Sitting of 19 February 1988

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

Parliamentary Debates
9.34 am
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to raise this matter last night because to do so would have eaten into the Adjournment debate that had already commenced. Will you, Mr. Speaker, look into the events in the House of yesterday and the day before on the basis that the maintenance of good order in the House is dependent on you and also on hon. Members trying not simply to stick slavishly to the Standing Orders, but to stick to them in spirit as well?
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was one of the hon. Members whose local authority areas were directly affected by the order before the House. During the debate, which was fairly short, more than half an hour—more than one sixth of the time available for the debate — was taken up by Conservative Members who had no direct involvement in the areas covered by the order.
Throughout the debate on Wednesday, which was devoted to the proposed dismemberment of the Inner London education authority, only four Conservative Members who represented ILEA areas spoke. Other Conservative Members rose to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and they are entitled to do that. However, several Opposition Members who represent ILEA areas were not called as there was not enough time because those Conservative Members took part.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you ruled, quite rightly, that any hon. Member had a right to take part in any debate. On Wednesday, when two of my hon. Friends from Scotland wished to raise legitimate points of order during the debate on ILEA, you told them that it was an ILEA debate. Therefore, my hon. Friends sat down and did not take up time in the debate.
It lies within the power of the Chair not to alternate from one side of the House to the other, but to choose speakers who are affected directly by a subject under debate. My right hon. and hon. Friends believe that it is extremely important that you should not be trapped, as you were yesterday, by the circumstances that were forced upon you by the actions of Conservative Members.
Opposition Members are moving to the view that either there is a deliberate organised effort on the Conservative Benches to crowd out hon. Members who have a legitimate right to speak, which was characterised during Scottish Question Time not long ago, as you may recall, Mr. Speaker, or there is a case for some increased discipline on the Government Benches — [HoN.
1260
MEMBERS: "What is the point of order?"] My point of order— [HoN. MEMBERS: "There is no point of order.] We now have a voluntary Chair—(Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order has been put to me and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would be brief.
Mr. Dobson: My point of order, which I thought I had made clear at the beginning of my comments, is that order in this House is dependent not simply on slavishly following the letter of the Standing Orders of the House or on accepting your rulings—which should be accepted—but on general behaviour and attitudes. It would have been possible for us today to have arranged for the Labour Benches to be full of Labour Members representing constituencies—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that I understand the drift of the hon. Gentleman's point of order. Will he bring it to a conclusion?
Mr. Dobson: In those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, can you confirm that it lies within your power to choose speakers other than by alternating from one side of the Chamber to the other if you believe that, in fairness to those present, and to the people they are attempting to represent, it would be better for you not to follow that practice? From time to time you vary that practice, particularly during debates on Fridays.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has raised an important point. He should know—it would be right for the House to know —the cause of the trouble last night. The motion passed last Friday, restricting the debate to an hour and a half curtailed the proceedings. Had that time been allowed, I suspect that every hon. Member who wished to be called would have had that opportunity. That is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman talks about being trapped. I am afraid that the Chair was trapped in having to put that motion at 10 o'clock.
As to the general proposition, of course what the hon. Gentleman suggests would be possible. However, it might be to the detriment of the right hon. and hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras if I adopted that practice as a regular method of proceeding. I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
May I say, apropos of last night, that up to the time when I returned to the Chair, every hon. Member who had been called from the Government Benches represented a rate-capped authority. Subsequently, I called two other Government Members who made brief speeches. One of them represents a Nottingham seat and was not from a rate-capped authority but he was in order, and the other lives in a constituency that has been rate-capped and I believe that he had as much right as any other hon. Member to express his point of view.
However, I shall certainly bear in mind what has been said by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. I appreciate that the life of Back-Bench Members is one of great frustration. It is my constant desire to ensure that as many of them as possible are called. It would be of great help to the Chair if I had the authority under the Standing Orders to limit the length of speeches. I regret what occurred last night, but I hope that in future the Chair will be supported.

Rural Development
9.41 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I beg to move,
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to pursue policies and procedures to ensure an ordered phasing of development in those rural areas which will need to accommodate a growth in population, to encourage agricultural diversification and promote enterprise in the rural economy, to facilitate the provision of the necessary rural services, infrastructure, employment and housing, and to co-ordinate the work of those various agencies and departments which have a direct interest in rural affairs and rural land use.
I should like to begin by declaring an interest in this subject since I have lived and worked in a rural area for some 25 years and I am mindful of the quality of life that I and many millions of other Britons enjoy. I want to see that quality of life maintained for future generations. I am also privileged to have been on one of the first enterprise agencies ever established in rural areas. I am referring to the Fens business enterprise trust, which has been established for five or six years. I know from first hand experience what great work can be done by such agencies in rural as well as urban areas.
What is rural development? When is a case rural as opposed to urban? For areas outside the metropolitan areas and the conurbations there is little difference between the two. In economic terms, one cannot divorce a market town from its rural hinterland or have meaningful rural policy for jobs and settlement and the rural economy as a whole without taking into consideration the influence and impact of the market towns. Therefore, I take as my canvas for the debate a definition of rural areas to include those parts of the country outside the borders of large cities and conurbations.
Within that definition there is a tremendous variety. There are the remote, sparsely populated highland areas of Wales, the Lake District and many parts of Scotland and the flat, lush, agricultural fen area of my constituency. Those great variations of topography, soil and climate yield distinct geographical sub-regions with a variety of land uses. Therefore, no one single solution is applicable in terms of rural affairs. The emphasis should lie with flexibility. In the last resort, decisions will depend very much on local information, local input and local decision-making.
Within the definition of rural areas there are two fundamental and distinct problems. First, there are the immediate problems, which tend to be on a wider or more macro scale, and, secondly, there are the future problems which tend to be on a smaller scale and more localised. The immediate issues are well known to all who represent rural constituencies. They pertain particularly to those more remote areas characterised by depopulation, inadequate housing, high unemployment rates, decline in rural services, poor transport and communications and a host of other problems.
Very often, those problems are with us in areas that are not so remote. Cambridgeshire has a highly prosperous south and a relatively — I emphasise the word "relatively"—deprived north in the fenland area. We have problems in certain villages in the affluent south in accommodating our young people in housing at low cost. We have problems with housing our elderly. Therefore,
1262
even within the prosperous areas there are problems that need a solution. The Government have identified and acknowledged the existence of those problems and, through the Development Commission, have identified and established the rural development areas throughout England. Wales and Scotland are treated slightly differently.
The future problems are not so far into the future that they are not already exerting a strong influence on events. I wish to refer to a recent publication which talks in terms of a population increase in England and Wales of 2 million people by the year 2001. I do not wish to be alarmist, but that figure is startling. Of that projected increase in population, 88 per cent. is deemed to be going to three regions. East Anglia will take 14 per cent., the south-west will take 22 per cent. and the south-east region will take a staggering 52 per cent. Therefore, within the next 13 years an extra 1 million people will have to be accommodated in the south-east.
The conclusions from that evidence are obvious. The pressure on the green belt, particularly the metropolitan green belt, will be enormous. The regions of East Anglia and the south-west will also have major problems in accommodating substantial population increases. There will be pressure on the infrastructure of roads, transport, rural sewerage and housing. There will be pressure on agricultural land such as we have never seen before, and there will be a need for thousands of new jobs in rural areas if we are to avoid commuting on a truly vast scale.
Of the balance of that increase, 45 per cent.—almost 1 million people—will be in the shire counties, outside the south-east region. Most of those shire counties already have well identified rural development areas. In other words, the Government have already established the fact that many of the shire counties have problem areas within them, and here we are seeking to relocate and accommodate within the next 12 or 13 years almost 800,000 new people within those same areas.
The largest increase of any county is that of Cambridgeshire. If the figures I have given are accurate, Cambridgeshire is likely to experience a population increase of 25 per cent.—156,000 people—by the year 2001. It is like trying to locate the population of a city the size of Peterborough within the county boundary. We face an enormous problem.
I see present hon. Members who represent other counties and I shall run down the list of the population increases with which they may have to cope. Second to Cambridgeshire is Cornwall, with a projected increase of 17·4 per cent. Seventy five per cent. or more of Cornwall is identified as a rural development area. Shropshire is close behind, with a 17·1 per cent. projected increase; and more than 40 per cent. of Shropshire is a rural development area. For Lincolnshire, 50 per cent. of which is a rural development area, the projected increase is 15·4 per cent. For Somerset, 20 per cent. of which has been identified as a rural development area, the figure is 16·4 per cent. If those population projections are accurate, we shall face tremendous problems in housing large numbers of people in those shire areas in which serious problems have already been identified.
Running parallel to those problems and across all rural areas — remote and less remote — are the current difficulties being experienced in farming and agriculture. Those difficulties — the CAP reform, the strong

1263
environmental lobby, the new process of stabilisers, the set-aside schemes that are being discussed, and quotas—are putting an increasingly downward pressure on farming incomes. That is leading to a loss of jobs in agriculture and allied industries and to changes in land use and practice. There are 8,000 job losses a year from agriculture and farming in England and Wales alone, and that trend will go up, not down.
The problem concerns not only the loss of jobs in farming today. In normal circumstances, farmers' children could look forward to taking over the farm in the future. If the farm goes bankrupt, we must compensate not only for the jobs lost today but for those of the children of farmers and farm workers in the future. We must plan to create more jobs for that reason alone.
This Government have done more than any other to flag the problems of the rural economy. They should be commended on having brought forward proposals to help to solve the difficulties. They have done so in a very responsible way, by seeking to achieve a healthy and acceptable balance between economic measures and development and a concern for the environment. These proposals are apparent in the new powers given to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the content of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, in the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill, which will shortly be debated in Committee, in the strengthening of the Development Commission and in the Department of the Environment's publications on new planning guidelines for agricultural land. All those measures seek to offer alternatives to farmers to enable them to diversify into new businesses. At the same time, they protect and conserve all that is best in our natural environment.
All those factors need detailed and thorough consideration. The problems will not be solved by planners alone. Planners tend to react to circumstances; they are not strategists or pro-active decision-makers.
The scale of the issue is so large that even local government politicians will not be able to cope. The Government need to bite the bullet on this problem, and hon. Members need to address themselves fairly and squarely to the problems that I have outlined. It is up to hon. Members to make decisions for the future and for the benefit of our nation.
I shall take hon. Members through the key components affecting rural development. They are, in no particular order of importance, the problems of jobs, housing, rural infrastructure, rural services, land use and planning.
With regard to jobs, there are a number of important trends currently working in favour of rural areas. There is an increasing demand for businesses to be located in pleasant rural surroundings. The new high-tech industries can be small scale and can be located in rural areas without harming the environment. Expanding activities such as tourism and recreation can work alongside measures to conserve the natural environment.
Among those promoting the rural economy and rural enterprise in England is the Development Commission, which has a budget of about £30 million per year. Half that budget goes to small factory building through English Estates. The rest goes to advisory services such as COSIRA and into projects in rural areas submitted by the rural development programmes groups within RDAs.
In many rural areas, however, there is a shortage of suitably sized factories. In many areas, rents are so low that they rule out altogether any speculative building by
1264
the private sector. English Estates builds only within the rural development area boundaries. Those boundaries do not include towns with a population of over 10,000, and thus exclude the market towns, which feature strongly in the economy of rural areas. No building by English Estates takes place in market towns, which is a major oversight.
In some areas, the vetting of potential leaseholders and potential businesses to occupy English Estates factories is very stringent and extremely inflexible. When we challenge the Development Commission and English Estates about that, they tell us they are only following the rules set by the Treasury. What happens in many circumstances is that the entrepreneurs, whom we seek to encourage in market towns and rural areas, are not given freedom to set up established businesses. The Development Commission, together with its counterparts in Wales and Scotland, does a wonderful job, but its budget is limited and the scope of its activities is restricted. More is being done to broaden its base, which I welcome. The Development Commission is being expanded to give advice on marketing and is placing consultants in rural firms to help with marketing, finance and other key factors involved in running a business.
That is a significant step and it should be commended. However, there are glaring faults in the present policy. Factory building is way behind local needs and is a major constraint on the establishment and growth of rural businesses. I do not know why we had to lose the small workshop scheme. We must press the Minister for the reintroduction of a similar scheme for the future.
There has been positive advance in rural development areas, but they have failed to encompass the needs and contributions of our market towns. A survey by the DTI, entitled "Small Workshop Scheme", concluded that the private sector supply of factories was three times what it would have been without the scheme. It concluded that there was a shortage of units below 1,000 sq ft in the majority of locations.
Rural development programmes drawn up for the rural development areas by the local committees have shown what can be achieved by bringing together the various agencies—COSIRA, local authorities, rural community councils, English Estates, enterprise trusts and other relevant bodies. That has been a success story and we must build on it.
New housing has been curtailed in many rural areas because of the spending controls exerted by the Government. Although I subscribe to the view that we need to press forward with home ownership and the development of private housing, there are problems in the rural areas for those who cannot make the first step on the ladder of home ownership. Often, public and private housing has been restricted by county planning policies. I welcome the Minister's decision to do away with county structure plans.
There is a shortage of housing for young married couples and for the elderly. The poor employment prospects in some rural areas have encouraged a drift to the towns, leading to the well-known problems of homelessness, crime and other related matters. In many rural areas there has been an increase in retirement and second homes. In many instances, that strengthens the local economy and its social fabric, but it tends to Force up the price of land and houses beyond the reach of local people, particularly in rural areas characterised by low wages.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: I am interested in my hon. Friend's point. Does he agree that it would be a good idea to say to people contemplating moving on retirement that, because of the social, planning and housing difficulties, which my hon. Friend has rightly mentioned, they should think carefully before moving from the areas where they have worked, and where their friends and relations live, into the new rural areas?
Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend makes a sound point with which I agree. Many elderly people move on retirement to coastal regions where they have problems in finding a social life which they can enjoy in retirement. Many towns come alive only in the summer months.
Housing associations make a negligible contribution to solving housing problems in rural areas, and this needs to be redressed. About 20 per cent. of our population live in rural areas, yet the areas receive only 2 per cent. of Housing Corporation money. I understand the priority of urban housing problems, but housing problems exist in rural areas, too. We need to improve much of our private housing stock in rural areas because there are serious problems with substandard private housing. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, in setting the minimum sizes for the home improvement areas, will carefully look at not setting too high a limit which would prevent small-scale rural improvements being made.
The Development Commission's support for agencies such as the National Agricultural Centre Rural Trust—something of a mouthful, and I hesitate to pronounce the abbreviation NACRT because of what it sounds like—is to be commended, but it needs building on. I draw attention to an excellent scheme, about which I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister is well aware, at Chipping Campden in Gloucestershire, where a new 50 per cent. shared equity scheme was developed and run by a housing association. The key was the denial of "right to staircase" —the right to sell on the full freehold was not allowed in the agreement. This means that 50 per cent. shared equity house can be sold to another couple who will benefit from the same 50: 50 deal. All too often in the past, these first-step homes for young people have been taken out of the housing scenario because the "right to staircase" has been exercised and the full freehold has been passed on, so the first rung on the ladder of home ownership has been lost. We must encourage similar schemes.
The amount of agricultural land in use has changed little over the past 20 years. It remains at about 15 million hectares, of which 75 per cent. is used for farming and the rest for forestry and other activities. The amount of land transferred each year from agriculture to urban use has been falling and, contrary to the belief of most of our people, we are not losing massive amounts of agricultural land to concrete. The average has fallen from 10,000 hectares in the period 1975–80 to 5,000 hectares in the period 1980–85.
The loss of land to building has been partly offset by more land being brought into cultivation, but that has been to the detriment of many of our wild habitats. Far too much land has been brought into cultivation and the countryside and habitat have suffered. The loss of land has been offset also by derelict land being brought back into use. The Government's derelict land grant of up to 100 per cent. has helped to reclaim some 7,000 hectares in the past five years alone. There are other influences such as the land register, whereby a register is kept of publicly owned
1266
unused land. There are the urban development grant, the urban regeneration grant and the urban development corporations. Once again, the Government are to be commended for these imaginative and effective schemes.
Under the Government, the green belts have increased dramatically. In England they have increased from 1·8 million acres to 4·5 million acres—an increase of 150 per cent. — since 1979. The metropolitan green belt around Greater London has grown from 750,000 acres to 1·2 million acres—a 58 per cent. increase. The green belt around London is equivalent to the size of the Principality of Wales. Cambridge's green belt has increased by 500 per cent. in the same period—and constituents ask me why house prices are so high in Cambridgeshire. The answer is staring them in the face. The Government have pledged that green belts will not have houses built on them, and I suspect that the majority of Conservative Members concur.
There has been a steady decline of public services and local facilities in many rural areas because of depopulation and the economies of scale available in larger settlements, but, as facilities disappear, further depopulation is encouraged, thus contributing to a vicious circle of decline. We all know what is declining in rural areas. Village shops and sub-post offices—often one and the same thing—and village schools are closing. I came across the staggering information that the closure of a village school for about 25 children saves the LEA £12,500.
An interesting article in The Economist contrasted the costs of saving village schools with the amounts paid through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to hill farmers in hill farm subsidy. For the same money paid in hill farm subsidy for 6,000 farms we could keep 1,000 village schools open. I am not against the hill farm subsidy — I say that quickly before I am challenged. I fully support it, but the point of the article was that the costs of the two actions have not been compared because no one has taken an overview of the relative costs.
Medical services have declined as well. The facilities of a hospital in my constituency—Doddington hospital will be serverely curtailed. Constituents in parts of north Cambridgeshire, where there is a poor rural bus service and few railway lines, have to travel to see relatives in Peterborough hospital and have to make six or seven changes of bus, none of which connects at the right time. A journey to see a relative in hospital can take a whole day.
The rate bases of rural local authorities have tended to be weak and therefore placed greater reliance on rate support grant. Unfortunately, the old formula seemed to discriminate against rural areas. District councils in rural development areas had a 29 per cent. reduction in real terms in RSG between 1981–82 and 1986–87 compared with a 4 per cent. growth in real terms for English local authorities as a whole. At the same time, those rural district authorities had a 45 per cent. reduction in capital allocation.
Much is said of the role of planners in solving today's problems. We cannot blame planners for all our ills. In the main, they do the best job that they can, given the circumstances. Decisions about where things should go are made by politicians. I hope that local government politicians will take that fact on board. It is not up to officers of local councils to make decisions; it is up to the politicians who run councils. Planners have not yet embraced the new thinking, particularly about the use or change of use of agricultural land.

1267
We do not now need the same quantity of land. I have a copious postbag containing letters from constituents who are trying to develop agricultural land in north Cambridgeshire. Their applications have been totally rejected by planning authorities. Of all the assets that are now held by farmers, the only one that is worth anything is their land — land for development. A more relaxed view of what agricultural land could be redeveloped would help many farmers' liquidity—they could pay off some of their borrowings—and it would assist their incomes. That is a positive help when they are under severe pressure.
For the past 40 years, the principal objective of our planning system has been to control the amount of agricultural land that is taken for development. That policy has been supremely successful. We now need a planning system that will enable us to accommodate new and expanding development. Of course, we do not want uncontrolled suburbanisation. We do not want ribbon development. But, within the context of the new planning guidelines that have been put out by the Department of the Environment, there is a way forward.
What can we do to solve the problems and prepare for the inevitable growth of development? The most critical problem is how to accommodate the projected increase in population by the turn of the century. It must be accommodated by a relatively small part of our total land area. I remind hon. Members that the census of population predicts that, by the year 2001, over 1 million more people will want to settle in the south-east region. If the metropolitan green belt is to he sacrosanct—so far, that has been the Government's stated policy—that growth can take place only within the metropolitan area, that is, within Greater London, or it must be forced to the periphery of the south-east region. That means that it must go to the counties of Hampshire, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Essex, Kent and east and west Sussex. Those areas will have to take those 1 million people. No doubt the Minister is kept awake at night by the howls of protest of those counties already bombarding his ears.
Much has been said of the use of derelict and reclaimed land in inner cities. I have already said that substantial work has been done in that regard. More can be done. At the end of the day, within Greater London there is a limit to the amount of land that can be used for housing. In the past 10 years, London has lost 250,000 people. At the same time, the east has gained 500,000 people. That trend is well established. Neither controls, direct or indirect, nor the planning system will change that well-established trend.
At the risk of being accused of committing a sacrilege and bringing the wrath of many of my colleagues upon my head, I question the inviolate nature of the green belt. I fail to understand the logic of a policy that has evolved over the past eight or nine years, before the full import of population trends and patterns was established, which bans development of any kind from an area the size of Wales. In so doing, it guarantees more high density development and commensurate dramatic effects on the rural environment immediately outside the green belt outer periphery.
Such conflicts of interest are not confined to the southeast, They are beginning to manifest themselves in East Anglia and the south-west. The twin processes of population growth and declining agriculture will inexorably lead to massive changes in land use patterns.
1268
We need to be aware of such changes and co-ordinate our planning to ensure fair, balanced and sensible development.
It is no good Hertfordshire cutting by half the anticipated number of houses because it knows that it will have to trade up at a later date. Cambridgeshire says, "We are not having them if Hertfordshire says that they are not having them." So it goes on. Each county is protecting its own green belt—its own rural area—at the expense of others. Somebody must come up with a fair and balanced view of where development must go.
It is not just an agricultural problem. I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate that it is a major problem that the country will face over the next 12 or 13 years. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responding to farming problems, and is doing a good job in a positive way, but I question its expertise across the range of issues that we face. I question whether it should be the leading Ministry. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) led many developments when he was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. No doubt he will shoot clown in flames some of the things that I have said. MAFF should not be the leading Ministry in this regard.
We have a land use problem. More naturally, it falls within the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. It is not a small land use problem; it is a major land use problem. It will involve massive changes in England, particularly in a line drawn from the Severn to the Humber, which is about one third, if not more, of our total land area. Because the problem is so large, it almost merits a department within the Ministry all to itself—a department of rural affairs or countryside development. It is not a new idea, but it needs consideration. The job of such a department would be to co-ordinate MAFF's proposed measures for agriculture, planning regulations, housing needs, development, the green belt, other land use policies, the work of local authorities in rural areas, the provision of infrastructure in rural areas, and the work of the many agencies involved, primarily the Development Commission.
Because substantial population growth is predicted for those shire counties that already have rural development areas, it seems sensible and logical to promote the Development Commission as the leading agency to develop policies. It would continue its work in RDAs but expand to other rural areas and, I hope, expand to include the market towns that are vital to rural communities. Obviously that needs to be financed. But, now that we are at last embarking seriously on CAP reform, funds can be diverted from agricultural price support and other subsidies to the funding of a rural aid programme, which is just as important and necessary as the urban aid programme.
The key to progress is a radical change in how we perceive current land usage, particularly the usage of agricultural land. The Government have already accepted that we do not need as much land in agricultural production, but they still say that the best and most versatile land has a special importance and should not be built on unless there is no other site suitable for the particular purpose.
Whoever thought up that strategy did not consider the dilemma that now faces Cambridgeshire, which is largely made up of grade 1 and grade 2 agricultural land. We do not have any grade 3 land. We have the best quality land

1269
in the country, and we face a 25 per cent. increase in population. We will have to house 156,000 people by the turn of the century. Where shall we put them if the Government's policy is that grade 1 and grade 2 land is sacrosanct? Will someone tell me? I should like to know. It should be possible to accommodate small-scale new housing in rural areas and to ensure better standards of layout for the landscape. It is no longer necessary to pack new houses at 20 to 30 an acre. The more land that is made available, the more acceptable will be the development and the cheaper will be the land and the houses that are built on it. People in rural areas object to the forcing of high-density housing into villages and market towns.
I am told that there is a great demand for large country houses with between five and 20 acres of land. Estate agents say that they cannot find enough houses to meet the demand. In the past such houses were built without planning permission. They are now an unobtrusive feature of our landscape. Indeed, much the best environmental husbandry has emanated from the large houses and estates.
I commend to the Minister for his consideration the release of farmland to allow the building of big houses with between five and 20 acres. I realise that we must do whatever we can to protect land from being further developed for housing in future. However, I see merit in allowing houses with large acreages of land to be built because there is a great demand for them and because the people who invest in those establishments will ensure that the landscape is protected.
We also need more land for public open space. If the projected growth in population occurs, we shall need more recreational areas, and they need to be planned. We need more footpaths and more bridleways. An interesting idea was put to me only yesterday by some farmers. If there is to be set-aside, why not have set-aside so that a group of farmers together can have land taken out and reconstructed into bridleways and footpaths and each have the responsibility of maintaining his own section, planting hedgerows and increasing environmental habitat and providing access to the countryside that is vital for the future?
As for employment, we desperately need more factories. The Development Commission needs to have a higher budget to build more in the RDAs because it is not keeping up with demand. We should allow the Development Commission to use its capital receipts obtained from selling some of its factories to build new factories. At the moment, if it sells factories to a new entrepreneur, it cannot spend that money. That needs to be examined. After all, we are reinvesting in the building infrastructure of our communities. We need to bring back the small workshop scheme or something similar. There is a case for allowing 100 per cent. first year allowance on factories up to 2,500 sq ft, and thereafter on a sliding scale to 60 per cent. for factories up to 10,000 sq ft. We need a hierarchy of factories of varying sizes so that as new companies grow and develop they can move as they expand.
We need housing associations to develop in rural areas in the way that they have developed in urban areas. We need to allow district councils to use housing revenue accounts, only when they are in surplus, to build for rent, which I realise is a contentious point—or to use capital
1270
within the housing revenue to invest in joint ventures with housing associations. I anticipate eagerly the Government's new Housing Bill and its effects on freeing the private rented sector, but there is a real and immediate problem of the lack of housing for young people on low incomes.
The Minister is aware of the excellent shared equity scheme at Chipping Camden. I commend that to him and hope that more such schemes will come forward. If we are to cope with the growth in rural areas, we need to address the real inadequacies of much of the rural infrastructure. We need more investment in roads, water supplies, flood protection and first time rural sewage. If we are to have settlement policies outside the new townships where many services are provided within the cost of the total development, we need to develop the infrastructure and services and face up to how we can cost them and provide the expenditure for them.
In my region, there is concern that after water privatisation and the setting up of the National Rivers Authority adequate funding should be made available for flood protection schemes—not only coastal protection, but the fenland area drainage system which is vital to our agriculture. I seek an assurance from the Minister that proper funding will be made available to the NRA.
We need an overall review of rural services and policies. Are we being realistic in expecting the conventional perception of village life to exist in the future? Has it not already died? There are already commuting villages. The trend has gone so far that we may not be able to redress the balance. There are those who believe that such trends can be reversed and that the future can be built on the stable, fruitful and productive character of the cohesive social groupings that we call villages. Free from the constraints of economic and market forces determining the location of businesses and industry, villages and market towns have a unique and challenging opportunity.
I believe that there is a future for the rural environment, through new housing schemes and employment. We need to move very carefully in the way that such development takes place, and more than ever before we need coordination of the various agencies. I commend the motion to the House.
10.26 am
Mr. Michael Jopling: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss). I congratulate him enormously on choosing such a vitally important subject and on the lucidity of his speech. Far be it from me to tear to pieces what he said. I cannot think of anything in his speech that I wish to criticise.
I wish to speak only briefly and to emphasise one of the points my hon. Friend touched upon. I do not want to discuss the economics of rural areas. We have heard a good deal about that over the years and it is still very relevant today. I wish to concentrate on a new danger to our rural infrastructure, which I am glad to say was a major and integral part of the motion tabled by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend referred to the alteration in village life over the years. We have had many debates about that in the past.
I believe that the threat to rural structure and rural life is now moving away from the villages towards the market towns. I was particularly interested in my hon. Friend's reference to the importance of maintaining the social

1271
structure of market towns. I wish to stress that point. We have often had debates on the matter and I remember that Sir Peter Mills, who, sadly, is no longer a Member of the House, used to talk about the loss to villages of the various Ps — the demise of the primary schools, the petrol pumps, the parson, the post office, the passenger bus and the pub. I think that he had some more examples but I cannot remember them. Those are sad changes. Many of them happened because of the march of history and the march of time. My great concern is that we must not allow that trend to spread to the small market towns. In particular, I am thinking of what I believe is a new threat which has hit me in the face in the past few months— that is the new threat to secondary schools in some of the smaller market towns.
We all know that throughout the country there is a great surplus of school places. That is one of the great problems facing the Department of Education and Science. Our local education authorities have been told, in my view quite rightly, that they must do something to reduce a large number of those empty school places. However, there is a danger to the rural communities if certain local education authorities concentrate their solutions to the problems of empty school places on closing smaller rural secondary schools. That seems the easy option for them to take, but I believe passionately that it is the wrong one.
In my constituency in the county of Cumbria we have over 6,000 empty school places. The local education authority has taken the easy option by proposing to close several of the smaller rural schools. Many hon. Members who know the Lake District will know the size and nature of the towns I am talking about which face proposals to close their secondary schools. The schools in the four small towns of Sedbergh, Coniston, Kirby Stephen and Cartmel are threatened with closure. Each one is a much-loved, successful school with fine achievements both in their academic records—I monitor those each year—and in what I regard as the admirable behaviour of their children. I quote those schools as examples, but I am sure that all hon. Members could find comparable examples.
I visited all those schools recently to discuss the appalling prospect confronting the people who care for those schools and who work in them. I was greeted at all of them with strong expressions of view that the policy is wrong. Indeed, at one school at Cartmel I was greeted by over 250 of my constituents who had turned out with placards to demonstrate firmly that their school should not be closed. That view was typical of all the areas affected.
The supporters of those schools are especially concerned that, having seen so many village primary schools closed already, the next step now seems to be to close the secondary schools in their local towns. They see that step as a hammer blow for rural life in their areas, and I agree. The contribution that smaller schools make to rural life is enormous. Quite apart from the education provided, the facilities for sport, adult education and community amenities are irreplaceable in most cases. The contribution of those schools to local employment, and the intellectual and social contributions made to rural life by the individuals who work in the schools is, again, immense.
People very much resent the fact that in tackling what is, in fact, the county and countrywide problem of empty school places which, let us face it, exists in urban and rural areas, the solution seems to be to make the biggest chops
1272
of all in rural areas. That has to be wrong. At the same time, local education authorities often ignore the fact that, in closing a school in a small town and moving the children to another school, the second school is already nearly full. The education authority must then provide millions of pounds worth of new facilities to accommodate the children in the new school.
The problems of empty school places must be met by getting all schools to make sacrifices. I have told the House about four schools in my constituency. I have told those schools that they should all be prepared to dispose of surplus facilities and that they must find ways to help meet the problem. I believe that all the schools in my constituency that are threatened with closure are prepared to do that. I have also told them that if they are determined to seek to keep open a small rural school, they must be prepared to accept that there may well, in future, be a loss of the wide range of subjects that are offered in that school when compared with the bigger schools in the more urban areas. I told them that they may also have to accept in the future the possibility of a less generous staffing level than at present. All those things are unpalatable, but those schools accept that if they are to continue to exist they may well have to accept such conditions.
As I have said, I guess that Cumbria, which I have given as an example because I know it best, is only one part of the country where this new threat exists. I predict that it marks the beginning of a new trend which may well threaten the facilities in the smaller towns, where such threats have not previously existed. I believe that we have gone far enough in cutting the facilities of rural life, and that the time has now come to call a halt. I hope that the Government will respond to this debate in a way which covers my point about rural secondary schools. However, I perfectly understand that my hon. Friend who will reply to the debate may find it difficult to get deeply involved in education matters because that is not his departmental responsibility. However, I hope that we shall get a favourable response from the Government as soon as possible.
As I have said, people resent the fact that local education authorities may be tackling such problems in ways that hit at the heart of the rural infrastructure. We should not allow that to happen. I am glad to have had this opportunity of bringing the problem to the attention of the House.
10.37 am
Mrs. Ray Michie: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) on bringing this matter before the House today. It is an excellent subject and requires much discussion and thought. It is wide ranging and important, but I shall find it impossible to cover everything as well as the hon. Gentleman did.
I should like to make a few general remarks and then to concentrate on two or three issues that the hon. Gentleman raised which are of particular interest in terms of the problems of planning in rural areas. I am concerned, as I believe we all are, to reverse the decline that we have seen in some rural communities, with a loss of jobs and of housing, young people leaving, schools closing— as we have just heard—and a loss of shops, local services and public transport.
The Department of the Environment and the Minister have stated their wish to relax planning controls on

