble Lord had every right to make the speech that he did and my noble friend Lord Fairfax had every right to ask the question: "What are the Government doing about crime?"
We have made enormous strides in community crime prevention with neighbourhood watch schemes and things of that kind, through the sort of management schemes in housing areas which the noble Lord mentioned, such as the Department of the Environment's priority estates programme, and through the provision of more policemen on the beat, which has been made possible by the great increases in police manpower since 1979.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, also spoke of the effects of the conditions in existing prisons. I should like to say that there is a major programme of

233
refurbishment and redevelopment going on at about 100 establishments including almost all local prisons. Meanwhile, let us not forget that this Government have given the courts the best and most flexible range of non-custodial sentences of any country in western Europe.
The right reverend Prelate asked about rate relief for charities and the impact of the community charge on older people. So far as concerns non-domestic property the Government have made it clear that they intend to preserve the existing pattern of reliefs and exemptions from rates. This means that, for example, charity shops, workshops for the disabled and other such organisations will continue to enjoy reliefs that they enjoy at present.
Concerning domestic property, the Government's proposals are that domestic rates should be abolished and replaced by the flat rate community charge payable by all adults with only limited exceptions. The special groups who will be exempted from the community charge include the mentally handicapped, long-term hospital patients, residents of old people's homes and other caring institutions. It is worth saying in passing that so far as one can see from the figures that have been worked out the community charge, in general terms, ought to be good news for older people.
I am not going to say anything, if they will forgive me, to the noble Lords, Lord Grimond, Lord Perth, and Lord Houghton about Scottish devolution for rather obvious reasons. I come from the other side of the border and I do not think I ought to be saying anything about it this evening.
I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that I was a little surprised that the noble Lord asked for an assurance that the community charge is going to be implemented in England and Wales as well as in Scotland—I give that assurance to the noble Lord. The Government are committed to introducing a Bill in this Session of Parliament to abolish domestic rates in England and Wales and replace them with the community charge. Our aim is that the new system should come into effect in England and Wales in 1990—just one year later than in Scotland.
I should like to assure the noble Earl that Ravenscraig will remain in operation until 1988. Its future after that is still under review. Of course, I shall report the noble Earl's comments and concern to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I particularly enjoyed the speech made by my noble friend Lord Forbes, who has such special knowledge of Scotland and its rural areas. The noble Lord spoke more generally this evening of the special problems of Scotland in a constructive way, in a speech which I found very interesting. I was grateful to my noble friend for his support for enterprise zones. I shall certainly draw the many suggestions in my noble friend's speech to the attention of my right honourable friend.
My noble friend Lord Ferrier spoke about the need for good space heating to complement energy saving devices in houses. I say to my noble friend that under
234
the present social security scheme there are those who get money each week for heating, and we have been running an extensive system of heat additions with expenditure well above the levels provided by the previous government. People will carry on being helped with the introduction of the reforms in social security in 1988, but in a different way. There will be premiums for groups such as the elderly and the disabled. These are groups which are particularly likely to be receiving heating additions now.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Sharples for speaking about farm woodlands and saying that she hoped grants for them would be arriving shortly. The Bill we propose to introduce will provide enabling powers and we will then proceed with secondary legislation to bring in the scheme. We hope that it will be in place in time for farmers to plant trees late in 1988 and I hope this will be soon enough for my noble friend.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers said that really in the present situation of surpluses it would be the thing to do to pay farmers not to grow crops. Under the package agreed by the Agriculture Council in March, member states are required within the next nine months to set up extensification schemes which will follow my noble friend's line of thought. These schemes will provide for the payment of money to farmers provided that they reduce production of surplus products, initially cereals, beef and wine, by at least 20 per cent.
I shall not again go over the nitrogen ground with my noble friend, who knows the objections of the Government to a nitrogen tax. I should like fully to endorse his comments about agriculture and conservation being complementary. The Government recognise the vital role of agriculture in the rural economy and will continue to support it as indicated in the gracious Speech.
Let me just say in response to the very detailed speech which the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, made that we share her concern about special help to inner-city areas. Since 1979 Birmingham has received £150 million under the urban programme and, of this, £25 million was targeted specifically on projects in the area which the noble Baroness mentioned; namely, Handsworth. There are 18 urban development grant projects in the city; £20 million in grants from the projects has attracted £90 million in private investment. This again was a matter to which the noble Baroness particularly referred.
I am sure your Lordships will have enjoyed the speech made this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I should like to put on record the admiration which certainly I feel for the dedicated, sensible and practical way in which the noble Lord pursues unremittingly the well-being of animals; the subject on which the noble Lord terminated his speech. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will look most carefully at the suggestions made by the noble Lord for improving the welfare of animals.
In a very interesting speech which reminded the House of the Government's commitment to the Northern Ireland economy, the noble Lord, Lord Blease, called on the Government to build confidence