1273
development in the countryside. We must be careful about that. Clearly, the issue of the green belt is important and controversial. I believe that in the south of England the concept of the green belt must be maintained. I do not believe that people want an excessive relaxation of planning control in that area. It is important that we maintain the countryside as a place in which to live and work. That means adopting planning policies to keep alive small and remote rural areas which, if left to their fate, would become, at best, dormitory areas for commuters and weekenders and, at worst, isolated ghettos of the old and the jobless.
In England and Wales there is a wish to see county structure plans adhered to, so that there should not be a free-for-all. However, those plans could do with revision, although they do not need to be overturned. On the one hand, it is important for viable communities to live and work in the countryside, and too rigid a planning procedure will prevent that happening. On the other hand, we must not destroy our environment and our environmental heritage in the countryside.
Planning involves commitment to regeneration as well as to procedures. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) spoke about housing. It is often ignored that in rural areas there are a great many sub-tolerable, sub-standard houses and poverty that is not easily seen. Many people still have the idea that those people in rural areas live in nice little cottages with roses round the door. However, the inside of many such houses is as bad as anything in the worst city-area high-rise flats.
Too often, plans are made for urban areas by people who live in urban areas who then try to apply them, most unsuccessfully, to country areas. As the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East said, there is urban aid, but no rural aid, for which there is a desperate need. Too often, urban planners see the countryside as a place to drive to and move through and not as a place in which the economy must be strong in order to sustain the people who live there. I shall give further examples.
Planning policies often work crazily against each other. One small example is the tenant's right to buy, with which I agree. When a teacher in a remote rural area with the right to buy his house does so and then retires and a new teacher is needed, there is no house for that teacher. That is an example of how plans can work against each other. I come from the lovely tourist area of Argyll and Bute where there are many second homes. That causes tremendous problems for local people and a great deal of resentment. Those people cannot afford to buy the homes when they come on the market. However, they can be bought by people from the south or from some other part of the country.
During election campaigns, I found it tragic to knock on door after door on islands such as Tiree and to have to ask, "Do you live here or are you on holiday?" If the person was on holiday, I wished him a good holiday. However if local people and youngsters have to move out, we lose not only the indigenous people but a whole culture and way of life, and traditions and worthwhile values disappear. Those people have been brought up in the area and have an empathy and understanding for it.
Secondly, school closures were mentioned. Recently in my constituency and in that vast region of Strathclyde, we fought a long campaign to keep our rural schools. On the
1274
whole, we were successful. In Argyll for example, the closure of a rural school tears the heart out of a community and many dreadful things follow. The sub-post office closes, the shop and the petrol station close, and young families do not move into the area. Then we see the death of another little village community.
Then there is the problem of land use and competing claims. At the heart of life in any area, and especially in Scotland, are the farmers and crofters. They are the foundation on which the economy exists. Of course, tourism plays a large part, but the tourist industry would not flourish without the people who form the infrastructure of the area. Farmers and crofters are the true conservationists.
I become worried when I hear Ministers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food talk about reducing agricultural surpluses and reforming the common agricultural policy. I agree that we have to do that, but I become worried when I hear Ministers say that we must have set-aside schemes, take land out of agriculture and diversify. I am not sure that they realise that, especially in less-favoured areas, we do not contribute to the surpluses. I do not want to see a blanket policy for the whole United Kingdom to take land out of agriculture. Nothing is more ludicrous than ending up with not enough milk in the west of Scotland to make Scottish cheddar cheese for which there is a large market. It would be ludicrous if we started to import French cheese.
My argument, in turning back to planning and land use, is that the family farm is now more than ever the backbone of the industry in less-favoured areas. It follows that its health and vitality are essential for all the rural areas.
Mr. Charles Wardle: I am listening with care to the hon. Lady's speech. I am curious to know where she proposes that set-aside should be increased if not in the west of Scotland. If it is not to be on her doorstep, where does she suggest that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should concentrate his attention? I hope that she does not mean that it should be concentrated in Sussex.
Mrs. Michie: The farmers in my area are not cereal farmers. They raise sheep and beef cattle. On the whole, they are not arable farmers and I accept that one of the great surpluses is cereals. The area in which the Minister chooses to cut these surpluses is a matter for him and for the people concerned. I am trying to point out that people in less-favoured areas have to live and work there. We cannot take everybody out of farming, and I do not suggest that.
There is talk of diversification, but trees cannot be grown on the isle of Tiree because they would blow down in no time. Golf courses cannot stretch from one end of Argyll to the other. If that happens, we will lose the people. The Minister should look at the crofting community because it is a prime example of a farm community that has been able to diversify. Crofters have taken other jobs and are now moving into fish farming and so on. That is a good example of how farming communities can diversify.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): The comments of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs Michie)

1275
precisely reflect Government policy — to provide the widest possible series of chances for farmers to choose for themselves whether they wish to diversify. If farmers in the hon. Lady's constituency find that that is a valuable thing to do, they will have the opportunity to diversify, We want a voluntary system, so that farmers can choose for themselves, and not a Government system which forces people to do what we think best.
Other Opposition Members have said that the Government should do more to encourage diversification, more set-aside and more trees in the very area about which the hon. Lady is speaking. It is difficult to get that right because hon. Members say, "Give everything that we want to our people, but also make sure that they have everything that they have now and that the disadvantages of overproduction go somewhere else." There is a great NIMBY policy—in other words, not in my back yard—although I prefer to call it the NODAM policy—in other words, no development after mine. I beg the hon. Lady not to make the issue too difficult for the Government who must make the decisions.
Mrs. Michie: I understand the Minister's comments, although I am not sure whether he has understood mine. I am not saying, "Not in my back yard". Our less-favoured areas are not contributing to the surpluses in the common agricultural policy.
There are so many competing agencies operating in the countryside that their complexity is bewildering. Many of them do not appear to be subject to planning control and, apparently, are often unaccountable. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Forestry Commission, the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Crown Estate Commissioners, often generate conflict where there should be none. In Scotland, we badly need a land-water use strategy.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has in the past strongly defended the Crown Estate Commissioners. I am not attacking the people in that body. I have met a number of them. My constituents ask me, "Who are the Crown Estate Commissioners?" I have a dim recollection that their origins go back to Edward the Confessor, but I am not sure about their history.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: They go back to Robert the Bruce.
Mrs. Michie: No, I believe they are to do with the south. The Crown Estate Commissioners came along, for example, to a widow who has a private slipway down to the water. That slipway has been there for 22 years, has been well maintained and is not used for commercial purposes. Suddenly the commissioners started to charge rent for it. My constituents ask me, "Why are they doing this?" Only within the last week the commissioners have raised the charges for mooring boats in my constituency and part of the Clyde. My constituents ask me, "Who allows them to do this?" The members of one club, many of whom are pensioners, suddenly find that they have to pay rent to moor their boats. Perhaps the Minister can explain that.
The Crown Estate Commissioners are involved in fish farming which has been an excellent thing for the economy of the Highlands and Islands, but it now appears to be developing in a haphazard manner. Where is the control and accountability? My constituents tell me that the
1276
commissioners are to put a fish farm in the middle of the beautiful and world-renowned Tobermory bay on the island of Mull. Again, my constituents ask me, "How can they do this?"
There is conflict between the Nature Conservancy Council and agricultural development programmes, nowhere more so than on the island of Islay. There is conflict between farmers and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds because the geese are eating the grass. Four geese eat as much grass as one sheep and the number of geese is increasing while the number of sheep is declining.
We require plans for development and conservation. I was glad to hear from Lord Sanderson, Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office, that the Highlands regional council is preparing a land-use strategy for Islay. I am sorry that no Scottish Office Minister is present today, but, no doubt, the Ministers who are here will pass on any points which relate particularly to Scotland.
We want flexibility, planning and consultation, but above all, we must involve the local people in land use. Community councils in Scotland and parish councils in England must be involved, and local authorities must be the final arbiters. We must consult all those bodies, but the local people have the understanding and knowledge of what is required.
10.56 am
Sir John Farr: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), on his good luck in coming first in the ballot. I congratulate him particularly on his choice of subject, which is both important and interesting. It is strange that he should refer so much to the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill, which is about to go through this House and which deals so much with farm diversification.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his helpful remarks on the green belt system. He stressed the importance that his constituents attach to the preservation of that system. I did not intervene at the time because he was making such an impact on the House. It is all very well to have an extended green belt system and for the Government to appear to be actively promoting its extension, which I support, but the quality and the rigidity of the rules surrounding that system must not be relaxed. There are many extra hectares of green belt land in Britain, but what use do they serve when there are frequent examples of unwanted planning applications being granted for large sites in green belt areas? I am thinking particularly of the green belt around the city of Leicester, where the local council has recently given permission for a large development. Green belts are fine, providing they are strictly preserved and their character is maintained.
My hon. Friend also referred to the need to preserve sub-post offices, as did Sir Peter Mills when he was in the House. He used to emphasize how necessary the three Ps were to village life and to describe a sub-post office as one of the cornerstones of villages and small rural community life. Without it, and certainly without the village school, village life, which has much to be admired, starts to crumble and the country is the worse for it.
My hon. Friend referred to the problems facing sub-post offices in his constituency and we have exactly the same problems in Leicestershire. Many of my sub-post masters and mistresses are uneasy about the plans which

1277
the Government occasionally revive to introduce credit cards to enable pensioners to draw their pensions automatically from a machine, without having to use a post office. I hope that that plan of the DHSS will not come to fruition because the loss of regular visits from many pensioners could lead to the early closure of many post offices.
What my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said about village schools is worth emphasising. A small community or large village depends on its school which holds together, if not the village, then family life. It is what living in Britain is all about. Everything that is good stems from village schools. I am sure that all hon. Members would do whatever they could for such schools.
I have been through this problem, and have lost village schools. I even took a delegation to see the Minister then responsible for village school policy. We were fortunate enough to visit her on her birthday and to know that it was her birthday so we took her a large box of chocolates, but we still lost our village school. One can only hope that, by continuing to stress how valuable village schools are to small communities, even if they are a little more costly to operate, we can succeed in retaining them for the general good of the community.
The motion refers to planning for the development of jobs. It is absolutely right to do that. It is right, too, that the House should know that, despite the Department of the Environment issuing several helpful circulars guiding local authorities on how to provide new jobs through farm diversification and projects in rural areas, there is growing evidence that local authorities continue to go their own way. I shall not weary the House with a debate which we had on this subject on 1 February, but what I stressed then has since come even more to my attention.
The Minister's letter of 21 January states:
"Since 1980 we have consistently urged planning authorities to treat applications for the re-use of redundant farm buildings sympathetically … Permission for the re-use of redundant farm buildings should therefore be granted, unless there are specific or convincing planning objections."
As I said on 1 February and as other hon. Members have said since, local authorities are objecting to these applications. The Minister gave the clearest indication of the Government's wishes in his letter and the excellent circulars which he has already sent to local authorities have been directly worded. Again I urge him to consider whether the time has now come at least to issue a forceful reminder to local authorities, which still seem to believe that redundant farm buildings permanently out of use are an attractive sight. They simply do not seem to be prepared to cope with the problems of the late 1980s and the 1990s.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East dwelt on housing in rural areas. It is essential to have good housing available, not for holiday homes, but for those who will work and live there, whether on the west coast of Scotland or elsewhere. We want people to have a good job and a decent house. On the other hand, land continues to be used for non-agricultural purposes at a great rate. As my hon. Friend said, that is not happening as quickly as in 1985, but of a total area of 24·4 million hectares of United Kingdom land, 80 per cent. is used for agriculture and 10 per cent. for forestry. Land is being lost at the rate of 5,000 hectares a year.
1278
We are disturbed that it is often the choicest land of the highest quality that is used for housing estates around some of our big cities. A housing estate of 100 or 200 houses is what I would call a blister on many rural villages. Unfortunately, it is a feature of many parts of the east midlands, particularly Leicestershire and Northamptonshire. When those blisters of modern housing estates are attached to ancient villages, obviously, they provide an injection of children for the school and even help to keep the pub going and possibly the village policeman, as Peter Mills used to say. Nevertheless, it has a detrimental effect on village life.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister find time to persuade — if not to direct—the developers and major house building companies that are so active in the home counties and certainly in the east midlands, increasingly to concentrate their developments on derelict land in inner-city areas? That is easy to say. Indeed, there was a document called "This Pleasant Land", which I am sure my hon. Friend knows, produced last autumn by several Members of Parliament who are worried about these developments. It is no use ignoring the fact that some of the current types of development are intolerable. In my constituency in southern Leicestershire, over 1,000 acres are likely to go for housing before 1995. That will mean about 15,000 houses. The land chosen for such development is the choicest green field land, agricultural grassland with a high agricultural value.
While we may no longer need every acre of land for food, it is still essential to promote what I would call farm and village industry. The ceaseless appetite of developers in Leicestershire, encouraged to a certain extent by officials from the Department of the Environment, to submit more and more plans to gobble up green field sites with huge housing estates, is deplorable and to be resisted.
It is much easier for a developer to build on a green field site. He will not want to mess around in some derelict inner-city area, where there may be worked-out services, pipes, old drains and cables to be removed first. Moreover, his houses will sell better in a green field area. There is money in it for him. People prefer to be able to see the village church, even from some distance away, and there are at present no hedgerows in derelict inner-city areas.
"This Pleasant Land" contains 19 recommendations. I urge my hon. Friend, who may have seen the document, to tell the House that he has taken it on board. It highlights some key points. For example, it recommends exemption for five years from the national business rate for newly constructed commercial or industrial premises in inner-city areas. Another recommendation is tax allowances for the repair and conversion of inner-city dwellings and industrial premises. It also recommends the establishment of what are defined as protected green belts beyond the strategic development boundaries in which no significant development would be possible, and it suggests that agricultural land, open space or woodland separating adjacent rural communities should be given permanent green belt status. This excellent little leaflet also calls for the establishment of a national land use survey to determine what land is available for housing and other purposes, and the introduction of a public auction notice system to bring publicly owned land on to the market and to secure its development.

1279
The document makes a number of other points with which I shall not weary the House. I can easily provide my hon. Friend with the leaflet and the report, if he has not already received them.
I know from conditions in the east midlands and Leicestershire that within a very short time many hundreds of additional houses will be built on green field land, which could just as well be built in the city of Leicester or one of the big neighbouring cities. They would then be far nearer to the station, and just as close to the motorway.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East hs done an excellent job. He has produced a cogent and lucid proposal which is full of common sense, and I know that we shall all look forward to his coming first in the ballot again, when we may enjoy a similarly stimulating debate initiated by him.
In his motion, my hon. Friend refers to the need to discuss
"farming diversification and infrastructure in rural areas".
Farming diversification and, to some extent, infrastructure are, of course, dealt with in detail in the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will be on the Standing Committee, because I am lucky enough to be a member of it. I understand that consideration of the Bill is due to start shortly. No doubt we shall then have some useful discussions, and my hon. Friend will be able to give the Committee the help that he has given the House today. I suppose that his reference to infrastructure in rural areas relates to a series of sites of special scientific interest, environmentally sensitive areas and areas of outstanding natural beauty. No doubt we shall discuss those in Committee. Clause 2 covers in detail farm diversification, particularly woodland diversification. When that legislation is on the statute book—as soon as possible, I hope — the powers will be effective from October this year.
It would not be right to consider the future of the countryside — housing, farming diversification and infrastructure—without saying a word about what could loosely be described as country sports. It is not possible to plan the countryside. Our countryside of today was never planned; it happened, and it will continue to be a beautiful place for years to come. But many sports are possible in the countryside—on horseback or on foot, or, indeed, sedentary occupations such as fishing beside a river or canal. Such occupations are all part of a country structure, and they will not go away. Whether hon. Members like it or not, we must learn when we plan—as far as we are able—the the future of this beautiful countryside of ours that we must do so hand in hand with all who are lucky enough to take part in the many useful country sports.
11.17 am
Mr. David Nicholson: First, it is my pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) on his success in the ballot, his choice of motion and his skilful and comprehensive presentation. Despite the distance between our constituencies, I believe that, some 20 years ago, he had the opportunity to teach my brother in law in Tiverton, 10 or so miles from where we now live, but this morning I have sat at his feet and learnt much.
My hon. Friend made some interesting points about possible departmental changes involving the Minister of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment. I do not think that my farmers would forgive me for biting the
1280
hand that feeds them, but my hon. Friend had a point to make. No other sector of industry has a whole Department to itself, and, as the debate has shown, the countryside involves factors relating to a number of Departments— not simply productive industry, agricultural or otherwise. I feel, that my hon. Friend's remarks should be considered seriously.
My hon. Friend pointed out that the countryside faces both problems and opportunities, and referred to the problems facing the children of today's farmers. I must start on a sombre note and make some constituency points.
I hope that the House, and my hon. Friend the Minister, will excuse me for having to leave shortly after midday to attend a meeting of local councillors in my constituency, along with the management of Dairy Crest. As some hon. Members will know, as a result of cuts in milk production, following the introduction of quotas, Dairy Crest is closing five creameries, two in Wales, one in Carlisle, one in Cornwall and one in Wellington, in my constituency. The other four areas all suffer from higher unemployment than my constituency. None the less, 99 redundancies, including those of people who have committed their working lives to the company, is a tragedy for the town, which is now recovering so well from closures at the start of this decade.
The meeting this afternoon is not to shout at the gods, or, more particularly, at the EEC, because dairy quotas are here to stay, and the farming community seems to welcome that. The meeting is to consider how the various agencies, including the company and the Taunton Deane borough council, can provide job opportunities or training for those to be made redundant. In this respect, it is relevant to this debate that the industrial estate at Chelston, close to the M5, seems to be proceeding towards obtaining planning permission without objection, and I welcome that.
While on the subject of employment and in particular of the interdependency of certain types of manufacturing industry and agriculture, I shall refer to a typical product of my constituency. Although my hon. Friend the Minister is not responsible for the Budget, he will at once appreciate the relevance of that event. In my maiden speech, on the Housing Bill, I spared him reference to cider, but today he will not be so fortunate. The cider industry does not contribute massively to the gross national product or the balance of payments, but on its prosperity depends the direct employment of some hundreds of my constituents and those of other hon. Members, and the success of aspects of farm diversification.
The motion refers to the encouragement of farm diversification and the promotion of enterprise. Those who have understanding of the cider industry, and I confess that my knowledge is in its infancy, know that the development of cider apple orchards requires years of planning and preparation.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: And tasting.
Mr. Nicholson: Yes, and tasting. I will simply reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) said in an oral question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11 February. It is that a discriminatory rise in the tax on cider would, as happened in 1984–85, have serious consequences for employment and for the forward planning of diversification in that industry.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): My hon. Friend mentioned a subject that did not come up in his maiden speech on the Second Reading of the Housing Bill. Something else which did not come up, owing to the incompetence of the Minister concerned, who happened to be myself, was a proper tribute to that maiden speech in the winding-up speech. I take this opportunity to say that that was an excellent speech, and we regret that my hon. Friend is not on the Standing Committee considering the Housing Bill, because we would greatly have profited by his advice.
Mr. Nicholson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, particularly as I may not be here to hear his speech. While I may have been deprived of the pleasure of sitting on the Committee considering the Housing Bill, I am happy to say that I shall be on the Committee considering the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill.
It is a sad but not wholly inaccurate reflection on our political system that those who are chiefly concerned with the prosperity of agriculture are sometimes least concerned with that of manufacturing industry, and vice versa. I hope that the two examples that I have given help to bridge this division, because recession in both costs jobs, and production cuts in the United Kingdom, when accompanied by foreign import penetration, weaken the balance of payments.
Another consequence of recession is far more severe in agriculture and the countryside. When an industry declines, it leaves behind it the debris of industrial sites and buildings, but those sites can be, and are, developed for new uses in the way that redundant mills in my native north-west have been. If agriculture were to face a depression like that of the 1930s, we would very swiftly see a dramatic deterioration in our countryside.
In the 1930s, there were relatively few inhabitants of suburbs or inner cities with the mobility to notice or care, but we should soon hear today from the 15 million people a week who visit the countryside if such a deterioration were to take place. That is why I hope that my hon. Friends will encourage Ministers at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to defend our farming interests robustly. That is why we welcome the, albeit modest, measure of the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill. This Parliament sees the Department of the Environment, and other Departments, leading the revival of our inner cities, but if we can at the same time revive our rural communities, we can start to check the inevitable spread of suburbia which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) pointed out in a timely Adjournment debate the other night, threatens to run together such towns as Reading, Wokingham and Bracknell into one suburban megalopolis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, North-East referred to the latest Office of Population Censuses and Surveys population projections, published in January 1988. These suggest an increase in population in the southwest of 486,000 between 1985 and 2001, the second largest rate of increase of any standard region in England—l0·8 per cent. compared with East Anglia's 14·9 per cent. The increase for the current decade, 1985–6, is also the second largest at 7·4 to 10·4 per cent. Within the southwest, Somerset has the third largest increase, after Cornwall and Wiltshire, of 16·4 per cent. up to 2001, and 11 per cent. up to 1996. That is an extra 73,000 people up to 2001.
1282
Are these new souls to be housed in the larger towns or are they to help to expand and revitalise the smaller towns and villages? That is the key question for planning over the next decade. Until recently, in my area, and no doubt in those represented by many hon. Members, the tendency has been for large towns such as Taunton to grow further and further out, enveloping or linking up with one-time villages such as Bishop's Hull or Staplegrove. This constant tacking of bits on to the town is becoming politically unacceptable to many of my electors, irrespective of their party support. Many of my hon. Friends will have experienced the same factor.
The challenge before us is whether we can ensure that after the present round of planned suburban extensions, which are not without controversy and may not see the light of day, we can contain the spread of the larger towns and concentrate more development in the smaller towns and villages. In this context, like the Taunton Deane council, I was bitterly disappointed last year when the Department of the Environment inspector rejected an application to develop a housing estate in the village of Oake. In the view of the council, if ever there was a village that, in respect of its environment and facilities should take the pressure, it was Oake. The inspector admitted that Oake was not perpetually reprieved, and developments may have to come in future years.
If villages are to see development, it must often be on a more modest scale than some of the planners and the national building firms prefer. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) made the point about blisters of 100 houses being tacked on to villages. Are we giving small-scale builders enough encouragement to build on more modest plots?
Mr. Mark Wolfson: No.
Mr. Nicholson: I believe that my hon. Friend is right. Smaller scale builders need such encouragement.
The experience of the farming community with planning authorities which are slow to recognise the wind of change which is now blowing in the countryside should be mentioned. The Somerset and South Avon county branch of the NFU is worried at the number of barn conversions which are refused, and at the trouble with applications, often made for good social and economic reasons, to establish a mobile home on a farm. Often only a temporary provision is required. In one or two cases, refusal was clearly justified, such as a proposal for a barn conversion into a holiday let only 10 yds from another family's home. I understand that Taunton Deane and West Somerset have a better record with regard to granting such applications than certain other districts in Somerset and Avon.
The Somerset and South Avon NFU has given me some fine examples of potentially successful diversification. A young couple have turned their farm into an open education centre for children. A south Somerset farmer has started a motor cycle race track across his farm and a ride for horse riders. My two children, aged three and one and a half are now starting to learn to ride horses. I am sorry to say that the only occasion on which their father sat across such a four-legged beast was in Jordan some 15 years ago. I am convinced that the beast had been left over from the first Crusade. The same farmer grows willows for cricket bats.
Another farmer wanted to convert old veal buildings into an indoor bowling arena, but ran into difficulties with

1283
planners. Many successful businesses farming worms are springing up. They use slurry from dairy cows, which is fairly common in the west country. We are beginning to beat the French at snail farming. It is being pioneered by a French emigré—M. Jacques Aubree—at Rode near Bath. He ran into considerable difficulties with planners about a one acre plot and a 6 ft weavo fence to keep the dogs out. Planners originally refused to recognise snail farming as a proper agricultural pursuit. I am happy to say that the NFU persuaded them to change their minds. I hope that those examples are encouraging to my hon. Friends and the Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East dealt with housing in some depth. I shall not repeat what I said in my maiden speech about the plight of rural communities, particularly regarding young families and the elderly. My hon. Friend put the argument well. I am not sure whether calling on the retired to think again before moving to the countryside would work. I am not sure that we would want to pursue that line. It is more a case of supply than demand, and there might be a case for providing that council houses which are to be sold should be aimed at certain families and should not be bought for second homes.
We need more money for rural housing associations. We need mixed funding and enough grant to provide housing at attractive rent levels. The problem in the countryside is that, on the whole, people have lower incomes and cannot afford rents that the private sector might require without some form of help.
There is a policy, which I believe was started in the London boroughs of Brent and Bromley—so it must commend itself to both sides of the House—which has been practised in Taunton Deane and elsewhere. Discounts are offered to help council home occupiers to buy into the private sector, thus vacating their council homes, which are usually the larger ones such as are in short supply. I understand that there have been 30 or 40 such transfers in Taunton Deane during the past year.
Several of my hon. Friends, but especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) spoke about rural schools. There is a dilemma. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East might he less critical of the hill farm subsidy if he had the odd hill in his constituency. There may be hope on the way for rural schools which achieve a high standard through the Education Reform Bill and its proposals about admissions. I believe that it would be possible for rural schools such as Nynehead and Langford Budville in my constituency, which are fairly close to Wellington, and which are of a high standard but are well below capacity, to attract children from a wider area because of their excellence. Legislation may help rural schools in that respect.
I pay tribute to my namesake, my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) who has taken up cudgels about sub-post offices and so-called community post offices far more vigorously than I. She has an extensive rural constituency. I have corresponded with the Post Office, and I am not entirely happy with the present state of play. I proposed that it might make its offer of limited hours of work, and therefore limited income, voluntary so that if there was difficulty finding somebody, somebody could run a sub-post office full-time or part-time according to their needs.
1284
I am afraid that I had the usual and understandable reply about the cost of keeping rural sub-post offices open. It was admitted that the limited hours option would operate as sub-post offices became vacant. The Post Office has, however, confirmed that its policy is to keep more sub-post offices open. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West told me last night that that policy has been successful and that some 40 offices which might have closed have been kept open. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will watch that matter closely. I hope that we shall resist strongly the closure of rural sub-post offices by the back door, as was attempted a few years ago.
I have tried to draw attention to several of the factors which affect the development of the countryside. None of us wants a dying countryside through the decline of agriculture or the departure of population, but nor do we want a summer holiday weekend cottage countryside, with a part-time population. With new technology, more people will find it possible to work at least part-time from many parts of the country. They do not have to be stuck from 9 am on Monday to 5 pm on Friday in an office a few milies to the east of here.
That offers great hope to the countryside and its schools, post offices, shops and all the enterprises that I hope will be developed there. Of course, it will create social changes and difficulties with people from far away coming into a settled traditional community. But those who complain about that in my constituency and elsewhere should consider the traumatic changes in the inner cities during the past 30 years. Our compatriots who live there have seen vast tracts of the cities demolished and often rebuilt in an unsatisfactory style and large areas of them settled by people from the Commonwealth, which has caused great tensions.
I commend my hon. Friend on his choice of subject. This has been an excellent debate so far, and I am sure that it will so continue.
11.40 am
Mr. Mark Wolfson: I welcome the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), who had the good fortune to win the ballot and the good sense to choose this subject. It is a special pleasure to take part in the debate because about a year ago I visited my hon. Friend's constituency to speak to the Conservative association and he was kind enough to come to Wisbech on an extremely cold winter day when the wind, as is usual up there, was coming straight from the Urals. A year later, we have a sunnier day, which is perhaps due to his benevolent influence on his new constituency.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is here to reply to the debate. He has shown his interest in and concern for rural housing, and I shall concentrate on its problems during my speech. My hon. Friend will appreciate the problem of rural housing even in — or perhaps because it is in — a constituency so close to London. He has said that the Housing Bill may not solve rural housing problems and that they should be tackled in their own right at some stage. I hope that this debate will push the matter further up the agenda.
We have heard today, and it is clear to people inside and outside the House, how much Britain's countryside has changed during the past few years. Only this week, we

1285
had the latest stage in negotiations on the common agricultural policy. The British farming industry so effectively fulfilled its post-war brief that the result is farm surpluses in Britain and in Europe as a whole. The need to cut the subsidies which create those surpluses means that change in the rural economy is bound to proceed faster in the future.
The economic prosperity of the countryside, which hon. Members who have spoken in the debate want and which those who live there wish to enjoy, depends on social wellbeing. New businesses and jobs cannot be sustained in the countryside without schools, shops, transport, libraries and, critically, affordable housing. The lack of such affordable housing is a great problem. More and more people, in addition to the young, the elderly and the less well-off, find it increasingly difficult to live and work in rural areas. I shall discuss the problem in more detail and give the House some hard information.
The rented sector, public and private, has all but disappeared and owner-occupation has been pushed beyond the reach of many people who live in rural areas. New housing that is built in villages is usually detached, more expensive, executive-style houses or retirement bungalows. To be profitable for the developer, small starter homes must be built on a large scale. But to fit in with village life and not to create blisters on the edge of villages we need small-scale development of houses that people can purchase from incomes derived from rural jobs, and those incomes will not be high.
Housing associations have not ventured far into our villages. They are largely urban-based and have not yet met all the needs of the towns and cities. But in about eight counties rural housing associations have been established to build for rent in small villages. They have harnessed the efforts of parish councils and some appear to be working well. I commend further similar developments to the Government. Those schemes have demonstrated the extent of the hidden need that is revealed when the people living in rural areas realise that there is a chance that their housing needs will be met. More of them are saying, "This is where I want to live, but until now I have seen no hope of doing so." Their need has not been fully perceived.
Shared ownership housing, where someone purchases 50 per cent. of the equity and pays a subsidised rent for the remainder, could be developed much more in villages. That form of tenure accepts the values which are dictated by the market. It enables people on lower incomes to become part-owners. But the Department of the Environment sets unrealistic values for those houses, and it has not yet been possible to design houses which the district valuer could place within the lower Department of the Environment limits. I hope that the Minister will answer that point. Another problem with shared ownership is that the subsidy required to keep rents low carries with it a Department requirement that the occupier must be given the right to staircase — the chance to progress to full ownership. If that happens, the house ultimately becomes part of the privately owned sector and can no longer be used as low-cost housing reserved for local people.
I want to consider important statistics that will back up my point. In October 1987, the Association of District Councils published a research paper from the Bristol School of Advanced Urban Studies, which showed that
1286
only one third of working people—and I mean people in work, the real sense of working people, not the pejorative sense used by others — in the south of England could not afford to buy their own homes. There was a great need for rented housing in the non-metropolitan areas.
In the three northern counties, very few households in work appeared to be unable to finance house purchase in 1986. The survey showed that the position had been much the same in 1982–83. The picture in the midlands, according to the survey, was less clear. Slightly more households were unable to purchase and the position had deteriorated between 1982 and 1986. In the south, and in particular in Essex and Hampshire, substantial proportions—up to one third—of households in work could not be expected to purchase at prevailing prices. That proportion had doubled between 1982 and 1986. That does not surprise anyone. We are all aware of the pressures and my figures back up what is happening.
In spite of the more favourable incomes and general prosperity in the south and because of the particular expression of the north-south divide in house prices, there is a substantial problem of access to the mainstream housing tenure of owner-occupation in southern rural areas.
I want to suggest several ways in which greater impetus can be given to solve some of the difficulties. Obviously far more must be done to help people on lower incomes who need housing in the areas to which I have referred. I have already referred to the need to discover the extent of the real need. District council lists do not always provide an accurate indicator of the housing needs in rural areas. The councils are not looking ahead at ways in which to deal with the problem. As local housing planning authorities, councils should undertake systematic surveys of local housing need to reveal the true picture. They should then produce clear strategies for meeting those needs within their own development plans or their housing investment programmes.
I also suggest that district councils should be allowed to expand their housing programmes in rural areas and in particular to provide small numbers of dwellings suitable for the elderly. It is enormously important to elderly people that they should be able to continue to live, so long as they are physically able, in their home village. It is very traumatic for them to be moved away. They are more likely to receive neighbourliness and family support if they can remain in their own village.
Local authorities should work more closely with private developers, self-build groups and others to increase the housing stock. It is crucial that discussions should take place within the villages between the local authority, the housing developer or the self-build group to address the reasons for wanting to develop a small group of houses and so produce a scheme to assist villagers on low incomes to obtain housing. The anti-argument to developments in so many villages — I hear this all the time from constituents in my rather comfortable area — is that when the houses are built they will be bought by well-off people from outside. The people who live in the villages have proper consciences about the local people they know and like and they want their children to continue to live in those villages in which their parents have been fortunate enough to live. If we could show that the building and financing arrangements would ensure that houses are available for local people, most of the anti-argument to