235
in the parliamentary process. The gracious Speech sets out the broad lines of government policy towards Northern Ireland. We shall continue to seek agreements on means of devolving greater responsibility to the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. We are ready to discuss constructive ideas at any level with representatives of the political parties separately or together and the Government will continue to back the security forces to the hilt in their efforts to combat terrorism in the Province. In this as in other fields, we shall continue to build on the constructive relationship that we have established with the Republic.
I am sorry, particularly because both the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, were extremely kind in personal remarks to me, that I do not agree with them on water privatisation. We set out in our manifesto the high priority which—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords—
Lord Belstead: My Lords, let me just finish this point and I shall give way. We set out in our manifesto the high priority—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry I have to intrude at this late stage. I was not suggesting that there was anything wrong other than the political philosophy of the Government in privatising water. I said that there was deliberate or accidental misinformation being produced during the general election campaign as to who originally owned all the water undertakings. It has been perpetrated in the other place and it was perpetrated in this place yesterday by a Minister when he said that the water holdings would go back to private people where they belonged. The point I made was that the overwhelming number of water authorities in this country before the 1973 Act were not in any way in private ownership. They were in the main owned by local authorities or various committees composed of them. That was the point I was making.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. They were indeed in those hands and they were inefficient and underfinanced, which is precisely why we are going to privatise them. I say to the noble Lord, and I am sorry to have to sound brusque because he was extremely kind to me across the Floor of the House, that we do not envisage that local authorities will have the power to run the water supply or sewerage operations in future because the shares in the companies will be offered to the public and not to institutions of local or central government.
Perhaps I may put a little balm on the wound and tell the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that there may be a rather greater area of agreement because in the privatisation process we intend to ensure that there are strict safeguards against river pollution. We intend to establish a national rivers authority to take over pollution control and the other regulatory functions of the water authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, spoke about children with special educational needs. I assure him
236
that the Government will take full account of the position of children with special educational needs in developing their proposals for education. He feared that mainstream schools with delegated budgets might be unable fully to provide for the needs of handicapped children. It is our firm intention that the arrangements for delegated budgets should take account of factors such as the incidence of handicapped children in the school in the calculation of the sum to be made available. Thus the level of funding delegated to a school should be no disincentive to that school providing for handicapped children in the way that has become increasingly common since the Warnock Report and the 1981 Act.
The points that the noble Lord made were important, and I say to him that our prospectus for a third Parliament begins with a firm record of improvement upon which we intend to build. In the seven years up to and including last year real terms expenditure on the benefits for long-term sick and disabled people grew by £2·5 billion to an estimated total of £6 billion. Of that increase, £1·75 billion was the result of more recipients and £750 million was due to larger amounts received.
We have also put in hand the largest ever survey of disabled people to obtain information on their numbers, needs and circumstances. We expect the results to be published next year, and it will make a thorough reappraisal of benefits for disabled people. Disabled people will not be denied the improvements we shall introduce next year. That is the point about which the noble Lord was asking. We estimate that 160,000 sick or disabled people receiving supplementary benefit will be better off under the illustrative figures.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked about family courts. She pressed for a government statement on the establishment of a family court. My noble friend made it clear that her remarks had been prompted by recent speculation in the media. As is known, the Government published a consultation paper in May 1986 which set out the various options for reform in the handling of family cases. That paper indicated that Ministers intended to be able to take decisions about that matter not later than December of this year, and that remains our target. But the matter is complex and the Government cannot commit themselves to that date or to a particular decision.
I know that there are points to which I have not replied. If your Lordships will forgive me, I shall write about those.
The gracious Speech inaugurates a major legislative programme on environmental and home affairs for this Session. I believe that it represents more than that. I believe that we have picked up the plea for the family made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. In its proposals on housing, education, local grant finance and services, this gracious Speech marks a concerted drive to widen choice and improve quality in services which are the essential bedrock of family life. They aim to bring more freedom and opportunity to people who use the services and to give them more personal responsibility. By laying more emphasis on the consumer and by removing

237
barriers to enterprise we aim to lay foundations for a sustained revival of the economy of our older industrial cities based on private sector-led grants. It is a programme worth pursuing, and that we intend to do.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eleven o'clock.

  DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
  DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
  TUVALU: TRUST FUND
  TUVALU: TRUST FUND
  CDC: AID PROGRAMME LOANS
  CDC: AID PROGRAMME LOANS
  BRITISH WEST INDIAN AIRWAYS: FLIGHTS
  BRITISH WEST INDIAN AIRWAYS: FLIGHTS
  SMALL CEREALS PRODUCER AID
  SMALL CEREALS PRODUCER AID
  HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY: PROPOSED LEGISLATION
  HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY: PROPOSED LEGISLATION