1287
development would disappear. If it does not disappear, we can give people a very bad conscience and that could be no end of a help to achieving a positive decision to allow development.
Although I am a strong supporter of the Government's aim to sell council houses to tenants—and that has been exceedingly successful in towns and cities—that aim has produced a real problem in some villages—a problem which, clearly, came out of the woodwork during the election. I called on satisfied parents who were delighted at the opportunities that had been provided for them but who were worried about their children being able to stay in the village as they had done.
We need a programme that takes us beyond the present stage of merely selling council houses. I suggest that local housing authorities should be permitted and encouraged by the Government to spend a proportion of the proceeds from the sale of council houses — certainly more than the present 20 per cent. — on meeting current housing needs in their area. The Treasury must be pressed to take a new view of the problem and to give the social priorities about which we are talking a higher profile in its considerations.
Those are the main points that I wished to make. I could have covered many more. At this stage the rigour of key settlement policies needs to be examined with a view to allowing more organic growth of settlements and, hence, the survival of some of the key services and of the social balance within communities. Planning policy needs to be flexible enough to ensure that local needs for housing or jobs can be met. Where substantial growth is contemplated, the scale of development must not be such as to swamp the services or the social structure of a settlement or to damage significantly the visual amenity of the countryside.
The development in rural France is interesting. There are so many more small builders who build individual houses on village plots that have had the infrastructure provided by the local authority. As a result, there often seems to be a better fit of small-scale development with the existing environment. In this country, all too often the big boys are interested only in large-scale developments.
We have all heard—I am sure that it will continue—the way in which hon. Members attach importance to the maintenance of rural services. There has been some success in halting the decline of shops, post offices, surgeries cottage hospitals and bus services. To a large extent, rural post offices are now protected. Proposals to charge for school transport have been withdrawn. There has been an encouraging growth in community-based services such as community shops, parish minibuses, community newsletters, village halls being used for a multitude of purposes and there is more parental involvement in the running of primary schools.
However, there is still a continuing decline in many rural services that are run by public agencies and commercial firms. We all agree that the retention and strengthening of services in villages remains a fundamental objective. That includes the encouragement of self-help and co-operation. Rural communities must not expect to sit back and let things be done for them. They are entitled to the same level of statutory provision as everyone else in the country, but they will have to be ready to put forward their own views and to supplement the publicly provided services such as those that volunteers and community
1288
enterprises can provide. There is no lack of willingness to do that among people in villages. It is one of the attractive sides of village living.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) — how nice it is that he retains the old name of Westmorland in the description of his constituency—spoke about the problem of secondary schools possibly being closed. I give him my full support in the points he made because I know his area of the country intimately. Because of my link with Cumbria, may I give an unrepentant puff to a project in my right hon. Friend's constituency which is known and supported by him. It is run by Brathay Hall Trust at Ambleside. It is a development training centre with which I have been involved for many years and of which I am a trustee. It is accredited to the Manpower Services Commission. Part of the wide-ranging work that it has done over the past 18 months has been to provide for 40 people—next year it is planned that it will provide for 80 people—a training programme to enable them to get back into work and, in many cases, to be self-employed. Its approach is to emphasise the ability of the individual, to encourage his or her self-confidence and ability to seek out the skills and skilled training necessary to obtain work in their area.
It has often found that unemployed people in rural areas do not necessarily know where to start. The Government have provided many of the opportunities and agencies at which they can obtain the necessary skilled training, but those people do not always receive personal support to give them the encouragement and self-confidence to seek that training. In its first year of operation the course has found work for 90 per cent. of the people attending or has encouraged them to make work of a profitable nature for themselves.
I hope that hon. Members will not feel it inappropriate for me to conclude my remarks by talking about how support is needed for individuals living in rural areas and how the Government are providing, through the Manpower Services Commission, specific tutorial support training for people to enable them to develop an effective and fulfilling life at work in their areas.
12.2 pm
Dr. John Marek: I am pleased to be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at this point of the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson). I agree with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman said. It is always a source of surprise to me —given the hon. Gentleman's remarks—that we do not see him in the Opposition lobby more often than we do.
This is an important debate about rural areas and the lack of services in them. It is a debate to which the central thrust of Government policy cannot be applied because rural areas will always be at a disadvantage. Rural areas will always need extra help because the market cannot be left to look after them.
I shall go through some of the services that need to be considered. With regard to housing, the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) said that the provision of council housing should be aimed at particular families. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks mentioned how difficult it is to keep local people and families in rural areas because of the difficulties that they face obtaining a house. The logic of these problems leads one to say that every local authority should have a minimum amount of council housing that it can rent to local people.
Mr. Bill Walker: So that the hon. Gentleman is not under any misunderstanding, I should tell him that I represent a 2,000 sq mile rural constituency. The sale of council housing has not changed anything because the people who bought their houses would not have moved out of them anyway. The argument is how we provide houses for those who wish to stay. The fact that council houses were let by the council or bought by the people living in them has changed nothing.
Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman is fortunate, but in many other places, especially small villages and rural areas, council houses have been sold, only to be put on the market as soon as possible. The statistics show this, although I do not have them with me. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) represents an area that is very far from London, but those of us who live nearer to the rich parts of the United Kingdom know of the constant complaint of local councils, whether Labour or Conservative, that they wish they had some council houses to allocate to local families who cannot afford to buy. Those families have no chance of staying in the area and have to move out into bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Young married couples have to live in the front television rooms of their parents' houses.
This is a serious problem, and there should not be any dogma about it. I do not object to people owning their own house. I would encourage it every time. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks said that there should be incentives to encourage people in rural areas to buy their own houses, and he went through the matter in detail. I am not against that, but there should be a stock of council housing at the disposal of local authorities so that they can properly look after their areas.
It is a pity that the Conservative party considers this as a matter of dogma. Conservative Members say that they are concerned about housing, yet they troop through the Division Lobby—I do not know whether they are just in awe of their mistress or whether they do not realise the illogicality of their case—to exacerbate the problem. I have seen this repeatedly since I was elected to the House in 1983.
The previous Secretary of State for Wales, who has now gone to the other place, issued a circular on executive housing in the Principality—not for the people who cannot afford to buy their own houses. He thought that there was a demand for executives and executive housing in the Principality. Of course executives want their houses on green field sites. The matter was referred for consultation. Every local authority and almost every body in Wales, with the exception of the Land Authority for Wales and perhaps two other groups, said that there was no extra demand for, or perceived shortage of, executive housing in Wales, whether in the rural areas or elsewhere. That circular is still in existence.
Mr. Donald Anderson: It may well be that the Welsh Office is seeking to modify that circular. Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from being a major intrusion into normal planning law, the concept appeared to be half-baked, as though it arose from, say, a weekend conversation at a golf club or in a chamber of commerce? There was no evidence seriously to suggest that executives had difficulty in finding appropriate homes. It is especially puzzling that the Welsh Office was going ahead with the
1290
executive homes idea while selling off council houses and reducing the flexibility in the countryside that a supply of council houses provided.
Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes the point well, and I agree with him. There need to be second thoughts about that circular.
An adequate stock of housing should be available to local authorities—
Mr. Anderson: And to housing associations.
Dr. Marek: —and to housing associations—to look after their people in the rural areas. Planning authorities are usually conscious of this need. I know a number of members of various local authority planning committees who are constantly concerned about being able to look after their communities. They are worried. They know that if they can get money to build council houses in rural areas for families who need them, after about four years huge capital gains will be made. Such houses will probably be sold as second homes and be used for purposes other than the one for which they were originally built.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is shaking his head.
Mr. Bill Walker: I represent north Tayside, Pitlochry, Aberfeldy, Dunkeld, and all the beautiful highland glens. If anyone is looking for a beautiful highland home, one would have thought that there would have been substantial evidence of it. There is no evidence.
Dr. Marek: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. He must visit my constituency and other parts of rural Wales. He will find a different story.
Mr. Anderson: Because it is close to Birmingham.
Dr. Marek: It is close to Birmingham, but it is much closer to London. My hon. Friend and I speak from experience within our own areas.
I am not trying to pull the wool over hon. Member's eyes. It is a serious problem throughout almost all of Wales.
To put it bluntly, the Government's policy is to give local education authorities as little money as possible. If local education authorities were to paint schools and provide decent pupil-teacher ratios, there would be such a great grant holdback that they would probably cease to have any grant at all, or at least they would be severely penalised for trying to provide a proper service. It is probably accepted throughout the country, if not by hon. Members, that local education authorities have a great deal of difficulty in doing their work properly, with the result that there is a move to try to close small rural schools. That is sad. In many cases, small rural schools are the lifeblood of communities. I accept that it is difficult to justify keeping open a school that has perhaps seven, eight or nine children. As a society, we should be able to say that a primary school with 15 or 16 pupils deserves to be kept open. Such a school would have a good pupil-teacher ratio.
In urban parts of my constituency, pupil-teacher ratios are high. Certainly, the county of Clwyd has one of the worst pupil-teacher ratios in the country. It is probably the worst in Wales. I do not blame it for that; it has many difficulties. Small schools should be taken into account. A low pupil-teacher ratio in one town should not result in an

1291
adverse pupil-teacher ratio in a neighbouring town. It is a problem, and the Government have not faced up to it. I hope that the Minister will say something about it.
The closure of some secondary schools causes problems with regard to children travelling to school. It is a good idea to have sixth form colleges or centres of tertiary education. However, it involves travel. Tertiary education centres should be sited so that travel is not excessive. Of course, it depends on how one defines efficiency. Some Ministers will say that they want as few as possible, because it will save costs and teachers, never mind that pupils have to travel 20 or 30 miles each day. That is wrong. We must examine the matter carefully, with a view to providing a service to all parts of the rural community, so that children travel the minimum necessary distance.
I have heard Conservative Members talk about post offices. It is a good social service. There is a post office in almost every village. No matter where one lives, letters are delivered to one's house. What is more, a first class letter costs only 18p. It will be interesting to see what the Government will do when they reconsider the Post Office's monopoly. If they lift the monopoly from the Post Office, will they tie one hand behind its back and allow cowboys to cream off the easy meat and the rich pickings in the City yet starve the Post Office of funds to provide a proper, comprehensive system for the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Anderson: The comprehensive service is not the only concern. There is also concern about a difference in postal rates between inner cities and remote rural areas, which necessarily will reduce the quality and attractiveness of life in rural areas.
Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend anticipates exactly what I am about to say. If the Government do not tie one hand behind the Post Office's back and allow it to compete, it is absolutely certain that the letter rate to rural areas such as Pitlochry will increase to £1 a letter. I shall be very surprised if the rate will not be £1 a letter in my constituency of Wrexham. The hon. Member for Tayside, North shakes his head. I hope that I am not being rude when I suggest that he thinks carefully and makes appropriate representations to the Prime Minister before anything is done to break the Post Office monopoly.
There would be no payments by the Post Office to sub-post offices to keep them open. The Post Office will say that anyone who wishes to provide a service will have to pay the Post Office for a franchise. If that happens, how many local village post offices in rural areas will be lost?
Many Conservative Members are concerned about postal services and about the ability of local post offices to carry letters to and from any address in the United Kingdom. They should think it through carefully before they troop through the Lobby and vote for yet another privatisation measure that will be put before the House in the next Session or the one after.
I should like to say a few words about transport, which is a difficult and serious problem in many rural areas. It is a problem that has to be faced by ordinary working people who do not have a lot of money, and by the unemployed, who suffer most. It does not affect people who have houses in rural areas as second homes or who live in rural areas because their salaries are large enough to pay for two cars or a chauffeur, and can work in a city but live in convenient rural areas. The problem affects
1292
people who are not rich and do not have big salaries, and, after housing, it is one of the most serious problems in rural areas.
More money needs to be spent on rural roads. Not much has been said about the roads, but many of them are neglected. There is an inadequate programme for the upkeep of roads. I do not blame the county councils and the transport authorities because they have limited money and have to make political decisions about where it is spent.
It is easy for them to decide not to upgrade or resurface a particular country road this year, and to say that it will have to last for another year, hoping that the winter is not too bad. It is a great pity when that happens, and that we do not have more improvements in some of the black spots on the A roads in the United Kingdom.
I speak with first-hand knowledge of the road system throughout Wales and of quite a few of the roads in rural areas in other parts of the United Kingdom. A great deal of money easily could be spent on improving sections of the roads which must have caused many thousands of deaths during the preceding years.
As for the railways, there are not many railways in rural areas after Beeching. We need many more rural railway stations. We need to get away from the insane idea that money spent on carriages and engines is capital and therefore must be used. Capital spent on engines and rolling stock is used if it is waiting in any particular place just to take account of any mishap that might occur. An engine could, for example, break down or something might go wrong with another train. British Rail should be able to say, "We have a spare engine 15 minutes' away. We can get there and get passengers on their way to their destinations." If something goes wrong on the line from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth the chances are, especially if it is a local train, that the nearest spare engine is in Bescot which, as we all know, is near Birmingham. It will probably take anything from one and a half to four hours for another engine to reach Aberystwyth. British Rail is aware of such problems, but the facts show that when such things happen, passengers are inconvenienced, not just in a minor way and not even in a moderately major way. They may have to wait two or three hours or the whole train may be cancelled in which case they have to wait four or five hours for the next train. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) will confirm that on the central Wales line there are only four services a day each way between Llanelli and Shrewsbury—
Mr. Anderson indicated assent.
Dr. Marek: Yes, it is something like that. That service is not of great use to the local population and there should be much more frequent services. I know that that would cost money and that it would not be considered efficient by the Government, but it is important in rural areas.
As I have already said, we cannot let the market dominate the rural areas because those areas would die if that happened. We must provide for those areas and, as a society, recognise that we have a duty to ensure that a minimum level of proper services is available to all our citizens, wherever they live.
I know that time is getting on so I shall pass quickly to my next subject. The price of petrol is another problem. When will the Government insist to the petrol companies

1293
that the price of petrol should, if anything, be cheaper in rural areas than in urban areas? For far too long those who have to travel to work by car, or who share cars, have had to pay a premium for travelling longer distances to work. [Interruption.] I know that the problem is not as bad as all that and that different figures have been produced by different organisations, but there is no argument whatsoever for having higher-priced petrol in rural areas.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has just said that there is no argument whatsoever for having higher-priced petrol in rural areas. The argument is that it costs more to get that petrol to those areas. I have now listened to a whole catalogue of various things that the hon. Gentleman wants done—all of them costing money—but the House has not yet been given a single example of where the hon. Gentleman will get the money. Those things will only mean higher taxation for my rural constituents who do not want higher taxation.
Dr. Marek: There we have the naked voice of Thatcherism. Of course we want more money for rural areas; there is no question about it. As the Minister knows, farming could not survive if money was not provided for the farmers and the rural areas to enable them to undertake their very necessary functions.
Mr. Anderson: I know that my hon. Friend is about to give this response: It comes ill from those who are constantly saying that all is now well economically and that the Chancellor has £x billion to give away, to say that necessarily there must be increased taxation if the quality of rural life is to be improved by additional public expenditure as my hon. Friend has outlined.
Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is quite right. In a few days' time, on the Ides of March, we shall have the Budget. Figures have shown that the Chancellor will give away anything up to £11 billion — [Interruption.] Yes, he could have about £11 billion. That is the top estimate that I have seen. However, he will probably be cautious and give way perhaps £4 billion or £5 billion. Although this is off the subject of the motion, I hope that he will give £2 billion to the National Health Service. By all means let him lower the rate of taxation from 27p to 25p, provided that he does those other things. The Chancellor has the money this year to give extra money to the rural areas to provide decent housing, education and transport. I am surprised that the Minister laid himself open to such an obvious reply to his initial criticism, and 1 hope that he thinks about it. The rural areas cannot survive on their own. They need our help and it is our duty in this House to make sure that they get that help.
In terms of the common agricultural policy, I hope that the Government will not sell out British farmers. I hope that, if stabilisers are placed on sheepmeat, it will be done on a Community-wide basis. It is vital for our rural areas that sheep farmers are able to compete throughout the Community. For that reason stabilisers must not be placed on the United Kingdom alone. I hope that I have Conservative support on that point even if I do not have such support for some of my other points.
Local planning authorities look after the general interests of the rural community. I suspect that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) was annoyed about
1294
my local authority turning down a plan for a motorcycle race track. I can understand why that race track was not allowed. The factors to be considered are where it was to be located and whether it would annoy people. I am quite confident that planning matters should be left to representatives elected by local people. There is far too much interference by central Government who tell local authorities what they should and should not do.
This is an important debate. Far too often rural areas are left out of deliberations in the House and I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate. Even if Conservative Members do not agree with some of the points that I have made, I hope that they will think about what I have said. Perhaps they will admit that there is at least a case to be argued even if at the end of the day we agree to disagree.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Speeches have been rather long and may prejudice some hon. Members who have been here from the beginning of the debate and wish to take part.
12.26 pm
Mr. Charles Wardle: I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and could not help thinking that it would be a bad thing for Britain if he were ever to run a business and took into it his ideas of confusing capital and current accounts. I was left with the impression that the hon. Gentleman could not have been in the Chamber when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his autumn statement, because in some of the sectors that the hon. Gentleman talked about there have been increases in funding.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) on raising this subject for debate, having come first in the ballot. He made many interesting observations. In particular, I recall his warning that if the green belt is leapfrogged up to 1 million people in inner London might have to look for new accommodation in the home counties. That is a grave statistic to conjure with.
There was only one occasion on which I was tempted to intervene and it was when my hon. Friend said that many coastal resort towns came alive only when the tourists arrived in the tourist season. That is not the case in many southern coastal towns in which there are active communities caring for the elderly in the most lively fashion.
First and foremost, the debate is about change. For the last eight or nine years the main task of the Government has been to persuade the nation to face inevitable changes in technology, markets, working practices, education and in many other aspects of our daily lives. The debate is entirely consistent with that theme because it is the changing structure of British agriculture, which in turn is related to changes in agricultural production worldwide, that has focused attention on the increasingly urgent need to make other uses of the rural environment. At the same time, changes in technology that in many cases enable commerce and manufacturing to revert to a cottage industry basis have had an impact.
We have come full circle from the 19th century concentrations of raw material and labour in the great conurbations to the possibility of isolated workplaces

1295
which are nowadays linked by on-line computer facilities and which, in some cases, specialise in small-batch production. Moreover, the change in our transportation network of improved trunk roads and modernised railways has enabled city dwellers to spread into rural areas. They have taken up the houses vacated by people who have left farm work and have built more houses around them, so that the distinction between town and country has progressively become blurred.
The relationship between where people live and the sort of work that they do no longer conforms to the old geographical patterns that remained relatively stable for generations. The fabric of rural society is altering, as is the face of the landscape, and it will continue to do so on an accelerating basis.
In the face of that change, the Government have given a clear sense of direction. They have encouraged a healthy rural economy and a protected rural environment for those who live in it and for those who visit it. They have also encouraged a sense of realism. The Development Commission for Rural England has said that rural unemployment will, in the main, be solved off the farm, not on it. The consultation document about the farm woodland scheme, produced a year ago, referred to incentives for alternative uses of agricultural land and more diversity in the rural economy. That has resulted in the Bill now going through Parliament. The concept of set-aside is at last being taken seriously and, similarly, the Department of the Environment guidelines about rural enterprise point to the shifting demographic patterns and the changing character of the rural economy.
In spite of the measures being taken, it is far from clear whether people have grasped the extent of the changes that are beginning to take place in rural parts of Britain or whether they understand the pace at which the changes are likely to be brought about over the next few years. Above all, it seems that few people understand or sympathise with the pressure on British farmers today, yet there will be far-reaching consequences of that pressure which could create lasting damage to the rural environment unless careful controls and support are maintained.
This week, agreement has been reached in the European Community for more stringent controls over CAP spending in each of the 10 major farm sectors so that, by 1992, the CAP should reflect only 56 per cent. of the Community budget, rather than the figure of almost two thirds for which it accounts at present. That agreement will rightly be applauded because the notion of huge sums of money being squandered on surplus food mountains continues to be offensive. In the past few days, the media have shown relatively little awareness of the direct effect those farm spending controls are likely to have on the countryside as set-aside grows and some farmers already living on a marginal profit and loss account decide to give up and go out of business.
The lack of understanding between town and country about those impending changes in the rural economy is common everywhere, but it is well illustrated in my constituency. Many residents in Bexhill express the belief that farmers are sheltered from the harsh reality of competition and live a perpetually subsidised existence, yet those same people would be appalled at the thought that the rapid demise of unprofitable wealden farms might lead to the disappearance of any of the beautiful Sussex countryside nearby which they like to visit regularly.
1296
For years, change has been taking place in the Sussex weald and elsewhere in the country. Most of the farms are still there today, but the three dozen or so farming villages around Battle have gradually seen many of the farm workers leave and their places in the community taken by commuters, retired couples and weekend visitors. So far, the changes have not had a major visual impact, apart from a gradual infilling of housing development within some of the villages. What is likely to happen over the next decade, in spite of sensible county structure plans, will depend largely on what happens to agriculture. If the occasional loss of a farm becomes a stampede and there is an exit from agriculture, in an almighty hurry major property developers in London will cast increasingly covetous eyes at the home counties and most definitely at nearby east Sussex.
That point concerns me. Developers' interests will have been further fortified by the excellent improvements to local communications and a succession of much-needed bypasses on the A21, for example, and by the electrification of the Hastings or Tonbridge railway line. Those developers will no doubt hope to fill in the gaps between the roadside villages. If they succeed, my own gloomy prediction, which I call the Orpington factor, is likely to come to pass. Orpington is a wonderful place. I have known it for most of my life, but neither I nor the vast majority of people in Kent and Sussex want to see Orpington creep yard by yard down to the Kent and Sussex coastline.
What, then, can be done to ensure that rural development proceeds as the carefully calculated adjustment which the Government rightly intend it to be? There are four principal initiatives which must be maintained, all of which have been touched on already in this debate and which the Government have repeatedly acknowledged previously. Nevertheless, they deserve to be headlined again: the concern about farmers; the potential that exists for tourism; the scope to be found in computerised outwork in private homes; and the role of local authorities.
It is important for the House to recognise that farmers are not crying "Wolf". They understand the need to curb production and to reorganise output throughout the EC. They can recognise the good sense in the Government's emphasis on set-aside and the need for stabilisers in each regime. But the position of many farmers remains precarious, particularly those who are highly geared with bank borrowings. The storm damage in Kent and Sussex last October was devastating. Uninsurable outbuildings, glasshouses and growing frames were damaged and much woodland was so damaged that the clearance costs alone are prohibitive so that replanting remains an academic proposition.
Milk production has stabilised successfully since the last quota reduction, but further painful changes must inevitably be on the way. Pigmeat prices are at their lowest for five years. The system of MCAs works against British pig producers, as does the import from outside the European Community of cheap manioc as feedstuff. Therefore, while fully supporting the Government's commitment to the restructuring of the CAP and the policies outlined in last Monday's debate on agriculture, I hope that the Government will have every sympathy for farmers when they consider a devaluation of the green pound. Pitched right, it will enable rural development to proceed at a manageable pace, but, pitched wrong, it could

1297
mean that some farms — for example, in the Sussex weald—will no longer be viable, with all that that would imply.
Tourism is a huge industry with the great merit of being spread throughout the country. It has a larger GDP than the automotive industry. It offers scope for initiative and enterprise, and can absorb many young people who can learn the necessary skills as they work. One great advantage of the Channel tunnel and the development of the Dover to Honiton south coast trunk road is that they should bring a further influx of tourists into southern England. That is an opportunity not to be missed in rural areas.
I hope that in the not too distant future all manner of employers in London and the other major centres will carry out feasibility studies of their administration departments to establish whether they can run their offices more cheaply and just as efficiently by putting personal computers, word processors and fax machines into employees' homes, thereby creating more jobs in the suburbs and rural areas and reducing the pressure on commuting.
In east Sussex the Rother and Wealden district councils are doing an excellent job with housing. As well as looking after their housing stock, they are mindful of the need for more private rented accommodation and for housing that is suitable for first-time buyers. They are aware of the importance of community services in villages and they have welcomed the Government's initiative of the past few years on bus transportation. In east Sussex, that has led to an improvement in rural bus services.
One area of anxiety is planning. It is a question not of the decisions taken by the local authority, but of the increasing number of appeals against refusals for planning consent which are finding their way through the planning inspectorate to the Secretary of State's office. As that number increases, one is bound to look back at the idea of property developers from London and at the Orpington factor. I am not talking simply about district council planning decisions; the same tendency applies to county council decisions. Recently in a neighbouring constituency there was clearly a disagreement between the county council's planning office and county engineer's office, and the Department over the choice of a preferred route for a bypass. There may have been good reasons for that, but it is a sign that we must be prepared to heed what local people have to say about planning decisions.
Those are the four headlines that will keep the all-important rural initiative on the right track. The House will, I think, accept that change in the rural environment is inevitable, but the pace and nature of that change is ours to influence. If we get it right, we shall earn the gratitude of future generations; but if we get it wrong and disfigure the landscape, we shall rightly be condemned.
12.40 pm
Mr. Nicholas Baker: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and for the opportunity to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle). He spoke a good deal of sense, like most hon. Members on both sides of the House —which, in this debate, means on our side. I hope that the "composite hon. Gentleman" who, for most of the debate, has been wholly sustaining the Labour party, the
1298
hon. Member for "Jarrow, Holborn and St. Pancras"—sometimes he has a beard and sometimes he does not— will have a role to play in the debate. Perhaps he will say something about how inner cities can help inner problems.
It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friends if I stick to the subject of the planning system. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) introduced the motion, and I congratulate him on the way in which he did so. He did an important service in portraying the trend—especially the population trend, of which too little notice has been taken recently. If his conclusions are rather different from mine, it is because he was extrapolating from the present trend, whereas I, like some of my hon. Friends — in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) —believe that we can influence and change that trend if we can develop the political will to do so.
I start by referring to the problem of overdevelopment in rural areas, which is a major issue in the south and other parts of rural England. An invading tide of concrete is reaching parts of our precious environment which no one has hitherto thought that it could penetrate. Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, Berkshire, Wiltshire and Dorset now contain very little of the remote countryside that they contained only 20 years ago.
At the same time, there is a flow of people, economic activity and infrastructure away from the old manufacturing areas—primarily, but not exclusively, in the north and the inner cities—into the green fields of what are seen, for the moment at any rate, as the more desirable pastures of England. Those two trends are working together to change the face of Britain's environment, fuelled by the accelerating success of the British economy. Perhaps, indeed, we are fortunate to have the problem. It is nevertheless a serious problem, because our country is, by international standards, crowded and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East pointed out, may become even more so. But our countryside is a major, if diminishing, national asset: as Mark Twain observed some time ago, they have stopped making land.
I have two propositions, with which I shall begin and end my speech. First, one of the essential answers is the recreation of our inner cities—perhaps this is the subject on which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will make his contribution—so that they become, as they once were, places where people in every income bracket want to live and work. In that sense, our inner cities and our countryside are directly connected, and the Government's raft of inner city policies are a major step in the right direction.
My second proposition is that at the heart of organising and maintaining our environment is our planning system, which has become strained in recent years as overdevelopment has continued. No longer is it a capable instrument for the task in hand. It is out of date, developer-driven and in urgent need of radical reform. It should enable us to protect the countryside, limit, if not halt, large-scale moves of population for no economic reason and, at the same time, encourage developments — some of which hon. Members have referred to— in rural as well as urban areas, where they are wanted. However, unless people, through their local representatives, feel that they have a say in deciding the shape of their environment, they will

1299
abandon their belief in their community and their support for it, ultimately with serious social as well as environmental results.
We must maintain the action that we have started for the re-creation of our inner cities. If Liverpool fails to be a place in which people wish to live and work, other parts of the country will pick up the social pieces. There is no more mournful fact about the increasingly less pleasant area of Bournemouth, Poole and surrounding areas than the number of displaced, unhappy Liverpudlians who now live there, far from where, in many cases, they would prefer to be. There is also the problem of people retiring to such areas, which has already been discussed adequately.
Regrettably, local planning decisions are being overturned in far too many cases, and this strikes at the heart of local government. It is no longer an issue that the Department of the Environment can avoid. We want responsible local government, but in planning, too often, local government is losing heart and losing the will to make its own planning decisions. We should devise a greater say for parish and town councils.
I can give one example, which is a national if a small example, of the way in which decisions are being overturned, to the detriment of local communities. When amusement arcades are created in a small town, they have a great effect on the behaviour and make-up of community life. I know of a number of cases where local authorities have refused permission for amusement arcades, and those decisions have been overturned on appeal by the Department. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look at that matter.
I hope that my hon. Friend will continue, on a much more fundamental basis, the review of circulars that his colleagues have diffidently started. In many respects, circulars are unclear and out of date, and they are particularly out of date in their definition of demand. The demand for housing should not be that set out by the National Housebuilders Federation or consortium developers. That is just one of the ways in which our planning circulars, which are an important bible for local planners, are leading them astray and diminishing the control that local authorities have over the shape that their community should take.
Some excellent points have been made on what can be summed up by the slogan, "Village homes for village people". Local councils are no longer the best authorities, and council housing is no longer the best way, to provide for those who need housing, and will continue to need housing in rural areas. I should like to see the speeding up of the improvement of the private rented sector, for which many of us have pressed for so long, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) put the point well.
The way forward lies through the greater encouragement of housing associations and shared ownership schemes. If it is necessary, because of the land prices, for the taxpayers' contribution to housing association schemes to be raised, we shall have to face it. That is the best way forward, because such bodies retain the ability to select the tenants to whom the housing will be made available.
My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I believe that we will have to have a much tighter planning framework, whatever form it might take. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough kindly referred to the pamphlet entitled, "This Pleasant Land" which I wrote. I do not intend to
1300
dilate on it now. Indeed, I hope to have an opportunity soon to discuss the detailed proposals in it with the other authorities and my hon. Friend the Minister. We cannot get away from the need for a much greater and more effective overview of the need for development and for a land use strategy which was outlined in that document.
There is a major job to be done in reforming the planning system to protect our countryside and to encourage development of our inner cities and other areas where land development is required and wanted. If we do nothing, much more of our countryside will continue to be lost while the life-blood drains from our cities until the countryside has gone and the tide turns back. If we want our children to enjoy a pleasant land, rural and urban, we must take action now.
12.51 pm
Mr. John Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) on his success in the ballot and on choosing this important topic for debate.
Last year, my hon. Friend had a spectacular electoral success. He has shown this morning that it was no fluke, but due entirely to his ability, which he has demonstrated today. I found his speech extremely interesting. It covered all of the issues about which hon. Members have expressed anxiety.
My hon. Friend said that there has been a population explosion in some areas. The same is true of part of my constituency. In the south of Ryedale, in the north York suburbs, what were a collection of sleepy villages 25 or 30 years ago now have a population approaching 50.000. There are enormous pressures on the infrastructure, especially leisure.
Housing has been mentioned. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the problems which loom is the proliferation of property which is bought for holiday lets. In some villages in my constituency, there is anxiety, especially at parish council level, that too many houses are left unoccupied through the winter because they are bought for letting during the summer. I wonder whether the planning system should consider that problem.
If there is to be a reduction in the agricultural work force, we must remember that many of those concerned live in tied accommodation. I should be interested if my hon. Friend the Minister could tell us what measures in the Housing Bill tackle that issue.
Many hon. Members have spoken about land use. I add my support to the suggestion of set-aside so that land might be used for leisure. Green belt land might be used for leisure activities. A landowner in my constituency has written to me in this regard. Perhaps some committee or review will consider that matter under the aegis of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
But we should not kid ourselves that the set-aside scheme will solve all the problems of land use. In the debate of agriculture on Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) quoted the Country Landowners Association, drawing attention to the fact that some of the suggested leisure uses for land tackle only a tiny part of the great set-aside difficulty. It said:
"Even if 300 new golf courses are built and 10,000 tennis courts and 1,000 camping and caravan sites, they will account for no more than 30,000 hectares, leaving 5,970 hectares facing a fate which the French call desertification."—[Official Report, 15 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 782.]
I shall concentrate on six words on the Order Paper—

1301
"promote enterprise in the rural economy."
If I have one criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East, it is that he chose the title "Rural Development" for the debate instead of "Rural Enterprise'. The Government are committed to a major initiative on urban renewal in the inner cities, and it is right that they should be. All hon. Members from rural constituencies wish their initiative every success. But the rural economy also causes concern, and the debate gives us an opportunity to remind the House that people face hard times in rural areas as well as in the inner cities.
For many years, the prosperity of the countryside depended largely on agriculture, but it was recognised some time ago that agriculture could not provide all the employment needed to sustain rural communities. Initiatives in tourism and leisure activities generally have already brought considerable benefits. A recent English Tourist Board survey showed that tourism in Ryedale supports about 8,000 jobs and involves about 40 per cent. of the district's work force. Much of the success of tourism in Ryedale is due not only to its natural heritage of countryside and history but to the initiative of Ryedale district council and its tourism and leisure department, which last year distributed more than 250,000 brochures. It is impossible to say whether all the tourism potential of Ryedale and the country at large has been fully explored. But it is clear that there are dangers in becoming too dependent on tourism, just as there are in becoming too dependent on agriculture.
Mr. Alan Meale: Bearing in mind what the hon. Gentleman said about tourism and the number of caravanners who visit his constituency, does he believe that it is a good idea for the Government to levy the poll tax on those for whom caravanning is their only leisure enjoyment during the year?
Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I have already written to the Minister responsible because the matter causes great concern. But it is not the subject of this debate.
Not all rural areas lend themselves to tourism as naturally as Ryedale does, and even in my constituency in some communities the tourism potential is limited. Not all communities are natural tourist attractions, and not everyone wants to be involved in the industry. To those who have been involved in working the land we must offer an alternative beyond bed-and-breakfast accommodation, caravan sites and gift shops, important though those things are. We need a rural enterprise initiative to build on the work that is already being done by several agencies, some of which have been mentioned in the debate, to help to establish new businesses and to provide employment and prosperity in rural communities.
One reason why I question my hon. Friend's use of the words "rural development" is, that, unfortunately, the word "development" is associated in many people's minds with the concept of substantial construction projects. When the Government launched their farming and rural enterprise initiative last year, in which the need for exclusive use of land for agriculture was questioned, alarm bells rang throughout the countryside because it was thought that it might be the prelude to unwanted and
1302
unwarranted major building projects. I am sure that the Government did not have that in mind, as the document "Rural Enterprise and Development" clearly states.
Establishing workshops, craft industries, small manufacturing units and homes for small businesses does not mean that we have to change the face of the countryside with swathes of concrete and brick. It means making use of derelict farm buildings and other accommodation which can be renovated and restored to preserve, not destroy, the character of our rural communities. It may mean some new build, but that can be designed to blend in with the setting or with existing structures. Either way, it will bring employment, activity, people and prosperity to declining rural areas. It will also bring training and job opportunities for the young who might otherwise move away to find work.
During the debate several hon. Members have referred to the problem of retaining local services including shops, post offices and petrol stations in rural areas. Those services can be sustained only by people working in the community.
The term development also has connotations of large-scale handouts of public funds. Financial assistance must be selective, not automatic. The advice and help of consultants and experts are a much more appropriate use of resources as they help to ensure that projects will succeed and, in the longer term, ensure that that success is sustained and built upon.
Hon. Members may claim that COSIRA, the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, the small firms service and the regional tourist boards are doing that work already. Indeed, they are doing that very successfully in many ways. However, is not the fact that we are discussing the issue today proof that more work is needed?
I question the use of the word development. Laudable though the Government's previous initiatives have been, have they had the impact that was needed? The Development Commission which has responsibility for rural England prepared another excellent document called "Action for Rural Enterprise". However, I wonder whether the message has got through. My impression is that the real problem stems from confusion over who has departmental responsibility for rural enterprise.
The foreword to "Farming and Rural Enterprise", which was published last year, contains the signatures of no fewer than five Ministers. However, the signatures of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is responsible for enterprise, do not appear. We have heard reference to the interest of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter. I am sure his interest extends beyond the fact that he represents a large rural area. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) referred to the problem of schools. Therefore, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, nine Ministers should have an interest in this matter. All those Cabinet Minsters should be involved in any initiative to develop the rural economy. Clearly my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning bears a heavy load on his shoulders as he has to answer for so many distinguished colleagues.
I am not suggesting that the initiatives have lacked effort or imagination. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his colleagues deserve much praise for their work in

1303
introducing diversification schemes and obtaining finance for grants for farmers to look for other enterprises beyond agriculture.
I question whether all the good work has had the necessary impact. I believe that the message from the debate should be that the Government should consider appointing a Minister with direct responsibility for developing the rural economy. That would beg the question which Department should have the responsibility for such an initiative. Those primarily concerned with conservation might suggest that the Department of the Environment should take that responsibility. I question that because any enterprise initiative will create conflicts over planning matters —and that has been referred to during the debate—in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has a quasi-judicial role. As already suggested, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made great efforts to stimulate diversification. However, it is concerned primarily with farming interests.
Mr. Anderson rose—
Mr. Greenway: I will not give way, because I am coming to the end of my speech.
The Department of Employment has responsibility for the tourism that has been developed to such great effect in my constituency and elsewhere. However, what is needed goes beyond tourism, state benefits, employment and training schemes. Having taken on the huge task of reviving our inner cities, I suggest that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should next turn his attention to the development of the rural economy. His recent White Paper redefined the Department's primary objective, which I believe goes to the heart of the debate. It says that the needs and demands of society can be met only by increasing prosperity.
That objective is just as relevant and important to the rural economy as it is to industry and commerce. We now need one Minister to bring together, harness and coordinate the work being done by all the agencies and organisations. The Minister should champion the cause of a broad-based rural economy in which workshops and small manufacturing units can flourish alongside agriculture, tourism, recreation and conservation interests. Only in that way will we truly establish a rural enterprise culture.
1.6 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I shall not do battle with the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) because they have all made constructive speeches and I agree with much of what they said. However, the hon. Member for Ryedale appeared to suggest, along the lines stressed by those who say that the Conservative party is really the English Nationalist party, that the Department of the Environment should be the sole Department responsible for agriculture, excluding, as it were, Wales and Scotland.
All the hon. Members made important points about the EEC. Some of us are sceptical about whether the agricultural portion of the Community's budget will really fall, as anticipated, from two thirds to about 50 per cent. of the total budget. However, if the agricultural portion of the budget were to fall significantly, it would be bound to
1304
have important implications for the countryside, whether in terms of set-aside or rural incomes. Given the timescale of four years and the financial forecasts that are available, the Government might consider producing a White Paper, perhaps a think piece, on the implications for rural development of the package that was agreed recently at Brussels. It will certainly have implications. I would be interested to know whether that idea commends itself to the Minister.
The hon. Member for Ryedale mentioned planning and rural enterprise. In addition to the bodies that he mentioned, one that I would suggest is worthy of study is the Mid Wales Development Board. It is a non-controversial organisation in party terms and it has had substantial success in bringing together the various components of the economy within mid Wales. That precedent is well worth studying.
The hon. Member for Ryedale said that we should encourage rural enterprise. One of my hobby horses is the encouragement of craft industries in the countryside. Local authorities should try to bring together in one building opportunities for a number of individuals who might be involved in craft in the countryside. I have seen one such example in Cirencester. I believe that it is extremely helpful to individuals who otherwise would not be able to market their products within the countryside. Such marketing is carried out extremely well in the French countryside. Tourist centres are located in one area so that local crafts people can market their wares. Often one-person enterprises assist rural enterprise and development.
Another theme that has emerged from the debate is the decline in the rural economy. Clearly this happened, not in 1979 but, for a series of objective reasons, over decades. We tend to forget the changes in the electoral configuration as a result of that decline. One has only to consider what has happened in East Anglia and parts of rural Scotland and Wales to see that that is so. In that regard, I think particularly of the Forest of Dean where much of the underpinning of the area—the railways, local shops and schools has gone and the traditional rural communities have been replaced by commuter groups, who bring their different ideals and purposes to rural areas.
We tend to idealise rural communities and forget the substantial social problems in them. Post Offices with general stores attached to them simply cannot compete with large supermarkets in nearby towns. Therefore, a rural facility disappears from what in the past has been a vibrant village community.
Those problems cannot be solved by market mechanisms. I recall attending, when I represented the rural constituency of Monmouth, a meeting in a village and discussing the local bus service. Some articulate individuals were saying, "We have our cars—perhaps two or three cars—so we do not need a bus service." A number of individuals whom I knew were retired or poor and had no cars. After the meeting, I said, "You did not speak. Why did you not raise your problems?" They were afraid to voice their problems.
There is a danger—we have seen this among some Conservative Members—to think of a countryside that is fit only for executives. One hon. Member talked rather idealistically of on-line computers and the ability of people who live in rural areas to have easy communication with their head office in London or wherever. There are some people who, because of their formation and education, are

1305
not able to handle on-line computers. There are some who in the past would have done the simple jobs of the countryside. We should ensure, so far as possible, if there is to be a balanced and mixed community in the countryside, that we do not forget the ordinary folk.
That point is particularly true with regard to two matters. The first concerns housing. There has already been an exchange with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) about the effect of the right-to-buy provisions on housing. I concede that there may be different regional repercussions of the right-to-buy legislation. It may not be a factor in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I can assure him that it is in parts of rural and west Wales, where all the planning authorities are concerned about the availability of reasonably priced housing for local people. They are concerned that once council houses become marketable at the end of the requisite period they will be snapped up by people from outside the area. They are also concerned about the collapse of council house building in many parts of the rural countryside as a direct result of Government policy. I shall not be ideological about that.
Mr. Bill Walker: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will consider carefully what he is saying. I understand those fears, but the fact is that people do not easily give up council houses in country areas. Their jobs are normally in those areas and they want to remain there. They do not want to sell their houses and make themselves homeless. Many tenants live in their houses for a long time so that they rarely become available for letting.
Mr. Anderson: I accept that the majority of people will continue to live in the same houses whether they are owned by the local authority or not, but a proportion of those houses that formerly would have been available to local councils will no longer be available. Coupled with other objective demographic factors, such as the aging population and smaller households, and non-objective factors, such as the collapse of council house building as a direct result of Government policy, this scheme will put a squeeze on individuals in rural communities who, in the past, had a reasonable prospect of acquiring a house from a local authority.
I ask only for some flexibility. It may well be that the appropriate provision will come from housing associations and that the local authority will have its normal right to nominate members. The right-to-buy policy may not be a problem in Tayside, but it is in a number of areas. I suggest that the Government consider whether it is a problem—just as most people on the spot do—and, if they think that it is, take steps to remedy it.
I fear that, because of the twin pressures on our railway and bus services, some people in rural communities are more isolated now than people have been for a century. I am talking not about the commuter families, who are mobile and may have several cars, but about the "wee folk"—If I may use that phrase—the ordinary folk in the countryside. The statistics show that income levels in the countryside are normally lower than in towns, yet a number of goods are more expensive in the countryside —for example, groceries are more expensive and a car may be needed, with all the associated costs of petrol, and so on.
1306
There are twin pressures on people living in the countryside. There are considerable problems of isolation for those who do not have ready access to a car—not only for the elderly and the disabled but for the wife whose husband uses the car for work some distance away. Such problems have been exacerbated by Government policy towards the railways. There has been a substantial reduction in subsidies and the board of British Rail has shown alacrity in going further than the Government wanted. There are exciting experiments with Sprinter trains, but the general pattern in rural railway services has been one of decline in recent years.
The same picture is painted for bus services. I ask the Government to monitor the effects of deregulation in rural areas. I have no doubt that deregulation will benefit areas such as mine, an inner-city area, resulting in a large number of buses going through, at least at certain times of the day. It is lucrative for the various bus operators to undertake those services, but the Government need carefully to consider the availability of buses.
County councils are able to make grants in appropriate cases, but the Government must carefully monitor the effects of deregulation on available rural bus services, particularly at weekends and, say, after 5 or 6 o'clock in the evening. The Government must ask whether, by appropriate intervention in respect of rail or bus services, they can solve what for many people is a real problem — rural isolation. I am convinced that market mechanisms will not solve the problem. There is a need for appropriate and selective Government intervention.
1.20 pm
Mr. Roger Knapman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) on initiating the debate and on his splendid contribution to it. I endorse and, possibly, reinforce his call for housing association activities to be extended to rural areas. I take on board his points about the green belt. The green belt is fine enough, but it tends to put extra pressure on areas just outside it, including areas such as Stroud, which I represent. In calling attention to development problems in rural areas, I advise my hon. Friend that the problem is singular. There is rather too much development.
My constituency is justifiably regarded as rural —indeed, it is beautiful. It includes some level reaches along the river Severn, a steep escarpment covered in beech trees, and the Cotswolds. I ask hon. Members to imagine the pressure for development, bearing in mind that Bristol is just to the west of my constituency. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister is in the Chamber; I am about to describe Bristol as something of a problem. To the north of my constituency are Gloucester and Cheltenham, and just outside it is Swindon, another town vying for the title of fastest-growing town in Europe. Although the area that I represent comprises about 180 sq miles, it contains 85,000 constituents. It increased by 3,500 between the 1983 and 1987 elections. Therefore, scope for a further increase in population must be limited if the area is to retain its rural character. Demand for a rural environment is insatiable. The demand cannot be met, at least in certain parts of southern England.
Of course, in a debate such as this, it is difficult to generalise on many matters. Often, towns in the same area may have completely different problems. I acknowledge that Stroud, the main town in my constituency, could do

1307
with some more jobs. However, anybody with a particular skill or training is unlikely to be without a job for long. By comparison, Tetbury has more available jobs than people to fill them. A few months ago, there was an application to build a chemical factory that would have provided about 200 jobs. I was pleased when the application was turned down. Surely something such as a chemical factory would be better suited to an area that already has heavy industry. No doubt, had the application been granted, there would soon have been yet another application to build 200 houses. 1 doubt whether a factory and 200 more houses would have been for the overall benefit of the town.
Unfortunately, several ancient market towns, with their fine old centres, corn halls, market crosses, and lovely gabled merchants' houses tend to be lost in a sea of modern developments. I am not making a particular complaint. People have a right to live in a pleasant environment and problems arise only when the scale of development is such that the beauty of the area is threatened.
As has already been pointed out, we must recognise that the local planning authorities have overall responsibility, and we must not interfere with their activities except in general terms. The Department was entirely right to encourage the conversion of barns and farm buildings for residential use. In my area that has resulted in many splendid and individual homes that are much appreciated by the purchasing public, judging by the prices that they are prepared to pay for them. It must be right that development is preferable to dereliction.
We are less clear in our thinking about woodlands. In certain rural areas there is tremendous potential. Well-managed woodland needs about one person for every 100 acres of woods. Unfortunately, the extremely well-organised conservation pressure groups — which often have widely differing views about what constitutes conservation—have advised us that fir trees are bad and deciduous trees are good. Perhaps we should call fir trees pine trees. Perhaps pine forests would be generally acceptable. If we throw vast amounts of public money into hardwoods, in 30 or 40 years' time we shall end up with vast areas of hardwood scrub, when we need timber suitable for paper, as currently we produce only 9 per cent. of our requirements. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past where square miles of hillside were blanketed with conifers. We must use a certain amount of style and precision.
In future, it is likely that more people will work from home. That possibility is inescapable. I believe that in 20 years' time, it will be quite normal for people to work at home and transmit their copy by a fax or whatever, to a head office in London or elsewhere. We must take that important point into consideration when planning for the future. It must be recognised that people cannot always expect to have a house built on a green field site and then to work nearby in a factory that is also built on a green field site. Such an arrangement cannot be the norm.
The best way to protect the countryside must be to develop and improve the existing urban areas. There are many depressing areas in Gloucester — I have not mentioned Bristol this time—that may be developed. It may be more expensive to develop areas with complicated ownership patterns than simply to dig into a green field site, but the policy of developing and improving city areas quickly must be pursued or we shall all be losers.
1.28 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important subject, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) on selecting it.
It is clear from the debate that there are different problems in different rural areas, yet there are areas which have a number of common problems. Those common problems present us with common challenges and opportunities. A problem is often a challenge and an opportunity for change. We are in the midst of such a challenge.
I remind the House that the part of Scotland that I represent—2,000 sq. miles of beautiful Highland areas—is where the Highland clearances began. I remind hon. Members who do not remember the Highland clearances, or have not read about them, that that was when the glens in my constituency were cleared of people, and sheep were put on the hills to replace them. Sheep became a fundamental factor in the local economy. However, today we have a threat to the sheep. If we cannot find an answer in the negoitations on the sheepmeat regime, or if the negotiations go badly, there will be a second Highland clearance, which would leave our glens without people, and without sheep.
When my hon. Friends are involved in negotiations about the green pound, it is important that it is acknowledged and accepted that Scotland's farmers are not asking for anything special. All they want is equal opportunities. The green pound anomalies must be removed. If the green pound is pitched wrongly, it will create massive problems for Scotland's farmers arid drive many of them out of business.
I remind the House that there are large areas of grouse moor in my constituency. We hear a lot about grouse moors from the Opposition Benches, but it is not often acknowledged that those moors provide many valuable jobs in my part of the world, and in other parts of Scotland. We wish to protect those valuable jobs, which can continue for ever if we husband the resources that provide them.
That is also true of the rod fishing that takes place in many parts of my constituency, and it applies not least to the salmon fishing on the river Tay. I welcome the changes that have been made recently to ensure that more salmon come up the river so that they can be caught. I congratulate my hon. Friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden, who is in charge of that issue at the Scottish Office. on the measures that he has taken recently. I hope that he will continue to take such bold measures to ensure that the fish actually get up the river so that the rod fishermen can catch them, because that will mean that those fishermen will return—and they provide more jobs in my constituency than people realise.
Indeed, tourism — in that I include all leisure and recreational activities — is the largest employer in my constituency. When one realises that tourism covers areas of activity such as skiing, canoeing, sailing, climbing, walking, riding, hang gliding, camping and caravanning, one realises that the list is almost endless, but all those activities have in common the fact that they provide job opportunities.
In our debates on rural areas, it is important that we recognise that not all rural areas have similar problems. I should welcome some of the problems that I have heard

1309
about. I should welcome people wanting to come to live in my constituency, especially if they wanted to live in some of the more remote parts. One problem that we have faced in the Scottish Highlands has been trying to ensure that people stay in our glens. It is important that we get a balance in the glens, and tourism has a role to play in that.
We have heard a lot recently about forestry. I advise the House that forestry has provided work and lifeblood for many of my constituents in terms of income and opportunities. Again, forestry must be seen for what it is. It provides an essential part of the economic balance. We should recognise that in Scotland, which constitutes about 40 per cent. of the land mass of the United Kingdom, there are opportunities for forestry planting. We should look after the nation's long-term need for forestry and wood pulp, and that provides opportunities.
However, we should also recognise that planting too many conifers could present problems for the rural balance, which will be distorted. One aspect that we have taken note of recently is the impact on the whisky industry of conifers that have been planted too close to water courses. The whisky industry is probably Scotland's most important single industry. It employs 16,000 people and exports £1 billion worth of whisky every year. In addition, it gives the Chancellor of the Exchequer a £1 billion contribution towards his coffers every year. Because of that, we must ensure that conifers are not planted too close to the water courses. They have an effect on the water which, of course. is an essential ingredient in the manufacture of whisky.
It is of concern to my constituents that the European Community fondly imagines that the Highlands of Scotland begin at the Drumochter pass. Nothing is more nonsensical. Every school child in Scotland and, I hope, throughout the United Kingdom knows that the Highlands begin at Perth, which has always been known as the gateway to the Highlands. That creates problems because if EC recognition does not embrace the whole of the Scottish Highlands, we should not be surprised if we find farmers in Rannoch, Glen Lyon, Drumochter, Glenshee and Strathardle farming in conditions that make it more difficult for them to make a living. That applies in many areas apart from what the European Community fondly imagines are the Highlands of Scotland. It is not surprising that farmers in those areas feel that they are not getting an even-handed deal.
Much has been said about housing problems. There has been much scaremongering. My constituency is the only area about which I can speak with authority. Every time the problem that would be created by the sale of council houses has been brought to my attention I have investigated it. As I told the House, I found that the people in the council houses felt the same, whether or not they had bought their house. They have no intention of moving because they have nowhere else to go. Anyone who suggests that people living in my remote glens will sell their houses and leave themselves homeless miles away from their jobs and from everything else is not living in the real world. People in the remote parts of Scotland generally do not want to move. That is why they want to retain the sheep and the balance that I have been talking about.
There are needs. Aberfeldy has no employment problems. It has full employment, but there is a need for
1310
housing. That does not necessarily mean council housing. There is a desperate need in the rural parts of Scotland for more private letting. Housing associations and the measures contained in the Housing (Scotland) Bill will encourage private letting. There is much empty property in rural Scotland and it would be helpful if we could get it on the market. That is what I meant when I said that problems can create challenges and opportunities.
We must continue to husband our resources, including rural amenities such as schools, hospitals and post offices. They are the lifeblood of a community. I would add to that the kirk, because although in some parts of the United Kingdom it may not be so, we still think that our kirk is important, and the Minister is still held in some respect. That may surprise some of my hon. Friends, but as a majority of my constituents voted for me and support me, the House will realise what sensible people they are. Some of them do not support me, but not many.
Hospitals, schools, post offices and kirks are essential to maintain our communities. Therefore, when we talk about opportunities we are talking not only about jobs and Government initiatives, but about creating the right economic environment in which people can take the risk of setting up businesses and creating opportunities. The Government have created that environment, and my constituency has benefited substantially. I should be happy to take any hon. Member to remote glens in which he could see people working with computers or to areas where craft industries are flourishing. I should be happy to show anyone all the benefits in my constituency.
1.38 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Thanks to the speech of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), I have discovered that Aberfeldy is in his constituency and I now know what Burns meant in the poem entitled "The Birks of Aberfeldy."
I am happy to contribute to the debate, although there have been some doubts about my interests in the matter, as I represent Holborn and St. Pancras. However, I can at least lay claim to representing Chalk Farm, Oak Village and Lincoln's Inn Fields. I also represent a wildlife site. It is one of the curiosities of this country that there is a high proportion of wildlife sites in the inner cities, indeed, a larger proportion than in most rural areas.
I wish to address the problems, not of my constituency, but of rural areas in which about 25 per cent. of the population live. The population of those areas has grown substantially in recent years. In one 10-year period, 1 million more people moved into rural areas. The balance of the population between urban and rural areas is now what it was in 1901, so it is shifting back in the other direction. There is now a drift away from urban areas into rural areas, when we have been used to a shift in the opposite direction.
Many people in rural areas are prosperous, but there are also substantial numbers who are not. Most people living in rural areas, whether prosperous or not, remain dependent on the provision of public services, either by central Government, local authorities or the National Health Service. There are many problems in rural areas, as Conservative Members have been willing to point out. There are nodules of high unemployment in a number of rural areas. In some small towns and villages, the proportion of unemployed people compares unfavourably with virtually any part of the country.

1311
Because of the long distances involved in travel, access to retraining and reskilling for unemployed people in rural areas is not as easy as it is for people living in urban or suburban areas. There are also quite a number of people living in poverty or on the edge of poverty in rural areas. Many people living in those areas pay considerably over the odds for the goods and services that they buy, compared with people living in the suburbs.
There are problems with the National Health Service, social services and transport. Recently, there was a considerable threat to free school transport, which was eventually fought off in the other place. It is worth remembering that that proposition was initiated not by the Government, but by some of the Tory education authorities, as a way of saving money. There are problems with maintaining an adequate comprehensive education service in rural areas, as the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said. He is not present at the moment, as he has had a serious operation and did not want to stay throughout the debate. I am sure that all hon. Members wish him a speedy recovery.
Some services in rural areas, as in other parts of the country, are held back by lack of resources and low levels of spending. However, some basic problems about provisions of services for people in rural areas will remain, whatever the level of spending. The wide dispersal of the population means that the provision of services is not such a paying proposition as it is in the cities or the suburbs. The long distances to be covered in providing those services make them sporadic and more expensive. That applies to the private sector and to the public sector with the provision of schools and hospitals.
Many Conservative Members have said, although the hon. Member for Tayside, North did not seem to agree with them, that the lack of cheap housing in rural areas has always been a problem and is growing. They referred to a lack of housing for young people on low incomes, particularly those who have grown up in rural areas and want to stay there. They find it increasingly difficult to stay.
When I served on the Environment Select Committee in 1980–81 we took evidence from some local authorities about the likely effects of the sale of council houses and their non-replacement. The most telling evidence was not, as one might have expected, from some inner-city authorities, but from the Allerdale and South Lakeland councils, which foresaw problems if they were forced to sell houses in villages in the Lakeland national park. They feared that if a proportion of houses were sold, outsiders would come in and low-cost housing would no longer be available. They foresaw prices gradually rising higher and higher and that as the process continued it would be difficult to find anyone to deliver the milk or post, to teach in the local school, to nurse at the local hospital or to work for a local firm on lower than average industrial wages, as is usually the case in the countryside.
The Lake District special planning board, in an effort to counter this threat to locally born and bred people being able to stay in their area, tried to get local occupancy conditions written into the structure plan for Lakeland, but the Secretary of State for the Environment, presumably knowing better than the board about the problems of Lakeland, deleted that part from the plan. That has certainly been damaging to the provision of houses for ordinary people in the Lake District.
1312
Last year the university of Lancaster produced a report entitled "Housing Dilemmas in the Lake District which points to the difficulties that have occurred as a result of the forced sale of council housing and its non-replacement by any other form of low-cost housing in the villages and small towns that needed it in the first place. I suspect that that process has gone on further and faster in the Lake District than in many other rural areas, but they may well be catching up. As practically every Conservative Member said, we need to consider seriously what we can do to ensure a renewed and continuing supply of cheap housing for people who cannot afford expensive housing.
Unless we replace the houses that have been sold the position will worsen. I am not sure how this applies to rural areas, but on average a local authority needs to sell 15 council houses to raise the money to build one new one, because of the curious ways in which the money is shifted about. We need more building by housing associations, although the right to buy also applies to housing associations other than charitable ones which provide housing for specific groups.
Many of the proposals in the Housing Bill are likely to worsen rather than to improve the position in rural areas. It is crystal clear that unless one is well off in a rural area, the free market will not deliver many goods or services. It certainly will not provide housing, particularly in areas which are becoming increasingly attractive to commuters.
The provision of health services illustrates many of the problems of providing a good quality service in rural areas. This week, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) published a list of 300 hospitals that have been closed since 1979. It is clear that a substantial majority of the hospitals on the list are either in rural areas, or in small or medium-sized market towns which have traditionally provided health care for rural areas, as well as for the community in which they were located.
The problem is not entirely to do with the level of resources. We need to consider how we deliver a health service to those areas. Those people need treatment, even if they do not have enough sick relatives and friends living nearby to attract doctors to move into their areas. They need hospitals, even if they or their families will not use them as intensively as would people living in a densely populated town or suburb.
There are two ways in which sick people receive professional treatment. Either they go to the treatment, or the treatment comes to them. Neither process is easy for someone who is badly off, such as a rural pensioner, woman or child. We need to improve the position in two ways: by providing more resources, and by adopting a more flexible approach.
I shall not go on about the level of resources, because it is a general matter. However, the decline in the provision of hospital and clinic services has been dominated by the policy of concentrating resources in district general hospitals and health centres, which, while it is wholly appropriate for the inner cities and suburbs, is by no means always appropriate for rural areas. For a rural area to contain a population large enough to sustain a major health centre or a district hospital would require an enormous catchment area, and people would have to travel vast distances to get there.
In theory, that process of concentration has been slowed down. In practice, however, it has been speeded up, because many health authorities have had to economise on

1313
small hospitals to keep the big ones going—although, theoretically, their plans involve the existence of satellite hospitals for a long time to come.
We must ensure that we do not try to impose on rural areas solutions for health provision—or, indeed, for the provision of other services — which, while they are appropriate for suburbs and inner cities, are not appropriate for rural areas. Even in my area, for instance, where Underwoods the chemist has adopted the policy that no branch of Underwoods should open unless it is in sight of the next branch, it can prove quite difficult to go to the doctor, obtain a prescription, get it made up, go home and take the medicine, particularly if one is very ill. In rural areas, the same process can involve hours of travel and waiting around. Although there have been some improvements in rural dispensing—partly as a result of the rural dispensing committee that was started on its way by the last Labour Government—people in rural areas still suffer considerable inconvenience, and we should do more to help them. Few of the Government's responses to the points made to them about the development, or lack of development, of the Health Service make any reference to the particular health needs of rural areas.
The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to the problems of rural schools. It is the case in any community, but more particularly in rural communities, that the school is the centre of the community, and the community as a whole suffers substantially by the closure of the school, be it a small primary school or a bigger secondary school. Although some Conservative Members have welcomed the provisions of the Education Reform Bill, I ask them, not in a party political way, to have another look at some of the possible consequences of that Bill on rural areas.
Let us take the idea of open-entry schools. In theory, anybody who fancies going to a particular school will be able to go to it, and that school will be allowed to expand while others will, consequently, be run down. The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has already referred to the problems of maintaining a wide curriculum in small rural secondary schools, and that problem will be made worse under this system, as will the planning of a proper delivery of an education service over a widespread rural area. Conservative Members representing rural areas should look carefully at that.
Mr. John Greenway: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman was not in the House during education questions on Tuesday, when this matter was addressed fully by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), my right hon. Friend said positively that there would be no problem and that children in catchment areas for rural schools would still be entitled to go to them.
Mr. Dobson: They certainly are entitled to go to those schools, but some of those schools will be going into decline. If some of them decline very far, and some have scarcely viable rolls at the moment and need to decline only a little further, they will be closed by the education authorities because they will be too expensive. Therefore, even parents who opt to go to the smaller schools will find it impossible, because some of the smaller schools will
1314
automatically be blotted out as the result of the open-ended open-entry system. Opting out will also pose significant difficulties. Say there is a popular school in Ryedale, and the parents decide to opt it out. Supposing that it is a Roman Catholic school, of which there are not many in rural areas.
Mr. Greenway: There are none in my area, as far as I am aware.
Mr. Dobson: I know that, but the hon. Gentleman should remember that he has a large number of Roman Catholics in his constituency, who might wish to exercise their right, under the law, to send their children to Catholic schools. If one of those Catholic schools opts out, the distances that Catholic children will then have to travel if they cannot get into the opted-out school could reduce parental choice. I do not say that it is bound to happen, but it could, and Conservative Members representing rural areas should look at this carefully.
People living in rural areas face the problems that all of us face in our lives. They get sick, they grow old, they suffer from disabling accidents or illness. Generally speaking, they suffer from low pay because those working in rural areas are usually worse paid than people working in urban areas. Family poverty goes along with all these conditions.
Being poor is bad enough, but being poor when quite a number of other people are poor and services are provided to make things easier is far better than being poor in a relatively prosperous area where such services are not provided. In many rural areas, the services which are provided for the badly off are not very extensive. I shall take school meals as an example.
The law, although it will change in April, provides that education authorities can exercise a discretion to offer free school meals more widely than to children whose families are statutorily entitled to supplementary benefit or family income supplement. Dorset, for example, offers discretionary free meals to no one, as does Lincolnshire. Kent offers meals to a grand total of 45 children, Norfolk offers 16 and Suffolk offers 26. The contrast with some Labour-controlled counties is startling. In Gwent, for example, 3,500 children are offered free school meals. No fewer than 6,000 are offered such meals in Cleveland and the figure is 4,833 in Derbyshire. That is an indication of the extent to which living in certain rural areas is a considerable disadvantage if one is not well off.
The same applies with regard to other services such as home helps. By the Government's own calculations, we find that most Labour rural counties provide at least twice as many home helps per 1,000 people aged over 65 as do Tory counties. I am not comparing urban areas with rural areas but Labour rural areas with Tory rural areas.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that people in Highland Scotland do not look to the local authority to provide what they have traditionally helped each other with and that, because they are still a caring society, they do not need people? They look after themselves.
Mr. Dobson: The pattern of voluntary and non-voluntary care varies in different parts of the country. I accept that, but I have not referred to what prevails in Scotland.
We have heard this morning about the difficulty of people who are getting on and find it difficult to look after

1315
themselves. They are sometimes driven out of the village in which they have spent their life because of that. The provision of day care can be a relief to people in those circumstances. It can help them to remain in the area in which they were brought up.
We should consider the record of some Tory county councils on the provision of day care. Hereford and Worcester provides none. Shropshire provides none. Kent provides practically none. Surrey provides none. West Sussex provides none. Suffolk provides none. I cannot believe that there are no people in those counties who need day care and who can be assisted to remain in the villages in which they were brought up.
Mr. Wolfson: In Kent, day care is provided—and very effectively too—by voluntary associations and the NHS.
Mr. Dobson: The NHS is also providing a service in all other areas—at least I hope it is. If not, people living in other areas are subsidising a service provided in Kent that is not provided elsewhere. I cannot believe that that is the case.
I do not claim that the patterns of need are indentical throughout the country, but the services that are provided for many not very well-off people—some of whom may have been comfortably off until they reached old age—are indefensibly poor. They are likely to beome worse as a result of further pressure from the Government to cut local government spending.
I used to have a greater interest in rural affairs than I do now, and I used to receive the minutes of parish council and Women's Institute meetings which discussed the provision of better services in rural areas. It was clear—this was not the view of a Socialist Member, but the view of people who were interested in the problems of their areas — that people did not want market-place competition answers to their problems. They wanted public services with, in some cases— perhaps this deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) in relation to Kent—the local authority or health authority providing a base from which more effective voluntary efforts could be made. But all that is in decline.
The substantial changes in the role and general physical fabric of rural areas will cause many changes in their social fabric. Besides talking about development, we should consider the poor services being provided in some areas. It is no good talking about the far blue yonder of development when many people living in rural areas, some of whom may be reasonably well-off, are being denied important public services.
I hope that the Minister will reply to some of the points that I have made as well as tackle the pressing problems which were brought to our attention by Conservative Members. Above all, he must ensure that people who grew up in rural areas can continue to live there in housing that they can afford.
2.7 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a long speech and repeated several of the points that were made by my hon. Friends. I have a constitutional difficulty today, because the wide open green spaces opposite me make it difficult for me to
1316
address those who have participated in the debate. The hon. Gentleman made a thoughtful speech, but the truth is that in rural areas the Labour party hardly exists and is no longer even the principal opposition to the Conservative party, although that opposition is less than it was thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) and for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East introduced the debate with a thoughtful speech. Indeed, it is a thoughtful motion. He said some challenging things, and when people read Hansard they will find them rather more challenging than they may have thought at the time. He uttered the unthinkable thought: is every inch of green belt inviolate? The Government have made it clear that their policy will continue as it is, but it is welcome to have people willing even to think those dangerous thoughts. My hon. Friend also drew our attention to population figures. The Government are not responsible for that, except in so far as people are living much longer, which is a tribute to the success of the Health Service. My hon. Friend was right to say that inviolable green belts place additional pressures on other areas.
Although hon. Members are right to draw attention to the problems of rural areas, let us not start from the position that the English, Scottish and Welsh countryside is in a state of collapse and decay. That is rather like the way many Opposition Members say that the country is a complete disgrace and no one could possibly want to live here, yet they also press us to weaken immigration controls so that many tens of thousands more people can come and live here. As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras rightly said, the truth is that more people have been moving into the countryside. The 1981 census shows that the population of the countryside is rising again. Things cannot be all that bad.
We must start from the background that we have some of the most attractive living conditions in the world in the countryside of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) was right to refer to the smaller market towns. They are the particular and almost unique contribution of the British tradition to a style of living that is very attractive indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) made a point that I welcome. He said that this is a debate about change. We must begin by saying that things are not too bad. The prediction of writers about 50 years ago that there would be megalopolises all over the country have not come true. Those predictions were made by H. G. Wells and by Richard Jefferies who wrote a novel of gloom and doom about the south of England at about this stage of the century. None of the predictions has come true. Those writers lived through a period of real and dramatic change. Cities like Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow exploded out of virtually nothing. Indeed, "exploded" is the right word for it. Those writers did not imagine that things could not continue in that way.
We should pay tribute to the planning system, despite our criticisms about it. I cite my county of Avon as an example of the success of the British planning system. Avon contains the fine, large city of Bristol and a small suburb of Bristol, Bath, and many smaller towns. It has beautiful countryside. A similar number of people live in Avon as live in the city of Cleveland, Ohio in the United

1317
States. However, we think of Avon as having identifiable cities and a pleasant rural environment. It is a triumph that we should consider Avon in that way rather than as a concrete mass. We must consider the criticisms against a background of success and then decide on the improvements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle said that this was a debate about change. My hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeshire, North-East and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) said that we should consider the changing shape of industries and the opportunities that modern technological communications systems provide for spreading industry. That will surely save many rural areas in which the old staple industry of farming is declining to some extent as the source of income. We must develop our institutions and planning system to meet that change.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton has shown that my Department is sensitive enough to modern developments to allow Britain to lead in the great snail race. Several other rather more high-tech industries are being welcomed into the countryside.
Many of my hon. Friends have said that they welcome the steps that we have tried to take, for example, to promote the conversion of redundant farm buildings to make space for industries and, in some cases, homes. Many local authorities have not got the message yet. I confirm what several of my hon. Friends said on that point. In those cases, my Department will often give permission on appeal. If my hon. Friends claim that too many cases are allowed on appeal, they should consider the statistics which reveal that a relatively large proportion of such cases are granted on appeal, whereas the number of housing appeals, at the smaller end, is much lower. We need to consider the statistics carefully before we say that in every case it is wrong for cases to be overturned on appeal.
I find myself in some difficulty in responding to Scottish Members. Although I know the constituency of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) very well, it would be brave of me to mention any policy matter to do with it except to state that she rather alarmed me by saying that a great deal of Cheddar cheese is produced there. It seems to me that Cheddar cheese should, if possible, be made near Cheddar, preferably by my brother. However, that is a different matter.
The main theme of the debate has been housing. I welcome the wording of the motion. It has raised the question how we make the planning system sensitive enough to accommodate the increase in households and population. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North feels strongly about that, and he is right to do so. However, the developers do not invent the demand. They can sell the houses only because people want to buy them. We must recognise that the more we clamp down on developments in the places where the market takes them, the more the prices will go up for the houses that already exist. There are increasing pressures for intervention and to place increasing constraints on people's freedom to move so that houses become cheaper. Down that interventionist line, which to some extent we have to follow, lies the diminution of the freedoms for which our party stands. Therefore, we have to be careful.
1318
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) talked about the subject with feeling and knowledge. He agreed with one of the controversial but correct points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East — that it is the quality of the housing that often contributes to the level of opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire North-East said, rightly, that perhaps we should consider the release of a little more land so that the quality of the housing is better and so that there is an opportunity to build housing that fits in with the traditional styles of building. Often it is the urban density of a village that gives such offence. I sympathise with that. However, as I have said it may sometimes mean that a little more land is released.
My hon. Friends mentioned an admirable pamphlet on this subject which I have studied. That makes it seem as if all problems can be solved by urban development. About half our housing is developed on re-used urban land and that is welcome. That is happening much more than it did in the 1960s or 1970s. However, it has its limits. Building on urban land often means creating higher density housing in the constituencies of hon. Members in outer London areas, who see gardens or green space disappearing, and of hon. Members in inner London constituencies. In such areas people may defend vigorously the last bit of what may to an outsider appear to be derelict land but which may seem an opportunity for green space to someone living close by. Let us not believe that that is a complete answer.
There is a scandal of unused and derelict land. At long last it is being dealt with as a result of the initiatives of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessors. The urban development corporations are putting pressure on local authorities to sell land, and other things are afoot as a result of the Audit Commission's report on the mishandling of land by many local authorities. That is right, but it will not solve all the problems.
The extra hundreds of thousands of households in the south-east which have been predicted by the OPCS cannot all be housed in constituencies such as that of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras or of mine in the centre of Bristol. Land will have to be taken. The challenge is to do it sensitively and carefully.
Perhaps we should be looking again at the idea of planning new settlements a little more carefully. There comes a time when the expansion of existing villages must end if they are not to turn into towns and have their nature changed. There are villages in England that have not yet returned to their pre-black death population. We should provide the proper services and do things carefully with quality development such as that discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East. That may be a better way forward.
There is no easy answer to any of this. This year we have asked the Housing Corporation to consider the problems. We must provide more money for rural housing associations because that is the way to provide the often small amounts of additional accommodation needed in villages. It might be charitable housing association accommodation, an example of which I opened at Timberscombe, which is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It was for the benefit of elderly and young people of the village. Stock can be provided by local community housing

1319
associations to meet people's needs for rented accommodation, which is a good way forward. The Development Commission is giving money to assist the growth of rural housing associations, which is welcome.
Many proposals in the Housing Bill will help to provide more rented stock and will encourage the private and public sectors to put funds alongside Government funds to expand the role of housing associations. Recently, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), I opened a development that had received a 30 per cent. subsidy. It provided low rents relevant to the needs of the people of that market town. Measures such as these can be taken, and we must expand this line of proceeding.
So many other subjects were raised that it is difficult for me to deal with all of them. I believe that calls for a single Department are a red herring, which derives — if this metaphor is not too mixed—from the perception that we must co-ordinate policy properly.
If we tried to invent a Department to deal with rural affairs — as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said—the Treasury would have to be involved, as would the Department of Trade and Industry. One would end up with large bits of other Departments and a rather small, cosmetic Department, such as the old Department of Economic Affairs, which we had under the Labour Government. Power would rest with the Departments where the planning system policy, the industry policy or, the agricultural policy lay. One might find that the rural clout had diminished rather than increased, because it would be a rather small animal in the Whitehall jungle. I doubt whether a new Department is the answer.
The request for better co-ordination is legitimate and we are increasingly trying to meet it. I assure hon. Members that when the farm woodlands scheme, farm diversification grants or policies for the environmentally sensitive areas—all of which are policies deriving from and led by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture — are brought forward, there will be close and detailed consultation between my Department and the other relevant Departments about the effects of those policies and how to take them forward.
The range of problems—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras—is no less because they are scattered. It may be easier to see the concentrated problems of individual areas. The full range of skills of all the Whitehall Departments must be directed to those who live in country areas, rather than say, "There is a separate animal called a rural person who has his own Department and he is not of interest to the Department of Health and Social Security or the Department of Trade and Industry." I believe that it would be a mistake to go down that route.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough and my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale mentioned schools. The Education Reform Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said, will help with regard to opting out and particularly open enrolment.
In our armoury we have a full range of policies aimed at dealing with potential rural problems. The Development Commission is spending about £14 million
1320
per year on the factory programme — this was first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East — which is a major increase over the £4 million that it was spending five or six years ago.
There must be advance building of small factories and workshops, and we are now increasing the output of those. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle rightly said, we need to encourage tourism. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale reminded my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle that holiday lets, which are necessary for tourism, can sometimes be a problem. However, tourism is one of the industries of the future.
One of the most traditional of all employers in the countryside, alongside agriculture and high-tech industry, which we need and are getting, is country sports. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Harborough that country sports can provide jobs in the most remote areas. When I was doing a conservation job, I found out what an important ally the grouse moor owners are to those who want to maintain the traditional ecology of the moorlands and to fight back the bracken. It was right to mention that and to remind the many urban experts on the countryside that it is wise, when lecturing country people on how to behave, to go carefully on some aspects which are a little different.
We have had a useful debate. I have given only the briefest of surveys on the many excellent points which were brought up. Hon. Members have recognised that the principal problem which is causing anxiety is housing, followed by planning. Planning is difficult because one man's enterprise is another's development. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said, enterprise is good but development is bad. I welcome the notion because it recognises that careful use of the planning system is the way through that dilemma, although there will never be total agreement about it. I welcome even more the debate because the Government are considering bringing forward ideas on rural housing as a package. This debate has given a welcome stimulus to that process and reminds us how important it is.
2.26 pm
Mr. Moss: I am grateful to Conservative Members for their support of my motion and to Opposition Members for their contributions. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the splendid and robust way in which he answered most of the points. I was especially pleased to hear him talk in terms of initiatives and policies to arrive at some solutions to the housing problems in rural areas, about which so many Conservative Members spoke.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to pursue policies and procedures to ensure an ordered phasing of development in those rural areas which will need to accommodate a growth in population, to encourage agricultural diversification and promote enterprise in the rural economy, to facilitate the provision of the necessary rural services, infrastructure, employment and housing, and to co-ordinate the work of those various agencies and departments which have a direct interest in rural affairs and rural land use.

High Technology Industry
2.27 pm
Mr. Timothy Wood: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the major benefits obtained by the country through scientific and technological innovation welcomes the recent initiatives of the Department of Trade and Industry which will further stimulate technological innovation and co-operative ventures to that end, but regrets the uncertainties which still exist in relation to the British development of space technology; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to clarify its policy regarding space research and development so that industry and research institutions can formulate their programmes with some confidence as to their future prospects.
Clearly, in the time available, it is impossible to develop arguments on the motion. Over the past 150 years new developments and innovation in a variety of ventures have helped us to create our present prosperity. For a country such as ours it is essential that, by increasing the value added to the various activities in which we are involved, we continue to give ourselves a high standard of living, whether in the towns, the cities or the country, about which we talked earlier.
We continue to have a number of problems, some of which the Government have tackled. There is no doubt that, in the past, there has been a poor relationship between universities and industry. There has been a lack of regard for technologies. I welcome the proposals for a national curriculum and the pressures that have been placed on universities to collaborate with industry. I welcome the various initiatives which have been taken, including the technical and vocational education initiative and the recent Department of Trade and Industry initiative for enterprise, but there are significant problems.
1322
The future in space technology is uncertain. I have a particular interest in that subject because British Aerospace employs 1,500 people in the space and communications division in my constituency. It is fair to say that, for two or three decades, this country has been in two minds about the value of pursuing space activities.
Again, over the past year, we have seen question marks placed on whether industry and commerce in this country should pursue such activities. Indeed, British Aerospace sent me a comment today to the effect that, immediately following a Government statement, there was an advertisement in the local paper in Stevenage stating that jobs were available in Europe for high quality space technologists at three times the salaries that are offered in this country. Should I advise my constituents to join a move to Europe to pursue the activities in which they are so well qualified? I should like to be able to say that this country will provide a future in that industry in the coming years—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

High Technology Industry

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 24th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders No. 14 (Exempted business) and No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)), Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Rifkind or of Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to Housing (Scotland) may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon, and, if proceedings thereon have not been previously disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall put successively the Question already proposed from the Chair and the Questions on such of the remaining Motions as may then be made.— [Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Council House Sales (Lambeth)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
2.30 pm
Mr. William Shelton: I shall make a clarification at the beginning of the debate. The House will hear certain criticisms of Lambeth council's services. They spring from the frustration that is suffered by my constituents and, indeed, by me. They spring from Lambeth's apparent inability to answer letters, answer telephones, make decisions, and maintain its services, especially housing services, which seem to be near collapse. I hold the political leadership of Lambeth council at fault. Typical hard Left leadership is involved in internal feuding and doctrinaire policies. There is a lack of management skills. However, the vast majority of officers of Lambeth council are hard-working and responsible, and they do their best in difficult conditions.
I applied for the Adjournment debate to bring before my hon. Friend Lambeth's failure to meet the legal wishes of council tenants to buy their own homes. About 2,500 tenants are waiting to have their applications processed. Some of them have been waiting since 1986. I am talking about those who have written to me. At least one has been waiting since 1984. Delays in processing the right-to-buy applications spring more from Left wing bias among the leadership of Lambeth council against home ownership than from inefficiency. In support of that, I adduce the fact that, since the right-to-buy was started in 1980, Lambeth council has sold fewer than 2,000 council homes to tenants. Since a year or two before 1980, neighbouring Wandsworth council, which is approximately the same size, on its own initiative, has sold about 10,000 homes —five times as many. That cannot be due to chance or a matter of efficiency or inefficiency. It must be a matter of political will-power.
Most of those who suffer aggravation and delay write to their local councillors, but a number write to me. I shall briefly refer to some of my recent letters. A family in Streatham Hill applied in September 1986. It had telephoned once a week, written to the Department of the Environment and to Lambeth council, but it has had no reply. Applicants in Kings avenue applied in May 1987. A surveyor arrived in August. There have been countless telephone calls. They were told that it will be at least another six months. Applicants in Kings avenue applied in January 1987, but they have heard nothing. An applicant in Dray gardens applied in June 1987, but has heard nothing. Another applicant applied in January 1987. The house was valued in July, but he has heard nothing.
Clearly, there is a great deal of delay, aggravation and frustration. I shall tell the House of my own experience with Lambeth council, which was rather unusual — in certain quarters, anyway. In August last year, I wrote to the director of administration listing a number of constituents who had approached me with difficulties over delay. He answered courteously a few days later saying that he had forwarded the letter to the chief solicitor, Mr. Robert Bloomfield who would contact me. Mr. Bloomfield did not contact me. At the end of September I wrote to him and received no reply. In the middle of October I wrote again to Mr. Bloomfield and received no reply.
1324
In the middle of October I wrote to Mr. John George, chief executive of Lambeth council saying, "For heaven's sake, what is going on?" I received no reply. So I retreated and invited Mr. George to lunch. He was a charming man and was very apologetic. He promised to send me answers to the cases that I had raised. Again, I received nothing. In December, I received three paragraphs saying that I would receive a report by the end of the week. I did not receive it. On 22 December I wrote again to Mr. George and received no reply. On 29 December I wrote to him again and received no reply. Eventually, on 27 January, six months after my first letter he wrote to me in response to one of the very many cases that I had sent to the chief executive. I wrote on 4 February about yet another case and, of course, I received no reply.
The House will understand why I am raising an Adjournment debate on the matter. I advised Mr. George some months ago that I would do so unless I received a reply. If a Member of Parliament, acting in the interests of his constituents, receives such discourteous, inefficient treatment, heaven help the residents of Lambeth.
The second matter that 1 wish to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Planning relates to service charges. Lambeth is using service charges in an improper and unjust way to penalise those who have bought their council houses and to deter those who might be thinking of buying them. I gave as an example a block of flats in Bushell close, Palace road where a number of tenants bought their flats in 1982 and 1983. The residents were told that they would have to pay a service charge of some £500 a year for which they were invoiced and which they paid. Three years later, in 1987, they received a letter from Lambeth council saying that the matter had been looked into, a mistake had been made and that the service charge would be not £500 a year but £1,000 a year, and that that service charge of £1,000 a year would be backdated to 1984. Therefore, the residents had to pay an additional £500 for 1984, for 1985 and for 1986. That service charge included costs for window cleaners and gardeners. The residents had seen no window cleaners or gardeners during that time.
I add that a number of those cases have been drawn to the attention of the local government ombudsman who, no doubt, is considering them and making a report in due course.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether councils have the right to raise such service charges against residents who have bought, are buying or are proposing to buy their council houses? Is there any way in which councils can be deterred from exercising that right? If there is no way of controlling them, a way must be found, otherwise councils can make service charges of £2,000, £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000 a year to frustrate the right-to-buy legislation, if they are doctrinaire and ill-tempered enough to do so.
It has been put to me, and I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister, that the increased complexity introduced by the 1986 legislation may, to some extent, slow down the progress of sales. I am told that the neighbouring borough of Wandsworth used to give a 10-year guarantee on every flat that was sold and, consequently, increase the valuation of that flat. That worked admirably and without any trouble for many years but the council can no longer do that because of the 1986 legislation. I am told that for flats the council must give an estimate of what may need to be done during the five years following the sale. We all know

1325
how extraordinarily difficult that would be for private owners, let alone for a council. Furthermore, the law could be interpreted as saying that a full structural survey must be made. Even well-inclined councils are finding that it takes much longer to organise the sale of flats than it did before the 1986 Act, with its increased stipulations against which, I am advised, Wandsworth protested most vigorously during the consultation period before the legislation was promulgated. Its protestations were ignored.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would consider that fact to see whether it has caused, in part, some of the log jams in the processing of right-to-buy applications. It certainly gives a field day to the councils that are less well-inclined towards home ownership, such as Lambeth. It seems that the Act, which I supported strongly, encouraged demand, but also created new delays. Perhaps something could be done about that—indeed something certainly should be done in that area.
If Lambeth cannot respond to the perfectly legitimate interests of its tenants—who want to buy their homes and who are supported in that by two Acts of Parliament —either through inefficiency, which I doubt, or through lack of will — I believe that that is the cause of the delays—I urge my hon. Friend to consider Government intervention. As the House knows, the Government have such powers. They have powers to take over the management, to get sales moving and to sort out this situation, which is causing many problems for my constituents.
I suggest that we should consider whether we could privatise — I leave to my hon. Friend the question of whether it is possible to legislate to persuade councils to privatise — because it seems sensible to privatise the valuation of properties and the legal services used. I know that Wandsworth has tried that. I shall not conceal from the House the fact that Wandsworth found difficulty because of the complexity of the 1986 legislation which I have mentioned. However, that apart, it seems sensible to consider whether those valuations, which are at least straightforward, could not be performed by private companies, which are just as expert as the borough valuer. Of course, the borough valuer could then check them to make sure that they were not completely out of line.
The legal services involving the transfer of property and the land registry could also be performed by the private sector. I should add that the delays in Lambeth's land registry services are appalling. I believe that they are running at about 16 weeks whereas Wandsworth takes one week. In 1986, if my memory serves me correctly, Wandsworth carried out about 16,000 checks whereas Lambeth carried out about 13,000, although it has twice the number of staff in its land registry office as Wandsworth. Presumably, Wandsworth is computerised and Lambeth is not, but I do not know.
In conclusion, it is deeply wrong that Parliament's intention to grant home ownership, which coincides with the wishes of many of my constituents, should be frustrated in this way. I have used this Adjournment debate to bring that issue to my hon. Friend's attention and to urge him to consider what can be done to resolve it.
2.44 pm
Mr. Stuart Holland: I am grateful both to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) and to the Minister for agreeing to my saying a few words on this subject. Firstly, please let me stress to the hon. Member for Streatham how much I sympathise with the very unequal exchange that he appears to have had with the chief executive for the borough, trading him a lunch for no reply to his letters.
It is very irritating, of course, in either central Government or local government when one does not get a response. I had, for example, exactly the same problem with the Home Secretary on a matter concerning the overcrowding of Brixton prison. I first wrote to him on 23 December. I reminded him again. I have had no reply and it has now been more than two months. I have had to put down a written parliamentary question on the matter, so, of course, it is not simply a matter of local government. None the less the hon. Gentleman has a substantive point in that he is entitled to replies.
I submit that one problem is that of staffing. Lambeth is a rate-capped borough and now has to undertake cuts in anticipated or actual expenditure by £60 million in this coming financial year. That will mean a reduction in the staff involved in housing from around 1,000 to just under 850 persons. Unfortunately, rather than being able to allocate the staff, it may get worse.
I think that the hon. Gentleman has a point on the valuer's staffing. If, indeed, there is twice the staff in Wandsworth, it is well worth looking at. On the other hand I submit to him that private valuation would be very two-edged. After all, there are always two or three firms in the local property market, and as Adam Smith once said, nothing is more certain when two or three producers or entrepreneurs are gathered together, even for merriment of diversion, than that they will seek to conspire against the public interest by a contrivance to raise prices. Perhaps in this case we might retain the safeguard of public valuation.
I have nearly finished these points but the other factors are simply these. Certainly, Lambeth was off to a slow start. There is no doubt that this reflected a certain lack of enthusiasm for sales, partly because—and I think that the hon. Gentleman would admit this—there is a difference here between the north end of the borough and Streatham, although there are big estates in Streatham. In my part of the borough of Lambeth we overwhelmingly have flats rather than houses and there are real problems on sales there. On the service charges, for example, I understand it to be the case in Wandsworth that flats are being sold and that sums of £1,000 are being charged for service charges. However, the hon. Gentleman has a good point when he says that these charges should not be retrospective.
The homelessness problem is really chronic in Lambeth. Naturally, there is a case for a plural housing sector—I finish on this point—of council, private, co-operative, housing association and others. But Lambeth's record is such that in 1986 there were 1,121 applications approved, as I understand it. In 1987 there were 2,575. It has gone up from an average of 93 a month to over 200 a month and I think that, even on the hon. Gentleman's own criteria, the situation is not quite so dire as he suggests.
2.48 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) and to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) for the way in which this important little debate has been introduced, because the situation in Lambeth is worrying. From the experience that we have had in the Department I can confirm a good deal of what my hon. Friend says.
First, I shall say why the right-to-buy policy can be of benefit to the borough. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Vauxhall taking a pragmatic view of this. Certainly, the aim of a mixture of tenures in his and in my hon. Friend's area is a sensible social objective. What is more, in those areas where there is serious dilapidation and problems that often arise from badly designed 1960s estates and other estates, resources are needed. The right to buy and the receipts that arise from it, provide one additional source of such money. It is noticeable that the London boroughs with the most acute problems have been, for perhaps understandable political reasons, slowest to tap that source of money and that must be regretted.
I suspect that there is some political bias against the policy, which has meant that there is a little slackness in the administrative procedures. If there is no leadership, there will not be good organisation. There is another depressing statistic. If Lambeth council brought down the gap in relets to the average level, another 500 lets would be available each year. That would make a big impact, particularly on the bed and breakfast problem.
Something is going wrong in the housing department. The right-to-buy situation has deteriorated. Initially, there was not a great demand in Lambeth. The Department had no reason to believe there was any undue delay. At least, if the system was not very good, it was not very bad. The Department did not receive many complaints, which is a barometer of the situation. The number of complaints to local Members of Parliament is another, and perhaps better, barometer. When we set up the monitoring list, Lambeth was not included among the boroughs. In the initial stages of the right-to-buy process, Lambeth did not handle many cases and, therefore, there were few complaints.
The situation has deteriorated. Although there are now many more applications, there has been an increase in complaints. In the past few months, there has been a 100 per cent. increase in the number of complaints to the Department, in respect of Lambeth. Lambeth is now in the sad position of being in the top five, behind Camden, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Southwark. That is not a competition that anyone wishes to win. That situation has developed as a result of weakness in administration and organisation and of a lack of political will.
It is difficult to obtain answers from Lambeth. The Department wrote to the chief executive on 23 November. We have not thought of offering him lunch. Perhaps that would be another ploy. After hearing the experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, we might send him the bill. The Department requested that measures should be taken to improve matters. We chased things a good deal and eventually received a reply on 27 January. We have continued to take up cases with Lambeth, but without much response.
1328
Like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, the patience of the Department is not inexhaustible. We shall have to decide whether Lambeth should go back on the list of monitored authorities. Ultimately, we have the doomsday weapon of intervention by the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend watches these matters closely. Like my hon. Friend, we do not write letters just for fun. We try to ensure that the legal rights of our citizens, about which they feel passionately, are properly protected.
I should like to comment on two points raised by my hon. Friend. First, he suggested contracting out or privatising the process. It is open to local authorities to do that, if that is sensible. Compulsion to do so, when an authority is determined to be obstructive, might not work because there is bound to be a major role for the local authority in that process. It may find ways of making the life of an outside valuer or solicitor extremely difficult. We must try to get the council to do the job properly, one way or another, using our fallback powers if necessary. As many other Labour authorities throughout the country have shown, if they put their backs behind this policy, they can soon get sales going, even for flats.
My hon. Friend made an important point about service charges. I have had the same problem in my constituency in Bristol. We have not necessarily got the legislation right, but it is worth remembering why we took the step and disagreed with Wandsworth over this. We were finding that people were being given estimates for service charges which were instantly shown to be ill-considered, to put it mildly, and perhaps misleading. Bills predicted to be £200 or £300 turned out to be thousands of pounds. We said that the estimates must be binding, so that local authorities would take the matter seriously. As my hon. Friend said, that imposes a legal obligation on a local authority, which involves it in a great deal of work to ensure that the estimates are correct.
As a result of this debate we shall consider the matter again. There is a danger that local authorities could err so far on the side of safety or expense that they could frighten off buyers. The matter must be considered carefully and seriously because, as anyone in the private sector will know, service charges on flats can be high. People buy flats and find themselves landed with higher service charges than they had expected and then get into difficulties.
The intention of the Housing and Planning Act 1986 was to give people security and to stop an authority simply changing estimates radically as soon as a sale had been made. As usual, we had to legislate to deal with an abuse in a few authorities and by doing so we have probably made it more difficult for authorities which were behaving perfectly honourably and sensibly on the previous voluntary system. That is the frustration of this. One takes legislative powers to deal with abuses only to find that one has made life more difficult for those with no intention of abusing the previous system. We shall reconsider the position, but as it is not long since we legislated, perhaps we should let things settle down a little.
There is immense opportunity for Lambeth both to gain more resources for its housing needs, which are acute, and to establish local communities by increasing the level of owner-occupation. If the council followed that policy and put a little more enthusiasm behind the provision of the rights which exist in law, it could not only do good for tenants who seek to exercise their right to buy, but for the borough as a whole. Whether before or after lunch, I hope that the council will take note of this debate and remember

1329
that the Government do not legislate for fun or provide themselves with back-up powers for no reason, and that if there is no sign of improvement it will be impossible for my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department not to
1330
consider taking further steps of a type most unwelcome to Lambeth, in order to assist my hon. Friend's constituents in achieving their legal rights.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.

WALES

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what, in constant prices, was the level of spending per pupil in Wales in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in 1978–79 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:

  Net recurrent institutional costs1 at 1986–87 prices2

  Pounds per pupil

  Primary

  Secondary

  1978–79

  749

  1,036

  1986–873

  909

  1,320

  1 Net recurrent institutional costs exclude expenditure on school meals and milk, school transport and pupil support.

  2 Figures have been expressed at 1986–87 prices, using the GDP deflator.

  3 provisional.

  Hospital Charges
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sums were collected by each of the Welsh area health authorities from non-United Kingdom residents for hospital charges in 1985–86 and 1986–87; and what is the estimated net sum after deduction of costs of administration.

  Mr. Grist
  The income collected from charges to overseas visitors by each district health authority in Wales in the past two years was as follows:

  £ Thousand

  District Health Authority

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Clwyd

  5·2

  -2·9

  East Dyfed

  6·6

  2·0

  Gwent

  19·7

  9·3

  Gwynedd

  12·0

  2·4

  Mid Glamorgan

  0·0

  0·0

  Pembrokeshire

  3·8

  0·2

  Powys

  0·4

  0·0

  South Glamorgan

  17·6

  -0–4

  West Glamorgan

  -0·1

  0·1

  Wales

  65·2

  10·6

  Country

  Airline

  Aircraft type

  Period of exemption

  Cyprus

  Cyprus Airways

  1 Boeing 707

  31 December 1988

  Portugal

  TAP

  1 Boeing 707

  31 December 1988

  Sudan

  Sudan Airways

  3 Boeing 707s

  31 March 1988 (2 flights)

  Belgium

  Trans European Airways

  1 Boeing 707

  31 December 1988

  Netherlands

  KLM

  11 McDonnell Douglas DC9s

  31 December 1988

  France

  Minerve

  1 Caravelle

  6 February 1988

  746
  Source: Health Authorities' Annual Accounts.

  Notes:

  1. Figures may not add up due to roundings.

  2. Figures relate to charges authorised by regulations made under Section 121 of the National Health Service Act 1977 (which provides for the recovery of charges in respect of services provided to persons not ordinarily resident in Great Britain.

  The structure of the health authorities' annual accounts does not allow the associated administration costs to be estimated.

  Welsh Grand Committee
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to invite all the members of the Welsh Grand Committee to attend the press conferences organised by himself or his officials and held during the sittings of the Grand Committee on the subject being discussed by the Grand Committee.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I will continue to have the courtesy to speak to any person who wishes to question me on a speech I have made, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would if he had ever been asked.

TRANSPORT

  Airports (Noise)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in view of his Department's undertaking to bring about a progressive improvement in noise climate around airports, he will list the exceptions granted to foreign airlines, enabling them to continue to operate non-noise certificated subsonic jet aircraft to and from United Kingdom airports after the date from which such aircraft were banned, as detailed in the 1985 airports White Paper; and if he will give his reasons for doing so.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The exemptions are as listed in the table. Foreign-registered non noise-certificated subsonic jet aeroplanes have been banned from the United Kingdom 1 January under the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1987. Exemptions under article 16 of the order are made by the Civil Aviation Authority in consultation with my right hon. Friend. All exemptions are limited to day time operations. So far, 44 applications for exemption have been turned down.

  Under the terms of EC directives 80/51 and 83/206 exemptions have been granted by the CAA where a non noise-certificated aeroplane is to be replaced by one meeting the stringent Chapter 3 ICAO noise certification standard. (The period of exemption is dependent on the delivery date of chapter 3 replacement aeroplanes. The exemption for each aeroplane expires on 31 December 1988 or when the replacement aeroplane is delivered, whichever is the sooner).
  747
  Exemptions have been granted in exceptional circumstances beyond the airlines' immediate control. Such circumstances include the late delivery of hush-kits or hush-kit parts, the unavailability of a compliant aeroplane for technical reasons and cases where passengers would

  Country

  Airline

  Aircraft type

  Period

  Reason

  Lebanon

  Middle East Airlines

  2 Boeing 707s

  11 January 1988 (4 flights)

  Hush-kit delays

  Nigeria

  Flash Airlines

  1 McDonnell Douglas DC8

  31 January 1988 (5 nights)

  Hush-kit delays

  Uganda

  Uganda Airlines

  1 Boeing 707

  1 January 1988 (1 flight)

  Flight delay. Hardship to passengers

  Saudi Arabia

  Prince Talol

  1 BAe 1–11 (1 flight)

  3 January 1988

  Picking up hush-kit parts, en route for hush-kit fitment

  Zimbabwe

  Air Zimbabwe

  5 Boeing 707s

  3 to 7 February 1 to 10 June 1 to 20 June

  Hush-kits being fitted pending delivery of Chapter 3 aircraft

  Lebanon

  Middle East

  1 Boeing 707

  26–27 January (1 flight)

  Noise compliant aircraft grounded due to technical problems

  Kenya

  Kenya Airways

  1 Boeing 707

  27–28 January (1 flight)

  Noise compliant aeroplane grounded due to engine damage

  Switzerland

  Jet Aviation Business Jets

  1 BAe 1–11

  29 January 1988–31 March 1988 (9 flights)

  Hush-kit delays

  Saudi Arabia

  Aviation Management Consortium

  1 BAe 1–11

  11 February 1988–30 June 1988

  Hush-kit delays

  Lebanon

  Middle East Airlines

  1 Boeing 707

  23–26 January (2 flights)

  En route hush-kitting

  Zambia

  Zambia Airways

  1 Boeing 707

  29 February-5 March (2 flights)

  Compliant aeroplane being maintained

  Gambia

  Gamair

  1 McDonnell Douglas

  12February-25March(6 flights)

  Hush-kits

  Lebanon

  Middle East Airlines

  1 Boeing 720

  1 February 1988

  Compliant aeroplane unavailable due to technical problems

  Exemptions have been granted for flights to and from the United Kingdom specifically for maintenance purposes. Such exemptions stipulate that the aeroplane is flown empty, in both directions, to reduce its environmental impact to a minimum. A total of 19 maintenance flights have been exempted involving 13 airlines and 15 aircraft—eight B707, five BAel-11 and two DC8.

  Transport Studies
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list all transport studies relating to London and the south-east(a) proposed, (b) under way or (c) completed within the last year by or on behalf of his Department, British Rail and London Regional Transport; and if he will give details of each inquiry of the estimated time scale, the estimated cost and the names of any consultant firms involved;

  (2) if the will list all transport studies relating to London and the south-east (a) proposed, (b) under way or (c) completed within the last year by or on behalf of his Department or the London Docklands Development Corporation; and if he will give details for each inquiry of the estimated time scale, the estimated cost and the names of any consultant firms involved.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It would not be practicable to list the many studies relating to transport in London and the south-east in which my Department is involved by reason of its day-to-day responsibilities. Studies conducted by LDDC, BR and LRT are matters for the managements of those organisations.
  748
  otherwise suffer serious hardships. In additions two flights by the Saudi royal flight and one flight by the royal Brunei executive were exempted for diplomatic reasons in January and early February.

  A6 Disley High Lane Bypass
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the representations which he had received about the line of route of the proposed A6 Disley high lane bypass before he recommended his preferred choice.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We consulted local councils and public bodies before announcing the preferred route choice. There was general support for a bypass and most authorities supported the proposed option.

  M62-M1 Link
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the outcome of the study he has commissioned on a possible new link between the M62 in the area of junction 25 and the M 1 in the area of junction 40.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The feasibility study into a possible trunk road link between junction 38 or 39 on the M1 and the M62 in west Yorkshire is now being examined. This scheme will be considered for inclusion in the national trunk road programme at the next major review.

  Passenger Transport Authorities (Financing)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many replies his Department has received to its consultation paper on financing passenger transport authorities; how many of the replies support his Department's proposals; if he will now reconsider the proposals in the light of the comments received; and if he will make a statement.
  749
  Mr. David Mitchell
  As of 18 February 1988, my Department had received 20 responses to the consultation paper, containing a number of comments on the proposal. I will of course take all these comments into account in coming to a decision on the proposal.

  Tyre Treads (EC Directive)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he now intends to introduce legislation to bring into effect the European Community directive on the introduction of a minimum tread depth regulation of 1·6 mm over the entire tread surface of tyres.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) on 15 January Official Report, columns 457–8.

  London Buses (Colour)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to introduce legislation for the control of the colour of London buses.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fair Employment Commission
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will describe the likely staffing procedure for the proposed Fair Employment Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  Final decisions have not yet been taken on new measures to promote equality of opportunity in employment. My right hon. Friend intends to make an announcement shortly on the Government's proposals.

  Fishing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been employed in the fishing industry in the ports of Ardglass and Kilkeel in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Viggers
  The information is as follows:

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Ardglass

  1978

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1979

  162

  58

  220

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  205

  61

  266

  1982

  219

  58

  277

  1983

  215

  57

  272

  1984

  224

  49

  273

  1985

  257

  60

  317

  1986

  265

  58

  323

  1987

  259

  54

  313

  Kilkeel

  1978

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1979

  587

  226

  813

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  656

  168

  824

  1982

  729

  220

  949

  1983

  932

  216

  1,148

  1984

  928

  256

  1,184

  1985

  855

  232

  1,087

  1986

  848

  220

  1,068

  1987

  996

  210

  1,206

  750
  No records are held for 1978 or 1980 as their compilation did not become a regular annual exercise until 1981.

  Electricity (Installations)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what rate of interest Northern Ireland Electricity charges on extended credit for installation costs.

  Mr. Viggers
  The current rate of interest is 34 per cent. APR: the facility is available only to domestic consumers.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of electricity installation charges are on average attributable to(a) labour, (b) material and (c) other costs.

  Mr. Viggers
  This information is not readily available and could only he provided by Northern Ireland Electricity at a disproportionate cost. The proportions sought vary widely depending on the nature of the installation and an average figure would therefore have little meaning.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the basis on which charges for electricity installation are made by Northern Ireland Electricity.

  Mr. Viggers
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) on 16 February 1988 at column 595.

PRIME MINISTER

  Kurt Waldheim
  Mr. Rhodes James
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will instruct Her Majesty's ambassador to the United States to seek access to any American copies of records relating to the alleged interrogation of British service men in the Balkans by Lieutenant Kurt Waldheim: with a view to making a statement on them to the House.

  The Prime Minister
  We now have a copy of the relevant file from the United States authorities, and are examining it.

  Mr. Rhodes James
  To ask the Prime Minister whether, in the course of the Government's review of the fate of the captured British service men in the Balkans, allegedly interrogated by the then Leiutenant Kurt Waldheim, she or her representatives will meet Professor Gerald Fleming, the British member of the historian's commission established by the Austrian Government.

  The Prime Minister
  Arrangements are in hand for Government research staff to meet Professor Fleming.

  Mr. Rhodes James
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will institute an inquiry into the reasons for the destruction in 1978 of British Foreign and Commonwealth Office files relating to the alleged interrogation of British service men in the Balkans by the then Lieutenant Kurt Waldheim.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The files were destroyed in accordance with the guidelines for the preservation and destruction of public records.

  Mr. Rhodes James
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will instigate inquiries into the information available
  751
  to Her Majesty's Government in 1971 concerning the war record of President Kurt Waldheim prior to the decision to support his candidature for Secretary General of the United Nations; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to reveal how they voted in secret ballots in the United Nations, or why they voted as they did. I am informed that at the time of Dr. Waldheim's election as United Nations Secretary-General no doubts were raised about his wartime record.

  Forestry Commission
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the present division of ministerial responsibility for the Forestry Commission as between the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  The Prime Minister
  The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food exercise their responsibilities for the Forestry Commission's territorial activities in relation to Scotland and England respectively. General policy and other matters affecting Great Britain as a whole are dealt with

  External finance limits for water authorities: 1979–80 to 1988–89

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Northumbrian

  Cash

  33·9

  41·0

  48·5

  35·8

  20·0

  20·0

  22·0

  18·2

  2·0

  3·0

  Real

  100·0

  104·0

  110·4

  76·0

  40·6

  38·6

  40·1

  32·2

  3·4

  4·8

  North-West

  Cash

  52·6

  72·0

  86·9

  84·0

  79·0

  87·0

  84·5

  58·0

  49·4

  44·0

  Real

  100·0

  117·7

  127·5

  114·9

  103·3

  108·3

  99·3

  66·1

  53·8

  45·9

  Severn-Trent

  Cash

  55·3

  49·4

  67·3

  61·9

  66·3

  40·0

  55·2

  7·9

  -7·5

  -11·5

  Real

  100·0

  76·8

  93·9

  80·6

  82·5

  47·4

  61·7

  8·6

  -7·8

  -27·8

  Yorkshire

  Cash

  34·7

  40·0

  42·5

  53·4

  30·0

  34·0

  31·0

  32·8

  20·0

  15·0

  Real

  100·0

  99·1

  94·5

  110·8

  59·5

  64·2

  55·2

  56·6

  33·0

  23·7

  Anglian

  Cash

  69·5

  70·0

  74·9

  87·4

  85·0

  60·0

  46·0

  45·7

  34·0

  23·5

  Real

  100·0

  86·6

  83·2

  90·5

  84·1

  56·5

  40·9

  39·4

  28·1

  18·6

  Thames

  Cash

  18·1

  22·0

  6·0

  -3·0

  -10 ·5

  -34·0

  -60·0

  -82·0

  -95·0

  -100·0

  Real

  100·0

  104·5

  25·6

  -11 9

  -39·9

  -1230

  -205·0

  -271·5

  -300·9

  -303·1

  Southern

  Cash

  37·4

  45·0

  52·0

  40·7

  33·5

  23·0

  11·0

  2·0

  -5·0

  -13·5

  Real

  100·0

  103·4

  107·3

  78·3

  61·6

  40·3

  18·2

  3·2

  -7·7

  -19·8

  Wessex

  Cash

  13·8

  13·3

  16·0

  21·7

  27·3

  16·0

  21·0

  26·8

  23·0

  19·5

  Real

  100·0

  82·9

  89·5

  113·2

  136·1

  75·9

  94·1

  116·4

  95·6

  77·5

  South-West

  Cash

  9·4

  11·0

  13·0

  13·8

  12·5

  11·0

  4·9

  4·7

  0·7

  2·0

  Real

  100·0

  100·6

  106·8

  105·7

  91·5

  76·6

  32·2

  30·0

  4·3

  5·8

  Wales

  Cash

  29·3

  24·0

  29·0

  25·2

  23·0

  22·6

  21·0

  17·3

  13·3

  9·1

  Real

  100·0

  60·9

  66·0

  53·5

  46·7

  43·7

  38·3

  30·6

  22·5

  14·7

  Notes:

  1. Cash figures are in £ million.

  2. Real figures are in index form: 1979–80= 100·0

  3. The inflation index used is RPI.

  4. EFLs were introduced for most authorities in 1979–80.
  752
  by the two Ministers and the Secretary of State for Wales, acting jointly, with the Secretary of State for Scotland taking the lead.

  "Security and Counter Intelligence"
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister when she intends to announce her decision on the approval for publication of the book "Security and Counter Intelligence," by Mr. Anthony Simkins.

  The Prime Minister
  No decision has made been with regard to publication of "Security and Counter Intelligence."

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing the external financing limits for each water authority for each year from 1978–79 to the latest available date; and, if he will also give the same information in real terms using 100 as a base for 1978–79.

  Mrs. Roe
  The information requested by the hon. Member is contained in the table.

  Woolwich Polytechnic Lower School
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reach a decision on any request from the Inner London education authority for assistance towards the cost of rebuilding the boundary wall at the Woolwich polytechnic lower school under the inner urban programme for 1988–89.

  Mr. Trippier
  This project was not included in the inner area programme for 1988–89 submitted by the London borough of Greenwich.

  Rural Areas (Assistance)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish figures on assistance through the Development Commission or its equivalents for rural areas on a per capita basis for(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales.

  Mrs. Roe
  I regret that it is not possible to do this, because accurate information for England, Scotland and Wales is not available on a comparable basis.

  Nuclear Waste Management
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in each of the six tasks and three projects being developed in nuclear waste management under the European Council decision of 12 March 1985, programme number 85 199 Euratom.

  Mrs. Roe
  Work on the six tasks has been proceeding and will continue until the end of the current research programme in 1989. Projects 1 and 2 are also proceeding, but no progress has been made in project 3. As a result the programme for tasks 1–6 is being extended slightly in 1988 and 1989.

  Metropolitan Residuary Bodies
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on metropolitan residuary body appointments.

  Mr. Chope
  The following have been reappointed to the metropolitan residuary bodies for the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1990 or until dissolution of the body, whichever is sooner:

  Greater Manchester Residuary Body

  Chairman: J. P. B. Hadfield, JP, DL

  Members: K. J. Alford, OBE

  Councillor A. B. Coyle, JP

  B. Scholes, OBE, DL

  C. H. Singleton, OBE

  R. M. Willan

  Merseyside Residuary Body

  Chairman: N. G. Brodrick

  Members: P. D. Carter, CBE

  J. D. M. Forbes

  W. C. W. Hughes

  L. O. Jones Councillor J. R. Lloyd

  G. B. Marsh

  South Yorkshire Residuary Body

  Chairman: B. E. Cotton, CBE

  Members: Councillor R. Rigby

  M. C. Simpson

  The Hon. Neil Turner

  P. I. Wolf

  Tyne and Wear Residuary Body

  Chairman: A. S. Robertson

  754

  Members: K. Douglas

  Councillor V. Fitzpatrick, JP

  W. H. Foakes

  R. A. S. Sisterson

  R. C. Spoor

  West Midlands Residuary Body

  Chairman: Dr. M. D. Skillicorn

  Members: Councillor J. Adams, OBE

  G. N. Jackson, CBE

  J. P. Meering

  W. S. Page, CBE

  K. Williams

  West Yorkshire Residuary Body

  Chairman: T. McDonald, OBE

  Members: K. J. Bridge

  D. Hanson

  F. A. Mallet, CBE

  Councillor G. E. Mudie

  R. W. Suddards, CBE

  These reappointments reflect my right hon. Friend's satisfaction with the impressive progress made so far by the residuary bodies and his confidence in members' ability to maintain the momentum towards the bodies' eventual wind up.

  The financial benefits resulting from the removal of an unnecessary tier of local government are now being realised. Within three years of abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils successor boroughs and districts can expect to receive from the residuary bodies some £240 million in revenue balances that can be directly applied to reduce the rates, and approximately £305 million in capital receipts from property that can be used to enhance capital programmes. Taken together with the estimated annual long-term savings of £100 million resulting from staff savings, this brings direct benefits to the ratepayers of London and the metropolitan areas.

  Rate Support Grant
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about the status of the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 4) 1983–84.

  Mr. Ridley
  I laid the fourth supplementary report for 1983–84 before the House on 5 February (HC 252). It emerged, however, that a number of figures in appendix I to annex IV had been wrongly printed. I therefore withdrew the report on 15 February, and I have today laid before the House a new report.

  I have taken the opportunity to incorporate a revised rateable value for block grant purposes for one rating authority, and as a result the national grant-related poundage (GRP) for spending at GRE has increased by 0.0004p. GRPs at GRE for all classes of authority have been adjusted accordingly and the abatement multipliers of four authorities have been slightly altered as a consequence. Otherwise all the determinations remain as they were in the report which was withdrawn.

  The supplementary report requires the approval of the House of Commons. Subject to that, I plan to make the revisions to grant payments to reflect this report and two others approved by the House on Wednesday 17 February early in April.

  Copies of the report and tables showing revised; grant entitlements are being sent to local authority associations and to each authority.

  Asbestos (Housing Estates)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish special funds for councils undertaking removal of asbestos from housing estates where the health of tenants is threatened; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. Local authorities have the opportunity to draw any special needs to the attention of the Department in their annual housing investment programme submissions and meetings. Funds are not made available specifically for asbestos removal programmes, but rate support grant is paid in support of local authorities revenue expenditure generally, including expenditure on asbestos. It is for local authorities themselves to determine their own priorities for expenditure within the resources available.

DEFENCE

  Military Equipment (United States Procurement)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet the United States Secretary of Defence to discuss the scope for an increase in United States procurement of British military equipment, including within the NATO procurement framework; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. My right hon. Friend already has frequent discussions with the United States Secretary of Defence on a wide range of issues including procurement.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is planned that a nuclear warhead will be developed for the multiple launch rocket system.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I understand that this is an option being considered by the United States Government.

  Bullying
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response he has received following his announcement of measures to counter bullying in the Army.

  Mr. Freeman
  The measures I announced on 26 January to combat bullying in the Army have been well received in the Army and have been welcomed by Members of this House. The media and public response has also recognised the value of these measures.

  Irish Republic (Rescues)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what charges are made to the Government of the Irish Republic for rescues effected(a) of Irish citizens and (b) in Irish waters by British military search and rescue units; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Charges for civil search and rescue incidents are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Ministry of Defence recovers costs from the Department of Transport for the search and rescue services which it provides, but does not make charges to other Governments or individuals.

  Armilla Patrol
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Hamilton dated 29 December 1987, regarding policy on the Armilla patrol, addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and passed on to him on 11 January.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have written to the hon. Member.

  Clyde Nuclear Emergency Monitoring Team
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose the Clyde nuclear emergency monitoring team was called out on 26 January; and for what period of time personnel from the team were deployed at the scene of the incident.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on 18 February at columns 739–40.

  HMS Resolution
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cause of the emergency on board HMS Resolution on 26 January; and what steps have been taken to prevent a repetition of this type of incident.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the incident affecting the cooling system of the nuclear reactor of the submarine HMS Resolution on 26 January.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 18 February at column 738.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) military personnel and (b) civilian employees were exposed to levels of radioactivity greater than the permitted dose as a result of the emergency on board HMS Resolution on 26 January; and how many of these were suspended from duty as a result.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  None.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any release of radioactivity occurred(a) within the vessel, (b) into the atmosphere, and (c) into the sea as a result of the incident on board HMS Resolution on 26 January.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what notification was given to(a) the local liaison committee, (b) the civil police and (c) the civil fire service concerning the incident on board HMS Resolution on 26 January.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The electrical malfunction which occurred on board HMS Resolution on 26 January posed no danger to the submarine's reactor, its crew or the public. There was therefore no occasion to notify the local liaison committee or emergency services under the terms of the Clyde area public safety scheme.

  Soldiers and Horses (Molestation)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases have been reported of the
  757
  molestation of soldiers and horses on duty outside palaces and other public buildings; what steps he is taking to prevent this; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  There have been no complaints recorded of cases of molestation of soldiers or horses whilst on duty outside palaces or public buildings. If such an occurrence were to take place, adequate arrangements exist to enable the sentry to summon assistance.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he takes to monitor the research activities and findings of individuals looking into the consequence of the nuclear tests conducted on Christmas island in the 1950s; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 28 January to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) at column 309 concerning the study carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board into the mortality and cancer incidence in UK participants in the British nuclear test programme. The study was carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board under contract from the Ministry of Defence. The conduct and form of the study was, however, entirely a matter for the NRPB, with the advice of its medical and epidemiological consultants.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in how many cases claims for compensation or additional pension rights have been made in connection with the 1950s, nuclear tests; and in how many cases payments have been made.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Full records are not available but any such claims from members of the armed forces would be barred by section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. A small number of claims have been received from civilians who participated in the tests, but no payments have been made. Claims for war pensions are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what diseases the National Radiological Protection Board considered in the course of preparation of its report on nuclear test veterans; what criteria it used in deciding which diseases or conditions to exclude; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The responsibility for deciding which diseases would be considered in the course of the National Radiological Protection Board study was entirely a matter for the National Radiological Protection Board, with the advice of its medical and epidemiological consultants.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many questionnaires on the medical effects of nuclear tests were sent in 1956 to ex-service men; how those ex-service men to whom it was sent were selected; how many returned a completed questionnaire; what representations he had received from ex-service men present at nuclear tests who did not receive a questionnaire; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.
  758
  Mr. Sainsbury
  Questionnaires on the medical effects of nuclear tests were not sent to service men or ex-service men, in 1956 or at any other time.

  Mine Countermeasure Vessels
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's mine countermeasure vessels capability in the Gulf area.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  We have been reviewing the size of our MCMV force in the Gulf. In the light of our experience to date in operations to clear mine danger areas both in the Gulf of Oman and off Qatar, we have concluded that in the present circumstances the mine clearance task can be met satisfactorily by retaining three MCMVs and associated afloat support in the Gulf area to operate in support of the Armilla patrol. To this end Her Majesty's ships Dulverton, Middleton and Atherstone are in the course of taking over the mine counter-measures task in the Gulf hitherto fulfilled by Her Majesty's ships Hurworth, Bicester, Brocklesby and Brecon. The support vessel HMS Abdiel is also returning to the United Kingdom, and is due to be paid off in about six months' time. HMS Abdiel's support role in the Gulf is now being carried out by HMS Herald.

  Equipment
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what degree of lateral stability was called for in the DROPS statement of requirement for the medium mobility vehicle; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what lateral stability was achieved by the validation model DROPS medium mobility trucks on their tilt test at the Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) to what tests DROPS vehicles were submitted subsequent to tilt tests, with the test weights turned upside down; what effect this had on the centre of gravity; what stability was achieved; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what stability is expected once the DROPS vehicle has been fitted with small tyres; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) whether the DROPS vehicle, once fitted with small tyres, will comply with the statement requirements in respect of the maximum ground pressure; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) what was the stated minimum stability requirement for low mobility, road-use only, vehicles; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) why, after the first round of trialling, it was considered desirable to subject DROPS RTE to a second round of full open competition to determine best value for money; why this course of action was considered undesirable in respect of DROPS itself; whether it was considered desirable to submit simplified RTE equipment to a second round of full open competition; and if he will make a statement;

  (8) what was the difference between RTE/CLOTS equipment and Simple RTE/Simple CLOTS equipment; and if he will make a statement;

  (9) which company was selected in 1983 to provide Simple RTE; which other companies were selected in 1985; and if he will make a statement;
  759
  (10) whether RTE (rail transfer equipment) supplied by EKA Ltd., was selected for trials in 1983; and if he will make a statement;

  (11) whether (a) the 1982 or (b) the 1986 specification required the rail transfer equipment to operate at different step heights; to what extent this requirement was deemed essential in stating the 1986 requirement; whether any of the equipments tendered in 1986 met this essential requirement; and if he will make a statement;

  (12) what have been the changes in operational circumstances that have made rail transfer equipment operation under power cables and at different step heights essential at the time of stating the requirements and dispensable at the time of selecting equipment against those requirements; and if he will make a statement;

  (13) which of the requirements of the 1986 rail transfer equipment specification are not met by the ordered equipment; and if he will make a statement;

  (14) whether the equipment ordered for rail transfer equipment is an existing commercially available design; and if he will make a statement;

  (15) what are the factors that led to the attempt to enhance the mobility of a DROPS vehicle by fitting large wheels; and if he will make a statement;

  (16) whether the original DROPS trials equipment achieved medium mobility; whether cross-country mobility is still required; and if he will make a statement;

  (17) whether the DROPS medium mobility vehicle is required to be used off-road; whether it was ever intended to have suitable mobility for off-road use; and if he will make a statement;

  (18) in precisely what respects the performance requirements called for in respect of the current procurement of 209 DROPS trailers differ from the performance requirements called for in respect of the 295 trailers ordered pursuant to the original DROPS 1982 statement of requirement; where in the 1982 statement of requirement these performance requirements were stated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 16 February 19881: I will write to my right hon. Friend shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Devon and Cornwall Investment Bureau
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many industrial companies new to Devon and Cornwall have commenced investment projects as a result of the work of the Devon and Cornwall Investment Bureau in the years 1985–86 and 1986–87; and what is the estimated figure for 1987–88.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department provides grant-aid to the Devon and Cornwall Development Bureau (DCDB) to promote the region as a location for investment by overseas companies. I am advised that in the years specified, the number of start-ups by overseas companies new to Devon and Cornwall with which the DCDB has been actively involved is as follows:

  Number

  1985–86

  1

  1986–87

  4

  1987–88

  16

  1 Estimate

  760
  These projects are expected to create around 1,000 new jobs.

  In addition, the DCDB assists overseas companies with their plans to expand in Devon and Cornwall, and can claim to have been actively involved with 11 such successful projects over the period in question. These projects are expected to create a further 600 new jobs.

  My Department's contribution to the DCDB does not cover work to encourage United Kingdom companies to relocate within Devon and Cornwall, and I have no information on the level of this activity.

  Structural Funds
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the United Kingdom share of the structural funds in the past three years, the forecast for this year and the forecast under the new arrangements; and if he will give the figures in percentages at European currency unit and sterling;

  (2) pursuant to the statement on the meeting of the European Council, Official Report, 15 February, columns 705–17, whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the United Kingdom's share of the structural funds in the past three years, the forecast outturn for 1987–88 and the forecast under the new arrangements; and if he will give the figures both as percentages and in European currency unit and £ sterling.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The figures for the United Kingdom share of the structural funds for the past three years are given in the table. The drop in our percentage shares between 1985 and 1986 followed the accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Community.

  It is not possible to forecast our share of the funds for this or future years. However, as the Prime Minister said in her statement on the outcome of the European Council at Brussels, we hope to increase our payment receipts from the funds to about £1,000 million in 1992.

  United Kingdom share of the commitments of the structural funds

  1985

  1986

  11987

  Mecu

  1,223

  1,014

  1,244

  £ Million

  722

  714

  2896

  per cent.

  22·7

  15·6

  16·7

  1 Estimate.

  2 Equivalent to about £750 million in payments.

  Securities Association
  Mr. Richard Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if a decision has been reached on whether to give leave for the recognition under the Financial Services Act of the Securities Association.

  Mr. Maude
  In accordance with the procedures laid down in the Financial Services Act, the Director General of Fair Trading has submitted to my right hon. and noble Friend a report on the rules and guidance submitted by TSA to the SIB. Having considered the Director General's report, my right hon. and noble Friend has concluded that on the basis of the information presently available to him he does not consider TSA's rules and guidance have, or are intended or are likely to have, to any significant extent, the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition. He has, therefore, today given his leave to the SIB for the recognition of TSA.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether his plans have advanced for the relocation of the Patent Office.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  As I told the House on 10 December 1987 Official Report, column 239, I have been examining the possibility of relocating the Patent Office to Cardiff or Newport. In consultation with my colleagues, the Secretaries of State for Wales and for the Environment I have decided that Newport should be the preferred location, on a site already occupied there by the business statistics office, which is a division of my Department. The trade marks branch of the Patent Office opened an examining group on the Newport site on 3 February, as the first phase of the relocation. The move of the rest of the office, except for a modest public office which will remain in London, will take about three years and I estimate that at least 500 jobs will be created locally.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he intends that any staff in the insolvency service of his Department who are currently based in London will be relocated elsewhere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have decided that 148 London-based insolvency service staff will be relocated in Birmingham in 1989. The decision to relocate these staff follows a thorough review of my Department's scope for moving staff to locations other than London, where the cost of accommodation is very high. The type of work carried out by the staff concerned does not require their location in any particular area. The proposed move will improve the cost-effectiveness of my Department in our use of public funds for staff accommodation.

  I also believe that moving these important Civil Service posts to Birmingham will make a worthwhile contribution to the strong revival of the local economy in the west midlands that is now under way. The insolvency service already has a considerable presence in Birmingham in terms of staff numbers, including one of its major official receiver's offices.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Horniman Museum
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for the continued operation of the Horniman museum after the abolition of the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Government wish to ensure a secure future for the museum, and are considering what arrangements would best achieve that objective.

  University Places
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the number of places offered by each United Kingdom university for each of the past 10 years(a) in total, (b) by degree course subject and (c) by country of origin of student, Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and others.
  762
  Mr. Jackson
  The available information for full-time undergraduate new entrants to universities in 1986 is shown in the table. It is taken from "University statistics, 1986–87, volume one (students and staff)", published by the Universities Statistical Record. Information for earlier years is published in previous editions. Figures by subject for 1986 relate to the new subject classification, which is not directly comparable with the classification used prior to 1985. Readily available unpublished information for country of domicile for 1986 entrants is also shown.

  Full-time undergraduate new entrants to universities: United Kingdom 1986

  Number

  Aston

  1,001

  Bath

  946

  Birmingham

  2,615

  Bradford

  1,106

  Bristol

  2,012

  Brunel

  671

  Cambridge

  3,317

  City

  817

  Durham

  1,460

  East Anglia

  1,190

  Essex

  932

  Exeter

  1,430

  Hull

  1,423

  Keele

  817

  Kent

  1,37

  Lancaster

  1,547

  Leeds

  2,724

  Leicester

  1,255

  Liverpool

  2,060

  London Business School

  —

  London

  9,583

  Loughborough

  1,428

  Manchester Business School

  —

  Manchester

  2,883

  Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

  1,108

  Newcastle

  2,130

  Nottingham

  1,983

  Oxford

  3,080

  Reading

  1,531

  Salford

  1,083

  Sheffield

  2,208

  Southampton

  1,832

  Surrey

  911

  Sussex

  1,334

  Warwick

  1,774

  York

  1,051

  Total England

  62,629

  Aberystwyth University College

  915

  Bangor University College

  818

  Cardiff University College

  1,695

  St. David's, Lampeter

  242

  Swansea University College

  1,404

  University of Wales College of Medicine

  76

  University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology

  672

  Total Wales

  5,822

  Total England and Wales

  68,451

  Aberdeen

  1,491

  Dundee

  835

  Edinburgh

  2,505

  Glasgow

  2,694

  Heriot-Watt

  1,060

  St. Andrews

  989

  Stirling

  899

  Strathclyde

  1,838

  Total Scotland

  12,311

  763

  Number

  Total Great Britain

  80,762

  Queen's University Belfast

  1,887

  University of Ulster

  2,760

  Total Northern Ireland

  4,647

  Total United Kingdom

  85,409

  Full-time undergraduates new entrants to universities in Great Britain, 1986—by subject

  Number

  1. Medicine and dentistry

  Medicine

  4,054

  Dentistry

  861

  Total medicine and dentistry

  4,915

  2. Studies allied to medicine

  Anatomy and physiology

  267

  Pharmacology

  187

  Pharmacy

  688

  Ophthalmics

  237

  Nursing

  369

  Other and combined studies allied to medicine

  317

  Total studies allied to medicine

  2,065

  3. Biological sciences

  Biology

  1,688

  Botany

  129

  Zoology

  346

  Genetics

  102

  Microbiology

  323

  Biochemistry

  1,129

  Psychology

  954

  Other and combined biological sciences

  484

  Total biological sciences

  5,155

  4. Veterinary science, agriculture and related studies

  Veterinary science

  337

  Agriculture

  510

  Forestry

  81

  Food science

  191

  Other and combined agricultural sciences

  187

  Total veterinary science, agriculture and related studies

  1,306

  5. Physical sciences

  Chemistry

  2,289

  Physics

  2,320

  Astronomy

  64

  Geology

  792

  Geography

  469

  Other and combined environmental and physical sciences

  579

  Total physical sciences

  6,513

  6. Mathematical sciences

  Mathematics

  2,463

  Statistics

  165

  Computer studies

  1,652

  Other and combined mathematical sciences

  524

  Total mathematical sciences

  4,804

  7. Engineering and technology

  General engineering

  922

  Civil engineering

  1,520

  764

  Number

  Mechanical engineering

  1,988

  Aeronautical engineering

  461

  Electrical engineering

  397

  Electronic engineering

  1,748

  Production engineering

  263

  Chemical engineering

  825

  Minerals technology

  173

  Metallurgy

  106

  Other materials technology

  170

  Maritime technology

  109

  Biotechnology

  62

  Other and combined studies in engineering and technology

  2,068

  Total engineering and technology

  10,812

  8. Architecture and related studies

  Architecture

  552

  Building

  227

  Town and country planning

  151

  Other related studies including combinations

  43

  Total architecture and related studies

  1,023

  9. Social sciences

  Economics

  2,499

  Sociology

  707

  Social policy and administration

  282

  Applied social work

  116

  Anthropology

  147

  Psychology

  583

  Geography

  1,516

  Politics

  910

  Law

  3,869

  Other and combined social services

  1,429

  Total social sciences

  12,068

  10. Business and financial studies

  Business and management studies

  1,450

  Financial management

  234

  Accountancy

  700

  Institutional management

  224

  Land and property management

  216

  Other and combined business and financial studies

  525

  Total business and financial studies

  3,349

  11. Librarianship and information science

  Librarianship

  33

  Other related studies including combinations

  48

  Total librarianship and information science

  81

  12. Languages and related studies

  Linguistics

  151

  English

  2,812

  American studies

  182

  Classical studies

  401

  French

  1,037

  German

  362

  Hispanic studies

  156

  Russian

  144

  Other European languages

  321

  Chinese

  76

  Other Oriental/Asian/African languages

  94

  Other and combined languages and related studies

  2,804

  Total languages and related studies

  8,540

  13. Humanities

  History

  2,813

  History of art

  337

  Archaeology

  263

  Philosophy

  430

  765

  Number

  Theology and religious studies

  696

  Other and combined humanities

  278

  Total humanities

  4,817

  14. Creative arts

  Fine art

  151

  Design studies

  135

  Music

  588

  Drama

  252

  Other and combined creative arts

  151

  Total creative arts

  1,277

  15. Education

  Teacher training

  490

  Academic studies in education

  302

  Other and combined education studies

  282

  Total education

  1,074

  16. Multi-disciplinary studies

  Combinations of groups 2, 3 and 4

  132

  Combinations of groups 2–4 with 5 and 6

  323

  Combinations of groups 5 and 6

  351

  Combinations of groups 2–6 with 7 and 8 and 7 with 8

  608

  Combined or general science

  1,515

  Combinations of groups 9, 10 and 11

  764

  Combined or general social science

  1,479

  Combinations of group 12 with 13–15

  1,297

  Combinations of groups 13, 14 and 15

  45

  Combined or general arts

  662

  Combinations of groups 5 and 6 with 9–11

  838

  Combinations of groups 2–4, 7 and 8 with 9–11

  394

  Combinations of groups 5 and 6 with 12–15

  250

  Full-time students in 1986

  Universities in

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  Total

  233,538

  20,556

  47,230

  14,966

  316,290

  Numbers domiciled in

  England

  188,316

  11,789

  9,073

  675

  209,853

  Wales

  7,019

  5,624

  243

  28

  12,914

  Scotland

  2,938

  129

  30,449

  125

  33,641

  Northern Ireland

  2,356

  199

  1,177

  12,110

  15,842

  Other1

  32,909

  2,815

  6,288

  2,028

  44,040

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Percentages domiciled in

  England

  81

  57

  19

  5

  66

  Wales

  3

  27

  1

  0

  4

  Scotland

  1

  1

  64

  1

  11

  Northern Ireland

  1

  1

  2

  81

  5

  Other1

  14

  14

  13

  14

  14

  Percentages may not sum due to rounding

  1 Includes those domiciled in other United Kingdom and overseas.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has for each of the past five years as to what percentage of those school pupils whose principal address is in an inner London borough attended an independent school; and as to what
  766

  Number

  Combinations of groups 2–4, 7 and 8 with 12–15

  127

  Combinations of groups 9–11 with 12

  968

  Combinations of groups 9–11 with 13–15

  1,238

  Other general and combinations

  1,982

  Total multi-disciplinary studies

  12,973

  All subjects

  80,762

  Full-time undergraduate new entrants by domicile, 1986

  Number

  Universities in Great Britain of which domiciled in

  80,762

  Scotland

  8,588

  England

  57,385

  Wales

  3,645

  Northern Ireland

  1,109

  Others

  10,035

  Universities (Wales and Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will republish a table, in the manner of his answer of 12 February,Official Report, columns 375–6, showing the numbers and percentages of (a) Welsh and (b) Northern Irish students and relating to (i) Welsh and (ii) Northern Irish universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  The complete cross classification of country of location by country of domicile is shown in the following table:

  is the percentage of the pupil population of (a) outer London, (b) south-east England and (c) England who attend independent schools.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information on pupils' home addresses is not held centrally. The number of pupils in independent schools as a percentage of all pupils in school in each of the last five years in the following areas was:
  767

  Pupils in independent schools as a percentage of all pupils in the Inner London Education Authority, Outer London, Other South East and England in January of each year

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  ILEA

  10·7

  11·2

  116

  12·0

  12·4

  Outer London

  7·3

  7·4

  7·6

  7·7

  8·1

  Other South East

  9·5

  9·7

  9·9

  10·1

  10·4

  England

  6·2

  6·4

  6·5

  6·6

  6·9

  University Funding
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give details of any revised cash limits for his Department's votes in respect of university funding in 1987–88.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit on class XII, vote 3 is being increased by a total of £7·583 million to facilitate the creation of a new university institution in Cardiff. The effect of this change is as follows:

  Class, Vote and Description of Expenditure

  £'000

  XII 3 Universities, etc

  Current cash limit

  1,706,618

  Revision

  +7,583

  Revised cash limit

  1,714,201

  The Supplementary Estimate will include provision for a repayable grant of £4·402 million (of which £4·279 million will be charged to the Reserve, after taking account of offsetting savings), with repayments benefiting the Reserve in future years. The remainder, £3·304 million, will be funded by a transfer of £1·652 million from Welsh Office provision (class XVII, vote 5) and £1·652 million from the Reserve. The increase will not add to the public expenditure planning total.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Taxi Drivers (Assaults)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deaths have resulted for each of the last five years as a consequence of attacks on licensed taxi drivers.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the period 1982–86, in England and Wales, five licensed taxi drivers are known to have been victims of homicide.

  Written Question (Cost)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost in time and money of the preparation of the answer to the written question from the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) answered on 29 January,Official Report, column 395.

  Mr. Hurd
  About one hour at a cost of about £30.

  Dog Fighting
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the extent of foreign involvement in the promotion of and betting upon dog fighting; and if he will make a statement.
  768
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None, although we are, of course, aware of the recent allegations of such involvement. The police work closely with officials of the RSPCA in the investigation of alleged offences relating to dog fighting.

  European Parliamentary Constituencies
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Boundary Commission for Wales intends to conduct any supplementary review of European parliamentary constituencies.

  Mr. Hurd
  The commission has informed me of its intention to consider the making of a supplementary report on three European parliamentary constituencies in Wales. These are Mid and West Wales, South East Wales and South Wales.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Boundary Commission intends to conduct any supplementary reviews of European Parliamentary constituencies in England.

  Mr. Hurd
  The commission has informed me that it intends to consider the making of a supplementary report on the following 34 European parliamentary constituencies in England:

  Durham

  Cleveland and Yorkshire North

  York

  Humberside

  Lancashire Central

  Lancashire East

  Yorkshire West

  Cheshire West

  Cheshire East

  Derbyshire

  Cambridge and Bedfordshire North

  Suffolk

  Oxford and Buckinghamshire

  Bedfordshire South

  Hertfordshire

  Essex South West

  Essex North East

  Bristol

  Wiltshire

  Cornwall and Plymouth

  Sheffield

  Nottingham

  Lincolnshire

  Shropshire and Stafford

  Staffordshire East

  Midlands Central

  Leicester

  Devon

  Somerset and Dorset West

  Dorset East and Hampshire West

  Hampshire Central

  Wight and Hampshire East

  Kent West

  Kent East

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Christmas Island (Nuclear Tests)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Attorney-General for what reasons certain records relating to the nuclear tests conducted on Christmas Island during the 1950s have been held back from release under the Public Records Act for 75 years.

  The Solicitor-General
  It has not been possible, from the information given, to identify the records referred to in the hon. Member's question. In so far as any such records have been withheld from release, they have been so withheld under section 3(4) of section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958.

  Bona Vacantia Department
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will introduce new regulations for the distribution of intestacy proceeds from the Bona Vacantia Department to pass to charities in untraceable cases.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have been asked to reply.

  No. The Treasury Solicitor is already authorised by the Treasury to make payments from Bona Vacantia to those for whom a person dying intestate might reasonablly have been expected to provide. A charity will therefore benefit from an estate where it has helped the deceased, or where it is clear that the deceased intended it to benefit. There is no intention to extend these principles to benefit charities in any other circumstances.

  Intestacy
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to provide new ways to enable companies and organisations to allocate or distribute long-standing funds where intestacy has resulted in an inability to trace claimants.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have been asked to reply.

  No. The distribution of the property of persons dying intestate is a matter for their personal representatives. Where there is no one entitled following an intestacy, the matter should be referred to the Treasury Solicitor as Bona Vacantia.

THE ARTS

  Asian Artists
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many Asian artists and companies received financial support from the Arts Council in each of the past five years.

  Mr Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on Monday 15 February, at columns 698–99.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  VAT (United States Forces)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what administrative arrangements are in place for the offsetting of value added tax payments for United Kingdom traders by United States forces not having to pay value added tax under special agreement.

  Mr. Lilley
  There are no offsetting arrangements. Traders do not charge VAT when supplying United States forces authorities under the special agreements.

  Outturn Expenditure
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of outturn expenditure for 1987–88; and what are the figures for each Department.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Member to table 1·8 of volume I of the 1988 public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 288).

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what invitations to respond to the proposals of the Commissioner of the European Community for harmonisation of value added tax and excise duties was contained in the global communications from the Commission to Her Majesty's Government; and if he will publish in the Official Report its text, together with any response.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 18 February 1988]: The global communication contained no specific invitations to respond; member states were invited only to evaluate the Commission's tax approximation proposals. The Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) has referred the proposals to the Economic Policy Committee (EPC) for economic analysis and will discuss them in the light of EPC's report, which is expected in the spring. The Commission should be in little doubt about the Government's view on United Kingdom zero rating. A copy of the global communication, together with a copy of each of the Commission's proposals, has been placed in the Library.

EMPLOYMENT

  Dock Workers (Dismissals)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many permanent registered dock workers in the Liverpool local dock board area in each year from 1980 to 1986 have been dismissed by their employer for an offence justifying summary dismissal under the disciplinary provisions of the dock labour scheme; and how many of these men have been reinstated by order of the local dock labour board and appeal tribunals.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The figures requested are as follows:
  771

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Brought forward from previous year

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Permanent workers dismissed for offence justifying summary dismissal

  12

  5

  5

  6

  2

  2

  2

  Reinstated by order of Liverpool Dock Labour Board and appeal tribunals

  6

  5

  5

  6

  2

  2

  2

  Dismissal upheld by Liverpool Dock Labour Board and appeal tribunals

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carried forward to following year

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Radiation Exposure
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his policy towards acceptable levels of radiation exposure, following the most recent report of the National Radiological Protection Board.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I am awaiting the advice of the Health and Safety Commission. The commission has set up a working group on ionising radiations which met for the first time on 9 December 1987. The working group is considering the recent guidance from the National Radiological Protection Board as part of its remit and will advise the commission on an appropriate course of action. I am content to await any subsequent recommendations.

  Workers and the public are currently protected by the Ionising Radiations 1985, which require doses to be kept not only below specified dose limits but beyond that to be kept as low as reasonably practicable.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Green Pound
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average discrepancy between the value of the green pound and the real pound sterling for the years 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the average percentage difference between the value of the pound sterling and the green rate for the £ sterling for each six month period since January 1979.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The information is not available in the form requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Monetary compensatory amounts reflect the difference between sterling's market rate and green rates. The table shows the MCA percentages for beef and cereals during the first week in each six-month period since 1979 as well as the latest figures available:

  Date (week commencing)

  MCA (percentage)

  Beef

  Cereals

  1 January 1979

  -27·0

  -27·0

  2 July 1979

  -6·0

  -17·6

  7 January 1980

  -3·5

  -9·0

  7 July 1980

  +1·7

  -1·0

  5 January 1981

  +12·1

  +12·1

  6 July 1981

  +12·3

  +12·3

  4 January 1982

  +8·0

  +8·0

  5 July 1982

  +9·6

  +9·6

  3 January 1983

  +1·4

  +1·4

  4 July 1983

  +5·2

  +5·2

  772

  Date (week commencing)

  MCA (percentage)

  Beef

  Cereals

  2 January 1984

  +7·6

  +7·6

  2 July 1984

  +1·0

  +3·9

  6 January 1985

  -1·9

  -1·9

  1 July 1985

  +3·6

  +3·6

  6 January 1986

  -3·5

  -3·5

  7 July 1986

  -7·7

  -8·9

  5 January 1987

  -18·4

  -26·3

  1 July 1987

  -10·6

  -19·9

  4 January 1988

  -8·4

  -17·5

  15 February 1988

  -8·4

  -17·5

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will introduce legislation to extend to the House of Commons the requirements of the health and safety Acts.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No. I have no such proposals. The authorities of the House seek to ensure that the provisions of these Acts are met wherever possible. It has been the practice of inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive to visit the House at the request of the House authorities.

SCOTLAND

  Drug Abusers
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many intravenous drug abusers he estimates there are in(a) Glasgow and (b) Edinburgh.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Because of the nature of the activity it is very difficult to make precise estimates of the numbers of intravenous drug misusers. The current estimate is as follows:

  Estimate

  West Scotland (mainly Glasgow)

  5,000–7,500

  South East Scotland (mainly Edinburgh)

  2,000–3,000

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many laboratories in Scotland are equipped to deal with cervical smear tests; and what are their locations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 27 October 1987.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average period of time which each laboratory in Scotland takes to send the results of cervical smear tests back to patients.
  773
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women were tested for cervical cancer in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number of women tested

  1975

  253,461

  1976

  235,582

  1977

  239,572

  1978

  253,270

  1979

  252,896

  1980

  282,510

  1981

  293,870

  1982

  285,105

  1983

  315,044

  1984

  322,484

  1985

  356,747

  1986

  361,626

  Figures for 1987 are not yet available.

  Invasive Carcinoma
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women are suffering from invasive carcinoma in(a) Scotland, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Glasgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available in precisely the form requested. In 1985 (the latest year for which complete cancer registration data are available) 14,264 females with malignant neoplasms were registered for the first time in Scotland. The comparable figure for the West of Scotland cancer registry, which includes Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway and Central regions, was 6,741.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which socio-economic group is most affected by invasive carcinoma in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest information relating to incidence of cancer by socio-economic grouping is given in the publication, "Atlas of Cancer in Scotland: Incidence and Epidemiological Perspective (ed. I Kemp et al), IARC Scentific Publication No. 72", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Outturn Expenditure
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of outturn expenditure for his Department; and if he will express it as a proportion of expenditure originally allocated for the year.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information is:

  Estimated Outturn 1987–88 £ million

  As proportion of planned expenditure 1987–88

  Total expenditure within the Secretary of State for Scotland's responsibility

  8,212

  1·032

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for outturn spending for each of the departmental responsibilities listed in table 3·16 of the public expenditure White Paper.
  774
  Mr. Rifkind
  The latest figures for outturn spending on each of the programmes within my responsibility are shown on page 13 of "Public Expenditure to 1990–91: A Commentary on the Scotland Programme", a copy of which has been supplied to the hon. Member and other hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies. Copies were also placed in the Library.

  Leukaemia (Fife)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will fund a study examining an potential link between leukaemia and radiation in the Fife area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. I see no merit in funding ad hoc studies before the Government have received the advice of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment on the further investigation of leukaemia in the vicinity of nuclear establishments.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the capital allocation in cash and real terms to the Housing Corporation in Scotland, including the provisional estimates for 1988–89, for each year since 1974.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Gross Allocation £ million

  Gross Allocation in real terms £ million

  1974–75

  14·50

  16·408

  1975–76

  110·60

  30·761

  1976–77

  116·30

  41·791

  1977–78

  127·10

  61·004

  1978–79

  131·40

  63·852

  1979–80

  148·60

  84·558

  1980–81

  165·70

  96·414

  1981–82

  85·00

  113·583

  1982–83

  108·50

  135·197

  1983–84

  109·60

  130·473

  1984–85

  101·30

  115·442

  1985–86

  104·20

  112·062

  1986–87

  113·80

  118·636

  1987–88

  123·20

  2123·200

  1988–89

  131·74

  126·068

  1 Actual expenditure. In these years expenditure was controlled on basis of housing units to be provided rather than budget allocation.

  2 2 Base Year.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will list, for each Scottish constituency for each year since 1983(a) the total number of people on the electoral register, (b) the number of young people on the register due to reach the age of 18 years during the currency of the register and the annual percentage increase or decrease for (a) and (b).

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to table 1·5 in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys series EL Nos 10–13 for the years 1983–1986, respectively, and to table 2 in the monitor EL 87/1 for 1987, from which the annual percentage increase or decrease for(a) and (b) may be derived. Copies of these publications are in the Library. Similar information for 1988 is not yet available.

  Coniferous Afforestation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Government's policy with regard to coniferous afforestation in areas of outstanding national beauty.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government's policy is that applications for grant aid towards planting conifers in such areas should each be considered on their merits with any views expressed under the Forestry Commission's consultation arrangements being taken into account.

  Forest Damage
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the research studies currently being undertaken by the Forestry Commission into forest damage in the United Kingdom.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The commission's research division undertakes a wide range of studies on damage to forest, landscape and amenity trees throughout Great Britain. On the assumption that the hon. Member is interested in the possible effects of air pollution in particular, the following studies are in hand at present:survey of the crown condition of Scots pine, Norway spruce, Sitka spruce, oak and beech
  grid survey (in accordance with EEC Regulation 3528/86) of crown condition of species located at grid intersection points
  study of extension growth of beech over several decades across Southern England
  study of the occurrence of crown dieback of hedgerow ash in England in relation to adjacent agricultural land use study of reduced growth Sitka spruce in the South Wales Coalfield
  survey jointly commissioned with the Nature Conservancy Council of beech crown condition and Scots pine growth in Southern England
  studies of the growth and physiology of seedling and clonal stock of major tree species in large open-top chamber experiments at two sites in England and one in Scotland
  study of responses of 6 biomonitors (4 trees, 2 herbaceous species) to ambient pollutants at 62 sites in Southern England

  Student Grants
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why students are not to be compensated for their loss of housing benefit.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The new housing benefit scheme and the other social security changes which will come into operation in April 1988 will affect a large number of claimants including students. Transitional protection is being provided only for those on supplementary benefit consistent with the Government's approach to direct help to those most in need. Furthermore, many claimants will see some reduction in their housing benefit as a result of increased entitlement to other benefits.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mozambique (Security Advisers)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the number of Cuban, Soviet and East German security advisers stationed in Mozambique.
  776
  Mr. Mellor
  Precise information is not available. However, it is believed that there is still some East German involvement in security matters in Mozambique.

  Irish Air Space
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to proposals by the Irish Government to charge the British Government for military aircraft overflying Irish air space; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I am not aware of any such proposals.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Mental Nurses (Northumberland)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many registered mental nurses are employed in Northumberland health authority; what was the number in 1979; and what has been the percentage change.

  Mrs. Currie
  Such information as is available is shown in the table. Staff with the registered mental nurse qualification cannot be separately identified. The staff-in-post figures are for all state registered nurses employed in the mental illness area of work.

  Because of the 1982 NHS reorganisation, figures on a consistent basis are not centrally available for the years prior to 1982.

  Nursing staff in mental illness area of work1 Northumberland district health authority at 30 September

  Whole-time equivalent2

  Percentage change3

  1982

  1986

  1982–86

  490

  520

  +6·2

  Source: DHSS Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  1 Includes learners.

  2 Figures are independently rounded to nearest whole time equivalent.

  3 Percentage change calculated on unrounded figures.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has regarding the proportion of hospital beds in New York city occupied by AIDS patients; and if he will make a statement regarding the implications for hospital bed use policy in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department is aware of reported studies in the American scientific press of the percentage of beds used in the treatment of AIDS in New York city. However because of the considerable difference between the numbers with AIDS or infected with HIV in the United Kingdom and the USA, and because of the wide differences in systems for delivering health care in the two countries, it is difficult to make direct comparisions between the current situation in New York and the future situation in the United Kingdom. The Department will continue to monitor developments in this new disease carefully, and to take any appropriate action which is indicated.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will indicate the loss of weekly income in 1988–89 for a two-child family as a result of the failure to maintain child benefit in line with the retail price index in the recent uprating and in the 1985 uprating; and if he will show for the same family, assuming they pay £30 rent and £13 rates per week, that both children are at primary school and that there is one folk-time wage earner on £100 gross wages, the effect on their weekly income of(a) the changes in housing benefit, (b) the switch from family income supplement to family credit and (c) the abolition of free schools meals.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) on 17 December 1987 at column 707. The relevant figures for this question are as follows:

  £ per week Gain (+)/Loss (-)

  Child benefit—full uprating November 1984 to September 1987

  0

  Replacing Family Income Supplement (cash and kind) by Family Credit

  +5·95

  Rent rebate changes

  -8·90

  Rate rebate changes

  -4·19

  Private Health Organisations
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people have joined private health organisations over the past 22 years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The table sets out the number of subscribers in the United Kingdom to private medical insurance and the number of people insured for each year from 1966 to 1986.

  National insurance contributions allocations to NHS

  Year

  Class 1

  Class 2

  Class 3

  Class 4

  Employer

  Employee

  1979–80

  0·6

  0·40

  8·0

  8·0

  0·60

  1980–81

  0·6

  0·40

  8·0

  8·0

  0·60

  1981–82

  0·6

  0·65

  11·5

  11·5

  0·85

  1982–83

  0·6

  0·75

  11·5

  11·5

  0·95

  1983–84

  0·6

  0·75

  11·5

  11·5

  0·95

  1984–85

  0·6

  0·75

  11·5

  11·5

  0·95

  1985–86

  0·6

  0·75

  11·5

  11·5

  0·95

  1986–87

  0·6

  0·75

  11·5

  11·5

  0·95

  1987–88

  0·7

  0·85

  15·5

  15·5

  1·15

  1. The figures for Class 1 and 4 represent the percentage of NI reckonable earnings allocated to the NHS.

  2. The figures for Class 2 and 3 represents the percentage of contributions allocated to the NHS.

  Total money raised from national insurance contributions allocated to NHS

  £ million

  1979–80

  881·5

  1980–81

  1,023·0

  1981–82

  1,337·3

  1982–83

  1,629·0

  1983–84

  1,706·0

  1984–85

  1,817·7

  778

  Private Medical Insurance United Kingdom

  Year

  Total subscribers (millions)

  Total number of people insured (millions)

  1966

  0·73

  1·57

  1967

  0·78

  1·67

  1968

  0·83

  1·77

  1969

  0·89

  1·89

  1970

  0·93

  1·98

  1971

  0·98

  2·10

  1972

  1·02

  2·18

  1973

  1·06

  2·27

  1974

  1·09

  2·33

  1975

  1·09

  2·32

  1976

  1·06

  2·25

  1977

  1·06

  2·23

  1978

  1·12

  2·37

  1979

  1·30

  2·75

  1980

  1·64

  3·60

  1981

  1·86

  4·12

  1982

  1·92

  4·23

  1983

  1·95

  4·25

  1984

  2·28

  4·37

  1985

  2·33

  5·04

  1986

  12·45

  5·25

  1 latest available.

  Note:—1966 to 1983 data are available only for the major private medical insurers. Data from 1984 covers private medical insurance from all sources.

  NHS (Finance)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the national insurance contribution percentage apportioned to the National Health Service, the total money so apportioned each year, and the income per annum from chemists, dentists and opticians from National Health Service charges, from 1979 to the latest year the figures are available.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  2,024·0

  1986–87

  2,233·0

  1987–88

  2,726·0

  All figures are net of refunds of national insurance contributions. Figures for 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87 are provisional: the figure for 1987–88 is an estimate provided by the Government Actuary.

  NHS (Costs)
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average cost of an operation performed within the National Heath Service; what is the cost of a day's stay in hospital; and what is the average cost of a kidney dialysis treatment.

  Mrs. Currie
  The nearest available figure for the average cost of an operation is the average cost per inpatient case in acute hospitals in England. In 1985–86 (the latest year available) the figure was £718. This includes the cost of treatment and the cost of a stay in hospital. The cost of the hospital stay only cannot be quantified, but the average cost of a day's hospital treatment in 1985–86 was £101.

  The cost of kidney dialysis will depend on a number of factors. On the basis of a study carried out by the Department in 1981, approximate average costs for the first year's treatment (revalued to 1986–87 prices) were as follows: routine hospital dialysis £16,500; home dialysis £13,200; continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis £14,000. The costs for treatment in subsequent years are likely to be less than those in the first year. These revalued figures do not take account of the changes in methods of treatment and case mix since the completion of the study. They therefore provide only a broad indication of present costs.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that a recipient of housing benefit resides at the address for which benefit is claimed;

  (2) what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that the declarations regarding the rent payable by applicants for housing benefit are correct;

  (3) what communication takes place with landlords of tenants applying for or in receipt of housing benefit.

  Mr. Portillo
  Although the Department has responsibility for the overall structure of the housing benefit scheme, local authorities have full statutory responsibility for its day-to-day administration. It is for authorities to ensure that as far as possible claims for housing benefit are proper and correct, although detailed guidance on fraud and abuse is issued to authorities by the Department. If there is any doubt about the accuracy of the details of a claim authorities should take action as necessary to satisfy themselves that the claim is correct. Information is not collected centrally on the methods of verification used by individual local authorities. Direct contact with a landlord is established where housing benefit is being paid directly to that landlord for example because the claimant is in arrears with his rent. In these cases the authority should notify the landlord of how much housing benefit will be payable, when payments will commence and how they will be made. When direct payments cease the authority should also advise the landlord of the date of and reason for cessation.

  Retail Prices Index (Error)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people he estimates are suffering under compensation for the loss of benefit incurred due to the retail prices index error and the fact that their benefits are 780
  embodied in only one order book; if he will reconsider his decision not to compensate fully all those people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Of those receiving special payments, it is estimated that about 175,000 are not fully compensated for the error in the retail prices index because they have two or more benefits combined in one order book. About 90 per cent. of those with combined order books are fully compensated or overcompensated. We do not propose to make any extensions to this aspect of the special payments exercise, which has combined as far as was possible fairness with speed of payment.

  Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to restore public access to the library of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Mr. Portillo
  The services provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys library are being reviewed and an announcement about future public access will be made in due course.

  Doctors (Employment Details)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on what basis he has come to the conclusion that the wish of some individuals not to have details of their employment made publicly available should be respected in the case of doctors carrying out abortions in the private sector.

  Mr. Newton
  It seems to me to be entirely reasonable not to publicise details of an individual's employment in this or any other field without that individual's consent. My hon. Friend is of course free to approach individual approved places direct to inquire about the doctors who operate at those places.

  Medical Equipment (Maintenance)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for St. Helens, South of 10 November 1987 about the report on the in-house maintenance of medical equipment which was completed almost a year ago, but never published.

  Mrs. Currie
  I replied to the hon. Member on 17 February.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table listing the approximate income levels at which people will become eligible for community charge rebates for each local authority in Scotland.

  Mr. Scott
  The community charge rebate scheme will be based as far as is practicable on the arrangements for rebating rates set out in the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987. However it is not yet possible to provide the information required by the hon. Member since certain essential elements of the rebate scheme have yet to be finalised, and since neither the benefit rates on which calculations of rebate entitlement will be based nor the local authority community charge levels that will apply in April 1989 have yet been set.
  781
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 16 December 1987 at column 584 in which illustrative rebate entitlements based on a number of specified assumptions are set out. The levels of personal community charge that are quoted are exclusive of liability for community water charges. These will not be within the scope of the rebate scheme, but help with water charges will be reflected in the income support rates and in the amounts which will be used to determine rebate entitlements.

  Westminster Children's Hospital (Break-in)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has concerning the break-in at Westminster children's hospital paedriatic research laboratory on the night of 6 and 7 February and removal from the computer of the names and addresses of members of the Campaign for the Defence of Riverside Hospitals.

  Mrs. Currie
  The paediatric research laboratory referred to in the question is not the responsibility of the Westminster children's hospital or of Riverside health authority, but of the Westminster and Charing Cross medical school. The hon. Member may wish to approach the dean of the medical school if he seeks information about the laboratory.

  Deaf Persons (Telephone Exchange)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the future of the Royal National Institute for the Dears telephone exchange for the deaf.

  NHS Hospitals having radiotherapy equipment

  Health Authority and Hospital

  New patients attending the radiotherapy department

  In patients

  Out-patients

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  East Cumbria, Cumberland Infirmary

  56

  151

  241

  131

  241

  295

  Newcastle, Royal Victoria Infirmary

  8

  10

  8

  512

  359

  367

  Newcastle, Newcastle General Hospital

  843

  653

  628

  2,032

  2,093

  2,206

  South Tees, South Cleveland Hospital

  1,080

  1,026

  1,198

  1,697

  1,849

  1,670

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  Hull, Princess Royal Hospital

  370

  355

  307

  821

  910

  971

  Leeds West, Cookridge Hospital

  2,088

  1,820

  1,754

  2,877

  3,380

  3,043

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  Leicestershire, The Leicester Royal Infirmary

  271

  362

  377

  584

  898

  1,083

  North Lincolnshire, St. Georges Hospital

  646

  690

  663

  689

  775

  758

  Nottingham, Nottingham General Hospital

  1,331

  713

  606

  1,780

  1,149

  1,433

  Sheffield, Weston Park Hospital

  1,184

  1,164

  1,226

  1,579

  1,775

  1,824

  Southern Derbyshire, Derbyshire Royal Infirmary

  245

  233

  223

  708

  693

  524

  East Anglian Regional Health Authority

  Cambridge, Addenbrookes Hospital

  632

  656

  549

  2,324

  2,280

  2,213

  East Suffolk, Ipswich Hospital, Anglesea Road Wing

  205

  167

  169

  854

  829

  966

  Norwich, Norfolk an Norwich Hospital

  367

  317

  463

  1,246

  1,290

  1,339

  Peterborough, Peterborough District Hospital

  56

  64

  79

  226

  253

  229

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Hillingdon, Mount Vernon Hospital

  903

  821

  743

  2,852

  2,971

  2,877

  Paddington and North Kensington, St. Marys Hospital

  133

  94

  102

  196

  189

  230

  Riverside, Charing Cross Hospital

  470

  401

  494

  1,609

  1,592

  1,477

  Riverside, Westminster Hospital

  481

  411

  458

  1,196

  1,170

  1,055

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood, Old Church Hospital

  321

  405

  389

  1,353

  1,491

  1,708

  782
  Mr. Scott
  I am pleased to announce the award of a grant of £28,500 for 1987–88 and £30,500 for 1988–89 to the Royal National Institute for the Deaf to assist with the running costs of its telephone exchange for the deaf (TED).

  This grant is being given in response to the RNID's request for assistance under the Government's concerned technology programme. Assistance has also been made available by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Manpower Services Commission and British Telecom.

  We recognise that a vital need of all deaf and heating impaired people is to be able to communicate with hearing people. TED is a worldwide leader in solving this problem for many deaf people. We have decided to make a contribution to its running costs for this limited period so that long-term arrangements for providing this service can be worked out.

  Radiotherapy Services
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list those hospitals in each health region which provide radiotherapy services, showing how many patients were treated by each of those units; which units have been closed; and which new units have been opened, in each of the last three years.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: The available information is given in the table for those hospitals which in 1983 reported having radiotherapy equipment. No such treatment centres are known to have opened or closed since that date. The numbers of patients are taken from the "NHS Hospital Activity Returns SH3 return part EDP6G".
  783

  Health Authority and Hospital

  New patients attending the radiotherapy department

  In patients

  Out-patients

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Bloomsbury, University College Hospital

  365

  323

  80

  805

  750

  180

  Bloomsbury, Middlesex Hospital

  536

  497

  355

  1,355

  1,437

  985

  City and Hackney, St. Bartholomews Hospital

  490

  546

  414

  947

  1,117

  861

  Hampstead, Royal Free Hospital

  703

  847

  634

  646

  613

  608

  Haringey, North Middlesx Hospital

  309

  255

  182

  1,378

  1,252

  899

  North East Essex, Essex County Hospital

  302

  398

  367

  3,176

  2,820

  3,041

  Southend, Southend General Hospital

  500

  470

  405

  1,610

  1,829

  1,859

  Tower Hamlets, London Hospital Whitechapel

  332

  367

  336

  1,919

  1,953

  1,519

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Brighton, Royal Sussex County Hospital

  109

  92

  74

  1,718

  1,716

  1,988

  Camberwell, King's College Hospital

  190

  177

  213

  837

  618‡

  509

  Canterbury and Thanet, Kent and Canterbury Hospital

  241

  216

  284

  1,380

  1,740

  1,838

  Lewisham and North Southwark, Guy's Hospital

  435

  404

  331

  1,373

  1,262

  1,080

  Medway, St. Williams Hospital

  219

  262

  258

  1,006

  858

  901

  Tunbridge Wells, Penbury Hospital

  45

  89

  104

  804

  750

  830

  West Lambeth, St. Thomas Hospital

  371

  287

  340

  1,079

  1,418

  1,876

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  South West Surrey, St. Lukes Hospital

  662

  606

  621

  3,542

  3,736

  3,561

  Wessex Regional Health Authority

  Bath, Royal United Hospitals

  81

  114

  116

  244

  286

  247

  East Dorset, Poole General Hospital

  205

  168

  164

  1,054

  1,136

  1,216

  Portsmouth, St. Mary's General Hospital

  243

  248

  191

  1,185

  1,260

  1,275

  South West Hants and Southampton, Royal South Hampshire Hospital

  516

  478

  512

  2,008

  1,610

  1,685

  Oxford Regional Health Authority

  Northampton, Northampton General Hospital

  523

  631

  376

  268

  202

  396

  Oxfordshire, Churchill Hospital

  424

  404

  430

  1,071

  1,059

  1,144

  West Berkshire, Royal Berkshire Hospital

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  South Western Regional Health Authority

  Bristol and Weston, Radiotherapy Centre, Horsfield Road, Bristol

  935

  898

  988

  2,012

  1,956

  1,867

  Cheltenham, Cheltenham General Hospital

  1,782

  1,708

  1,714

  10,843

  11,201

  10,579

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly, Royal Cornwall Hospital (Treliske)

  34

  53

  55

  256

  263

  253

  Exeter, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Wonford

  179

  152

  125

  626

  528

  602

  Plymouth, Plymouth General, Freedom Fields

  303

  285

  276

  521

  548

  575

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority

  Central Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital

  1,173

  817

  869

  4,492

  5,221

  5,359

  Coventry, Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital

  143

  227

  199

  1,272

  1,274

  1,270

  North Staffordshire, North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary

  239

  360

  324

  1,438

  1,491

  1,925

  Shropshire, Royal Shrewsbury Hospital

  165

  145

  146

  546

  520

  520

  Wolverhampton, The Royal Hospital

  99

  94

  95

  1,150

  1,333

  1,376

  Mersey Regional Health Authority

  Wirral, Clatterbridge Hospital

  2,649

  2,680

  2,409

  1,915

  2,320

  2,779

  North Western Regional Health Authority

  South Manchester, Christie Hospital and Holt Radium Institute

  3,560

  3,381

  3,374

  3,226

  3,352

  3,109

  Special Health Authorities

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlottes, Hammersmith Hospital

  193

  375

  408

  820

  1,339

  1,163

  The Royal Marsden Hospitals, The Royal Marsden Hospital, Fulham Road

  689

  706

  701

  1,154

  1,218

  1,225

  The Royal Marsden Hospitals, The Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton Surrey

  659

  648

  533

  2,272

  2,275

  2,603

  n/a = information not available

  Departmental Report (Breach of Confidentiality)
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has about the unauthorised use by a commercial manufacturer of information contained in a report of his Department's supplies divisions at the international meeting on thrombosis and haemostasis in Brussels in July 1987; and what action he proposed to deal with this breach of confidentiality.
  784
  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: Despite extensive inquiries I have been unable to identify the incident to which the hon. Member refers. If he cares to supply more details I will investigate further.

  Student Nurses
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what percentage of the annual cohort of 18-year-olds has been recruited as student nurses in each of the past 10 years; and if he is satisfied that sufficient
  785
  recruits of suitable calibre will be recruited in future years, in the light of the fall in the birth rate and proposals in Project 2000;

  (2) if he will give the total number of student nurses employed in the National Health Service in each year since 1958, together with the annual rate of wastage caused as a result of nurses failing to complete their training; and if he will make a statement on measures taken to reduce this wastage.

  Numbers entering basic nurse training and estimated population aged 18: 1978 to 1987—England

  Year

  Number entering basic nurse training

  Estimated population aged 18 (thousands)

  Total

  Registered

  Enrolled

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Percentage of population entering training

  1978

  30,200

  18,990

  11,210

  712·5

  362·7

  349·8

  4·2

  1979

  35,370

  22,600

  12,770

  741·5

  376·8

  364·7

  4·8

  1980

  32,580

  20,500

  12,080

  759·7

  386·7

  373·0

  4·3

  1981

  30,920

  19,630

  11,290

  773·3

  395·3

  378·0

  4·0

  1982

  31,810

  20,200

  11,610

  796·0

  409·6

  386·4

  4·0

  1983

  29,840

  18,950

  10,890

  802·8

  413·0

  389·8

  3·7

  1984

  24,980

  17,680

  7,300

  778·3

  398·0

  380·3

  3·2

  1985

  25,523

  19,206

  6,317

  768·1

  394·3

  373·8

  3·3

  1986

  23,705

  18,600

  5,105

  743·8

  380·5

  363·3

  3·2

  1987

  22,825

  18,434

  4,391

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to year ended 31 March. Figures prior to 1985 have been estimated as 95 per cent. of England and Wales total.

  2. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys mid-year population estimates.

  n/a= Not yet available.

  The basic academic entry qualification for registered nurse training is five O-levels or better; the number of female school leavers available for employment with this level of academic attainment will, it is estimated, decline from 36,500 in 1987 to 29,800 in 1994. This is one of the factors to be taken into account in the Government's response to the Project 2000 proposals for the reform of nurse education. We hope to be in a position to make a statement on Project 2000 by Easter.

  On wastage, there has been a reduction in the number of nurse learners discontinuing training as a proportion of the average number in training from nearly 9 per cent. in the year ended 31 March 1980 to 6.3 per cent. in the year ended 31 March 1987. The effect on wastage is another factor we will need to consider in our response to Project 2000.

  HIV Infection (Pregnant Women)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the cost, in a full year, of screening all pregnant women for HIV infection.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 9 Februarry 1988]: Using the latest estimated number of conceptions, the cost of providing a test to all pregnant women in England to screen for HIV infection would probably be about £4 million a year. Actual costs will depend on a number of factors including the additional costs for counselling and whether the blood taken was used for other tests.
  786
  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: I regret that information in the form requested is not available centrally. The table shows the numbers entering registered and enrolled nurse training in England for each of the last 10 years, expressed as a percentage of the population aged 18. About 40 per cent. of entrants to nurse training are aged 18, and 90 per cent. are female. All but a tiny minority of these will have entered training with the National Health Service.

  Social Security Reform
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the simple scaling used to uprate supplementary benefit as outlined in paragraph 2(ii) on page one of the document "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income Related Benefits".

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 17 February 1988]: Supplementary benefit rates were updated to April 1988 by the movement in the retail prices index, excluding housing costs, from September 1986 to September 1987. Payments for additional requirements were uprated by the rise in the general retail prices index over the same period.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the reason for the change in layout, structure and composition of the tables in the technical annex to the White Paper, entitled "The Reform of Social Security", as compared with the document entitled "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income Related Benefits"; and what are the differences in the methodology used in each case.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 17 February 1988]: There are no major changes in layout, structure and composition apart from the omission of tables 1 to 9. These tables are no longer relevant because a decision was taken that all ratepayers receiving income support or housing benefit should pay a minimum of 20 per cent. of their domestic rates bill. The tables are simply updated and revised versions of tables 10 to 17 published in the technical annex to the White Paper "Reform of Social Security" (Cmnd. 9691).

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business I take this opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, I have accepted an invitation from the President of the International Court of Justice in The Hague to attend a launching of the 75th anniversary celebrations of the Peace Palace on Monday next. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence for Monday next.

National Health Service Review Proposal
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give consideration to organising a conference of representatives from the professional organisations of nurses, midwives, health visitors, doctors and surgeons, to examine with senior officials of the Department of Health and Social Security the problems of the National Health Service.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware from statements made in another place that the Government are currently conducting a wide-ranging, internal review of the National Health Service. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it plain that, as part of this review, he would welcome constructive proposals from any organisation. At all times our overriding concern is our commitment to secure good quality health care for all who need it, as the fundamental principle of the National Health Service.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that Answer. Does he agree that the Secretary of State should have included representatives of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy? Will he please explain to the House how what he has just said lines up with the statements made today in the British press that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not prepared to provide one halfpenny for the National Health Service? If that is so, where are the improvements coming from?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the statements made in the British press today must be regarded as somewhat speculative.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, while I recognise that the Government are doing all they can to consult separate organisations, surely there is an advantage in calling together collectively all those representatives of the National Health Service so that the Government know from all the professions what pressures they are under.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and his colleagues and officials have regular meetings with representatives from the professional organisations. I am sure that there will be opportunities to discuss any evidence that is submitted.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Government's public relations with regard to the National Health Service are deplorable? One cannot ignore the fact that the tabloids this morning are full of headlines saying that the Government are depriving the NHS of funds. Those of us who know something about the subject, know those reports to be untrue. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that merely because he says something on the Floor of your Lordships' House, or anywhere else, that that is the answer. If an inquiry is going on, and I have no doubt that it is, surely the time is well overdue when the nation—not necessarily the House of Lords—should be told blow by blow what is being discussed, how it is being discussed, what is being implemented and how much it is costing. In other words, the Government must learn to fight back.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there are always large headlines in the national tabloids. I think that the point made by the noble Lord was covered in my original Answer. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is conducting this serious and wide-ranging review and he will listen to any proposals that are put before him. I think that that is the most appropriate way to conduct the review.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, is it not a fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has already met a number of representatives? Is not the root of the problem a management one? If there is to be a meeting—obviously the review body must report first—is it not desirable that management rather than the bodies mentioned in the Question should meet the appropriate Ministers?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, obviously the management of the National Health Service is one of the matters that is being considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, are not both my noble friends right when they infer that a hastily conceived Government review team, made up of Ministers and senior civil servants, is unlikely to produce an unbiased and balanced appraisal and recommendations? If changes are to be made in a much beloved national service, surely the Government should listen to those who really know the situation and should be seeking a consensus.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, it is a much beloved National Health Service. As I have said before, anyone is at liberty to put their submissions to the Secretary of State.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that it has become obvious over the past few months that there is grave concern among the professions in the National Health Service and among the general public? We have the Whitley councils; I am proposing that the good work which is done by the Whitley councils be fed through to the organisations which I am proposing, which would be a kind of "cabinet" of the health service to assist the Government. Why do the Government always seem to be keen to put up a difficulty to every solution?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the whole point about Government is to try to solve problems and difficulties. However, I shall take on board the point which the noble Lord makes.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, no one in the House should expect the noble Earl to say anything about the budget. However, if it is true that the Chancellor has at his disposal £10 to £12 billion to hand out in one way or another, would the noble Earl convey to his right honourable friend that if he does not find a way of allocating some part of that enormous sum to the National Health Service, there will be profound disillusion in this country?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand very well what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition says. Of course I shall pass on those comments to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that whatever the Chancellor does in the budget it will not be handing out; it will merely be taking less?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, naturally I thank my noble friend for that extremely apposite remark.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, will the noble Earl give us an assurance that the services now available to people under the National Health Service will not be reduced?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should like to consider that; I need further notice of the question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that if the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is made a reality, it will mean tax relief for the comfortably off and much more worry for the sick who cannot get an improved National Health Service?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, taxation is a matter for the Chancellor. In an expanding economy it is quite possible both to cut taxes and to increase public spending on particular programmes. That is what the Government have done for the last eight years. Plans for the next three years reflect the continuing priority
856
being given to health within public spending. The National Health Service will again increase its share of public spending.

Independent Oil Companies: Policy
11.13 a.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: 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 refer all future acquisitions by major oil companies of independent British exploration companies to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the ground of national interest.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): No, my Lords. Each acquisition will be considered on its own merits under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response. Can he tell the House what the Government policy is towards the independent oil sector? Do the Government wish to preserve it or do they wish to see it go under and be taken over by multinationals?
Lord Young of Graham: My Lords, I am very glad to be able to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that this Government do not consider they have to have a policy for each and every narrow sector in both the industrial and the commercial worlds. What this Government do is to ensure that the climate for enterprise and commerical decision-making is right. That is why the nation is prospering.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a supplementary? First of all I should declare an interest as a director of a United Kingdom subsidiary of a multinational company which, having funded the North Sea pipeline, the Frigg line, has since reinvested £1,000 million in further development. May I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the Government have ample powers in the licensing system for defending the national interest?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. I am very glad to assure my noble friend that the Government do have such powers. What the Government want to see is a profitable and economic North Sea oil sector, and we are engaged in so doing.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, in spite of the courtesy with which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, thanked the Minister for his reply, it will be considered in general extremely disappointing. May I ask the Minister what the purpose of the golden shares is if not to protect the national, and not simply the economic, interest? When considering the national interest, will the Minister particularly take into account the Scottish national interest? The takeover of Britoil means that the largest company

857
now operating in Scotland is no longer a Scottish company. That may have serious effects on unemployment generally and it will certainly have very serious effects indeed on the top level of employment which is constantly skimmed off in Scotland. The effects will be not only an economic disaster, but also a social disaster.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, since the Act of Union we have taken the national interest to include that of Scotland, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, in the United Kingdom. I am not aware that any independent British exploration companies, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred, are in possession of a golden share.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, will my noble friend recognise when considering this issue that British international oil companies are some of the biggest international investors right across the world? If countries were to start pursuing narrow nationalist policies in this regard, we should be one of the biggest losers.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very glad to say that I can agree completely with my noble friend.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the development of the North Sea has brought something like 100,000 jobs to Scotland? Of course many of the companies overseas are led by Scotsmen; they are our most priceless export.
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, it has brought many jobs to Scotland and we hope that those jobs will continue for many decades to come.

Foreign Visitors: Statistics
11.17 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many foreign visitors they estimate came to the United Kingdom during 1987; and how this figure compares with the immediately preceding years.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Department of Employment estimates that 14.9 million foreign visitors came to the United Kingdom in the first 11 months of 1987 compared with 13.02 million and 13.64 million in the same periods in 1986 and 1985 respectively. Figures covering the whole of 1987 will be published on 2nd March.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, which is very satisfactory and encouraging. As the tourist industry can make a substantial contribution to the economy, will the Government encourage in particular international conferences and exhibitions, self-catering arrangements and recreation facilities both on land and on water, since all these attract foreigners?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Government will do all in their power to encourage the growth of the tourist industry. Many of the activities to which my noble friend refers are in the hands of the local planning bodies; that is, local government rather than central government. What we must do in a world in which tourism is perhaps the fastest growing internationally competitive industry is ensure that we can get more than our fair share of it and at the same time do it so that it does not disturb too much the lives of those of us who live here. It is an important growth area and will long continue to be one.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for those comments, and in particular noting with satisfaction the increase in tourism, perhaps I may ask him whether it is not a fact that hotel costs in the country are quite unacceptably high, particularly in view of the low level of wages in the industry generally. Should we not try to do something to prevent visitors to our shores being ripped off in that way?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I should certainly like to have evidence of how tourists are being ripped off in that way. As far as I know there is no international treaty which compels overseas tourists to come to this country. The mere fact that the figures are increasing so rapidly and have done so in a year in which the pound has not changed too much in value, certainly against European currencies, shows that the tourists themselves are voting with their feet and that they consider that they do get value for money both in British hotels and in the United Kingdom generally.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, did my noble friend see the table of hotel costs in different countries published recently in The Times? Did he observe that contrary to what has been suggested by the noble Baroness opposite quite a number of countries, notably Japan, have much higher hotel costs than we do?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. Those costs tend to vary of course from time to time with exchange rates. The important test is a very simple one: will people come here and stay in the hotels?

Anglo-Irish Relations
11.21 a.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: 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 immediate steps they will take to re-establish good relations with the Republic of Ireland following Mr. Haughey's statement, as reported in the Irish Press of 13th February, that "Anglo-Irish relations in regard to the issues that have been raised are at an impasse".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has had three meetings recently with Irish Ministers to discuss their current concerns and made a full Statement on these issues in another place on 17th February, describing action that is being taken.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer, but does he not accept that the recent deterioration in relations between the two countries is a bitter blow to those many people who have for many years been trying to build up understanding and trust between Dublin and London? Will he say, first, whether the Anglo-Irish Agreement is being used as a framework for communicating important announcements between the two countries? Secondly, will he say whether Dublin was informed of the result of the Stalker review prior to the announcement in the House of Commons? Thirdly, will the Minister say whether the Government will try to meet the minimum requirements needed under Irish law to enable extradition to continue between the two countries, as agreed and wished for by the two countries? Finally, without any disrespect to the noble Lord, will he say why he has answered my Question, which is about relations between the two sovereign countries of Ireland and Britain?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall start by answering the last question first. I and all Members of your Lordships' House who stand at this Dispatch Box answer for the Government. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that. Secondly, the noble Baroness asked me about the overall Anglo-Irish relationship being at an impasse. In her Question the noble Baroness quotes the Irish Press, which I presume is a newspaper and not the general press. However, I think that I should quote the words of the Taoiseach himself in the Dail on 17th February when he said:
"We have reached an impasse for the present on these issues".
He continued:
"Overall Anglo-Irish relations as such are not at an impasse".
He referred to the very important discussions in the Anglo-Irish conference and to other matters of very direct and practical concern to the nationalist community in Northern Ireland. I hope that that will cover the second point raised by the noble Baroness.
As regards the Stalker report, I understand that information was given to the Irish just at the same time as it was given to Parliament. I think that your Lordships would accept that.
The noble Baroness also asked a question about extradition. Both Governments regard extradition as a very important instrument in the fight against serious crime, including terrorism. Last autumn we said that the changes which have since been incorporated in Irish law would create additional difficulties for the United Kingdom. I wish to stress to your Lordships that we have proposed talks with the Irish authorities to try to find the way forward. We hope that those talks on those matters will take place very soon.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the supplementary question of the noble Baroness, to whom we naturally listened with the greatest of respect, has really been rather overtaken by events? Does he not agree that we owe a debt of gratitude to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for the vigorous action taken earlier this week in appointing two inquiries into the Stalker affair? Does he agree that without that statesmanlike act and the admirable restraint shown by Mr. Haughey we should be in danger of ending up by alienating both of the communities in Northern Ireland?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for the first part of his supplementary question. I shall certainly pass on his remarks to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. As regards what was said earlier this week both in your Lordships' House and in another place about the Stalker Report and the full Statement that was made, I do not have anything more to say. But certainly what my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley said about the remarks made elsewhere, and above all by the Taoiseach, is of considerable interest.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I was encouraged last night to hear the Prime Minister say on television that a meeting in Brussels with Mr. Haughey was a quiet and dignified one? Is the noble Lord able to tell the House what, if any, proposals were made by Mr. Haughey to improve relations between this country and the Republic of Ireland which at the moment are at a low ebb? Also does he not agree that, in view of the recriminations and counter recriminations which one constantly hears on television, on the radio and indeed reads in the press, it is very important that the inquiry referred to just now by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, which is to be conducted by Mr. Kelly, should be conducted swiftly and decisively so that we know precisely where we stand?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, is quite correct that the inquiry at present being conducted by Mr. Kelly—I think a Mr. Jones is the Assistant Chief Constable—should, as the noble Lord quite correctly surmised, proceed with all haste and all speed. I understand that that is how matters are proceeding at the moment.
As regards recriminations, I think that the noble Lord and all your Lordships would agree that the less that is said in the press and above all about matters which do not necessarily impinge upon Northern Ireland and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the better.
I shall cover the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister told Mr. Haughey in Brussels on 12th February that the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the conference provide the best hope for the future. That is the forum in which we shall conduct Anglo-Irish relations in this particular field in the future.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the maintenance of good relations is a

861
two-way business and that there are many ways in which the Irish Government could play their full part in this, notably by stopping the interminable foot dragging over extradition which has already been referred to? Will Her Majesty's Government make it clear to the Government of the Republic of Ireland that the Prevention of Terrorism Act is a matter for ourselves and ourselves alone?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think I have already covered the difficulties over the extradition problems. We hope that our proposed talks with the Irish authorities to find a way forward in this area will be fruitful and will take place soon. On the Prevention of Terrorism Act, as your Lordships will be aware, this Act has to be renewed for a further year by 21st March this year. That is the reason why the announcement could not be delayed.
Lord Moran: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one factor which has strained relations in recent days has been the efforts by Mr. Haughey and his colleagues to bring political influence to bear on the judicial system in this country? Does he not agree that it is regrettable that so many of them should have made statements suggesting that they know better than the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues in the Court of Appeal about the culpability of convicted persons in the United Kingdom? On extradition, can the Minister tell us how many persons have been extradited from the Republic on terrorist charges since the agreement was signed and whether, now that Mr. Haughey's Government have raised new obstacles to extradition, it will be impossible to extradite terrorists in future even if the papers are drawn up by the Archangel Gabriel?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it is not for me to speculate on celestial affairs or on who draws up the papers. There are representatives in your Lordships' House who could do that, but that is not for today. I think that the noble Lord will appreciate that the Taoiseach has made many statements and a very important one in the Dail this week. Many of us believe that it is often what is not said that is of equal significance. The noble Lord, in his previous incarnation, will appreciate what I mean.
The noble Lord also raised the matter of comments by sundry persons, both in this country and elsewhere, about judicial pronouncements. All the statements which have been made on such affairs by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General cover his particular duties. They all relate to judicial decisions or those of the prosecuting authorities. Those matters are not for the Government in this country or I believe in the Republic of Ireland.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Graf ham which your Lordships have limited to five hours. My noble friend will be allowed 20 minutes to open. He should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the
862
scheduled end of the debate. Every other speaker should be confined to a strict time limit of 14 minutes. Perhaps I may point out that that means that each speaker should have sat down before the figure 14 appears on the clock.

"DTI—the department for Enterprise"
11.32 a.m.
Lord Young of Graffham Lord Young of Graffham rose to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper DTI—the department for Enterprise (Cmnd. 278).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion to take note of the White Paper today, I take great pleasure in welcoming the first contributions of my noble friends Lord Oxfuird and Lord Stevens of Ludgate. My noble friend Lord Stevens has shown that his industry is one which has responded to change substantially over the last three years.
I am also delighted to welcome my noble friend Lord Joseph. He more than any other is responsible for my being in your Lordships' House today. Indeed, as regards the White Paper, he can claim the authorship of that part which the House finds acceptable; that part which the House does not find acceptable may be attributed to lessons imperfectly learnt from him by me.
I welcome the chance of debating the White Paper because it gives me an opportunity of putting it in perspective. I know that many of the issues covered in it are of considerable concern to Members of your Lordships' House. Perhaps I should start by placing on record the underlying rationale of the White Paper. It seeks to put all the activities of my department in the context of the objectives which I set last year. I believe that it is important in considering this matter to see the DTI as a coherent whole, not only because industry needs a consistent framework of government policy but also because a coherent image and strategy are fundamental to the very work of the department itself.
What should the role of the DTI be? Some people still appear to believe that government can solve the problems of the economy and of industry. One glance at the size of the economy—now well over £400 billion—compared to the size of my department's budget—just over £ 1 billion—shows how unrealistic that is. Nor can any sensible person still believe that it would be right to increase my department's budget and begin to intervene in the commercial decisions of business. Surely that was the failed policy of past decades. We have a role, and it must be that of a catalyst and an influence on industry and commerce.
The starting point for our strategy—one which I have called our enterprise strategy in the White Paper—is the need for business to succeed against world competition. That success can only be won by giving our customers and consumers the very best goods and services. The Government are not equipped to do that. What we can do is to influence the attitudes and behaviour of people in business. If people in business are given a truly competitive environment and encouraged to develop their talents and skills, we shall begin to see an economy where prosperity can provide the social goods such as health and education which we all desire.
In working with business my department now has two clear goals. The first is to set the framework within which industry competes both at home and abroad, for our aim must be open competitive markets. Open competition rewards efficiency and encourages change. In the department we shall act through privatisation, deregulation, competition policy and international trade negotiations to keep markets open and competitive.
The second goal which we have set for ourselves is to encourage individuals to develop their enterprise and their skills in business. There is no such thing as a competitive company. But there are competitive people. It is the skills of people in our great companies that helps to dictate the shape and form of our economy. In that area my department will act as the catalyst for the development of positive attitudes towards business and towards skills in business.
The prize is not just greater efficiency and more economic growth, but giving each individual citizen greater involvement and power in his own economic destiny. Our enterprise strategy is about people and encouraging their talents and not about vast sectors of industry. When we talk about business we mean people in business, for that is the greatest resource of our country.
I turn once again to our first goal of open and competitive markets. That aim runs through a great deal of my department's activity. Indeed, it occupies the majority of our staff. But it does not involve vast spending programmes or great schemes. All too often it is easily overlooked. Such work is vital, for it concerns the basis on which businesses trade both at home and overseas.
The White Paper shows how the achievement of open markets in competition runs through our department's regulatory functions in telecommunications, financial services, radio communications and patents. Many activities contribute towards greater openness and information in the market through providing a framework of company law, through giving information on company registrations and through the basic job of providing statistics and information to business itself. Those are detailed functions of government which are not seen as glamorous but which are essential for open, competitive markets. The White Paper shows the way in which those activities fit into the very objectives of my department. My concern to cut red tape runs across all those functions and informs all our activities which affect business. I shall be publishing a White Paper on deregulation later on this year.
The need to encourage greater competition also lies behind the announcement on competition policy which is made in the White Paper. My confirmation that the main consideration in mergers policy should be competition will have come as no surprise. The changes in mergers procedures should give greater efficiency and flexibility, so reducing the burden on business and helping the market to work. At the same time, it should ensure that we still have a competitive market and that companies themselves face open competitive conditions.
I hope to issue a departmental working paper soon which will set out our policy conclusions in more
864
detail. We shall also shortly be publishing a Green Paper on restrictive trade practices. We believe that the deterrent effect of the present law is weak and we intend to strengthen it. Our aim will be to concentrate on the anti-competitive effects of cartels and on the substance and effects rather than the form of agreements. Indeed, since we are part of Europe we must ensure that our arrangements on restrictive trade practices fit within the general framework of European law.
Looking overseas, creating open competitive international markets is vital as well. My particular concern is with 1992, for the completion of the single market in Europe by the end of 1992 is inevitable. If our business is not involved in those changes and does not adapt its strategy to them, it will simply be too late. Therefore, I am launching a major campaign to ensure that each and every British businessman will not only know what 1992 is about but will be actively considering what action he or she should be taking.
The second goal which we have set is to encourage individuals to develop their enterprise and their skills in business. It is a goal that government cannot achieve by themselves. We can set the objectives and we can also formulate a strategy to achieve them, but the achievement itself depends on many other groups in our society.
We have set clear objectives to help in improving the links between education and business—giving one in 10 of all teachers every year the opportunity to get some personal experience of business and giving every young person two or more weeks of work experience before they leave school. Those objectives will be achieved only with the active involvement of a wide range of employers and the willing participation of teachers and education authorities themselves. The Government can and will publicise and encourage the development of links between education and business. But those initiatives work only if they are taken up willingly by individuals recognising the great potential that lies in them.
Similarly, improvements in management education and development are vital to the competitiveness of our businesses. I strongly welcome the response of industry through the Charter Group initiative. Government can help by setting the national framework for education and spreading information. Again our role can be no more than that of a catalyst to stimulate individuals in business to recognise the opportunities of change that exist and to ensure that they take advantage of them.
We recognise the need to develop management skills and we recognise that the need is urgent. We cannot rely on the changes in management education and development working through quickly. Thus the consultancy initiatives which were announced in the White Paper encourage people in business to use outside private sector advice to help them take the strategic decisions which alone will determine the future development of their business. That is industry and commerce using its own expertise to spread the best management practices available. The areas covered are key strategic areas for business— quality, design, marketing, manufacturing systems, business

865
planning and financial and information systems, exactly the skills in which British industry and British commerce must be proficient.
The success of those initiatives will depend on local businesses coming forward with sensible ideas about how they can develop. They will have to put their own money into the consultancy projects and we hope to open their eyes to the possibilities of using expert advice and so making lasting changes to their companies. Our initiatives are about widening the scope for self-help; the emphasis is on people, management and, above all, the private sector.
The same concern over the competitiveness of our businesses and the skills of our management has infused our approach to regional policy, with greater encouragement to businesses in the regions to use the consultancy initiatives and new incentives for very small firms. Planned regional spending over the next three years will be some £900 million in total compared with some £700 million previously planned. But that in itself, I must tell your Lordships, is not important. What is important is the effectiveness of our policies in encouraging businesses to develop in the regions. Under the old regional development grant system, grants were being paid even to companies whose commercial decision would be to go ahead out of their own resources. I do not believe that freely giving out buckets of money was the right approach to regional development, nor, I am sure, does anyone else in your Lordships' House.
In both the consultancy initiatives and in regional policy we have concentrated on encouraging firms to develop and grow where lack of information might prevent change. The principle that the Government should not take on responsibilities which are primarily those of industry and commerce runs through the White Paper. The closer that innovation gets to the marketplace, the more fundamental this principle is in our policies. The changes in my department's innovation policy have concentrated our financial support on collaborative research and technology transfer.
I know that many in your Lordships' House share my belief that collaboration between the academic science base and industry has always been a blind spot in the United Kingdom. Our LINK initiative will support collaborative programmes in strategic areas of research which require further work before the likely commercial potential can be realised. By helping industry to get together and work alongside the academic researchers we hope to see the fruits of the research transferred into commercial applications more smoothly and quickly than would otherwise be the case. I recently announced, with Kenneth Baker, five LINK programmes on subjects ranging from advanced semi-conductors to eukaryotic genetics, and there will be more to come.
One theme in the White Paper which I hope that your Lordships will not have missed is the need more clearly to market and promote the services which we offer to business, for our aim is to create a partnership of action with business. Therefore, we are expanding our network of contact with business at the local level by opening up more DTI offices in the regions. We shall have moved from seven offices in the regions to some 24 offices. By getting more locally to where
866
businesses are and work, particularly in the regions, I believe that we shall offer a more effective service to our customers.
We are marketing my entire department's services within one package, the Enterprise Initiative. If we are running schemes for business and encouraging activities by business, we have to make sure that what we have to sell to business is clearly marketed, easy to understand and easy to use. It is no good preaching marketing without practising it ourselves.
The response to the Enterprise Initiative has been excellent: 110,000 booklets have been distributed; 20,000 companies have sought initial information from my department's freephone service; 4,000 applications for consultancy initiatives have already been issued up and down the land. These are now being completed and returned at a rapid rate—about 70 a day. That is just a start; I hope that many other firms will take the initiative too.
We have a role, a major role, in encouraging open and competitive markets which set the basis on which business competes. We have a major role in working with business as it strives to succeed against world competition. We have a major role in ensuring that the economy of the United Kingdom is ready and able to compete when in May of 1993 for the first time in 8,000 years the United Kingdom becomes once again physically part of Europe. Competition within the single market in Europe, particularly I suspect after the Channel Tunnel itself opens, will not only give us the opportunity of trading in the whole of Europe but it will give the whole of Europe the opportunity of trading here. We also have a major role in creating a partnership with business. That is the major objective of our White Paper and of the Enterprise Initiative itself.
We have made our strategy clear in the White Paper. We have concentrated our attention on developing enterprise and encouraging management skills. We have focused on working with the grain of the market, not going against it and not trying to make people go where they do not wish to go; in fact going along facilitating the development in quality, design, marketing, management quality systems and information systems, all of which British industry and British commerce need.
We believe that this strategy will enable us to work with British business as we compete more and more successfully in the world economy; for if the truth were known, the most difficult thing to achieve is for people themselves to change the ways in which they manage and approach their work. That is the most difficult task but it is above all else the most essential one for the economic future of our country. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the White Paper DTI—the department for Enterprise (Cmnd. 278).—(Lord Young of Graffham.)
11.50 a.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if I rose to my feet earlier a little precipitately, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for my discourtesy. I should like to thank the noble Lord, the

867
Secretary of State, and I am sure that the House is grateful to him, for having introduced this Motion and enabling us to debate the recent White Paper issued by the Department of Trade and Industry. The House is also looking forward today to three maiden speeches from distinguished noble Lords, who will certainly offer words of wisdom and experience. This promises to be a rich and useful debate.
As the Minister said, the White Paper sets out the Government's broad approach to commerce and industry and describes the main thrust of his department. Your Lordships may recall that when he presented the White Paper to the House just over a month ago I responded with the view that there were a number of elements contained in it with which we agreed and which would have our support. I said at that time, and I reiterate now, that anything which serves to raise the morale of civil servants, which has been badly battered over the past few years, must be welcomed.
Any attempt to improve the relationship between the educational system and industry must be supported. Anything that can improve the general quality of British management must be applauded also. Finally, the attempt to improve the attitudes of British industry as described by the Minister and to increase its dynamism must be encouraged, particularly in view of the unemployment situation that is still present. Nevertheless, while we are able to welcome a number of the proposals, there are areas in which we have some doubts. I shall leave to my noble friend Lord Peston, who will be winding up the debate from this side of the House, the questions of competition and regional policies. However, there is a central question which must be asked and, indeed, answered; namely, how far is the general approach relevant to the real problem that confronts the United Kingdom economy?
There is also a subsidiary question: are we persuaded that the presentation, language—if you like, the tone—of the White Paper is appropriate for the Department of Trade and Industry or is it merely something of a public relations exercise which may look good for the moment but which will not have any long-lasting effect? The tone of the document is certainly combative, if I may use that expression. I suppose that to a certain extent we have to accept the rewriting of history, which I imagine all governments do, but at times I felt that the document went too far. For example, I was somewhat taken aback by criticism of the United Kingdom's economic performance in the early 1950s, when a Conservative Government was in power. I suppose that we were meant to draw the conclusion that the rot set in in the old Board of Trade between 1951 and 1957. I am sure that the then President of the Board of Trade, the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, is in an excellent position to defend himself; certainly he needs no help from me.
However, I say very seriously that I wish the Government were just a little more generous to their predecessors of both parties. I hope that those statesmen will in due course be given proper credit for their efforts in the era prior to North Sea oil, when they struggled with the problems of the post war
868
world and achieved an astonishing record of recovery for the benefit of my generation.
I shall turn first to my subsidiary question: is the approach appropriate for the Department of Trade and Industry or is it just a passing PR gimmick? As the Minister said, the department has a vast number of functions and responsibilities. It has regulatory, enforcement, supervisory and organisational functions. It is the main arm of government which implements ministerial decisions on trade and industry. It runs many activities ranging from export promotion and insolvency services to the Patents Office and supervision of the insurance industry. The list is endless.
The staff of the department, the civil servants, have been trained for those functions; they have not been trained for marketing. That may be wrong, but it is the situation and reclassifying civil servants into an enterprise unit will not necessarily change the nature of the animal, nor indeed should it do so. Regulation, which is the administration of government policy, in many instances is the antithesis of entrepreneurship. The regulator has to enforce a set of rules. He cannot at the same time be a salesman.
The Minister mentioned the financial services sector. Many noble Lords will say—and I agree with them—that that sector is one of the most entrepreneurial in our economy. What is the role of the department? It is to set the rules, to stop entrepreneurs acting against the public interest and to detect and prosecute crime. That is the job of the regulator and it cannot be performed by salesmen because it is precisely enterprise of an undesirable and anti-social nature that the department, as regulator, must be determined to stop.
So the answer to my question whether that is a suitable approach probably lies in the old adage, which is no doubt familiar to your Lordships, "Ministers come and Ministers go but the Civil Service goes on for ever". That may well be what will happen, whatever may be the current gloss that is put on it. To me, it is neither here nor there whether something is called an enterprise strategy or an industrial policy, but it is symptomatic of the White Paper and the approach taken by the Secretary of State that he seems to think that it does matter and that somehow changing the words will change the substance. I hope that I am not too sceptical on that score but I have some very serious doubts.
Nobody in his senses will dissent from a general policy of encouraging enterprise, but are the proposals in the White Paper properly focused? Are they relevant to the real problem that we face? That problem concerns the future course of our balance of payments, not just over the next year or so—although there are immediate dangers—but in the longer term as our balance of trade loses the protection that it has enjoyed during a decade of North Sea oil. That problem was raised, discussed and analysed by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, and its conclusion was quite unambiguous: unless there were compensating action to turn round the manufacturing trade balance as oil revenues declined, the consequences would be dire. That conclusion is as valid today as it was in 1985 when the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, reported on the Select Committee document.

869
In so far as it refers to the future balance of payments problem at all, and it is mentioned in only one paragraph, the view in the White Paper appears to be that the economy has been transformed to the point where it can cope with the problem by itself; in other words, all is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds. However, I do not believe that the evidence is properly there. In terms of relative export prices and unit labour costs, which are the two indices which perhaps best illustrate our international competitiveness, we arc no better off. In fact we are slightly worse off than we were in 1978. In terms of non-price competition, to which the Secretary of State has referred, the study undertaken by Cranfield and the British Institute of Management came to the regrettable but overwhelming conclusion that very little happened in manufacturing operations in the United Kingdom over the 10 years from 1975 to 1985. It commented that that was particularly true in the key areas of competitive edge, delivery reliability, lead times and use of new technology. That conclusion was broadly endorsed in a Warwick University summary of academic research published only two or three weeks ago.
Our view is that this problem—what I would call the Aldington problem—is still very much with us and that leaving the future to the hand of chance and free market forces is plainly wrong. This is where we part company definitively with the Government. Our view is that much more direct action needs to be taken and to be given top priority. We are all in favour of small firms but it is the bigger firms that are the real players in the field of exports and import substitution; and exports and import substitution must be encouraged with all the means at our disposal as a top policy priority.
Direct action needs information, analysis and planning. I can best illustrate what I mean by citing an example of what I believe should not happen. Not long ago, a senior official was giving evidence on Britain's high technology trade performance to the Trade and Industry Select Committee of another place. My source for what follows is the Independent newspaper. After an hour or so of question and answer, the paper says, MPs had discovered the following: Britain has no strategic plan to boost its electronic industry up to the year 2000; the department has remarkably few accurate statistics about high technology trade; the department has no view about how efficiently British industry uses information technology; the department does not know why our high technology trade is so poor; the department does not have a policy of leading other departments in buying British technology; confronted with huge trade deficits, the department believes that it is important not to look at the global figure. The official in question went on to agree that, while small American companies grew into big ones, British companies have flickered like candles in the international technology scene and then faded, and he did not know why.
We believe that the true long-term focus of the department's activity should be directed towards this problem of the future balance of payments. It should have the necessary information, not only on high technology but in every sector where our foreign
870
trade performance is weak. The department must have the answers to the questions that the Trade and Industry Select Committee asked, and have a plan for dealing with the perceived deficiencies sector by sector.
The 1980s have been the decade of North Sea oil. The 1990s are going to be the decade of the oil running down. We must be prepared for that. We believe that we should start now. Not to do so would lay us open to the charge of indulging in complacent self-congratulation—and it is a charge that on the evidence of what the Secretary of State said today the Government have difficulty in avoiding.
12.3 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, for arranging for time, even on a Friday, to be devoted to the discussion of the DTI's White Paper for which he was responsible and for the usual courteous explanation of it by the Secretary of State. I look forward very much also to the contributions of the three maiden speakers with their different but distinguished contributions to the business and industrial world.
The new subtitle for the department embraces an objective that can hardly be contentious. Indeed this Government's predecessors incorporated enterprise into the name of one of their major initiatives in the industrial sphere. The debate today therefore will continue, as it has started, to focus on whether the content of the White Paper measures up to its declared intention, and whether the implementation of policies to encourage enterprise is equal to the ambitions expressed in the paper.
The DTI is the Government's face to the industrial and business world. Every other department of government has an inevitable and necessary involvement in the country's economic and business life, but the DTI alone must represent and fight for business. The White Paper highlights the objective to
"champion all the people who make it happen rather than just individual sectors, individuals or companies".
All noble Lords who, like me, admire the past chairman of ICI, Sir John Harvey-Jones, would applaud the DTI's concurrence with Sir John that business is all about "making it happen". But other parts of the same passage in the White Paper seem more ambivalent as to the campaigning zeal which the DTI should have in the interests of business.
I am not convinced that sponsorship of specific industries is fundamentally different from support of the corresponding market, and a reorganisation of the department from one concept to another risks merely weakening the commitment of the department to represent wholeheartedly, but not uncritically, the interests of business and industry to an extent which is comparable with the support given by the equivalent government departments elsewhere in the world to their native industries. If the support for Japanese business interests that is given by MITI is excessive by free market standards—it is certainly not uncritical—that seems to be a failing that many of us would welcome being repeated in this country.
As in previous discussions in your Lordships' House, the role of government within industry is the

871
nub of the question. The Secretary of State has surprised me more and more recently through his embracing consensus politics as well as conviction politics. At the end of last year he reminded your Lordships that the stock market was a far from perfect indicator of the economic prosperity of the country, while in the White Paper and reinforced in his opening remarks, he has emphasised his commitment to a mixed economy. I feel that few Members of your Lordships' House will disagree with statements in the White Paper such as these:
"Open markets are not to be confused with unfettered market forces for these can lead to closed, protected and monopolistic conditions … Regulations … will be used to encourage competition and to ensure that markets work properly and enjoy the confidence of informed investors and consumers".
It also states:
"Open markets do not mean that governments should rely simply on the operation of market forces or stand by as a passive observer of the economy".
Where consensus has perhaps not yet reached out to join these Benches with those of the Government is in agreeing how far beyond being a passive observer a government should go in its involvement with the industrial life of the country.
I have argued in the past that the Government have consistently ignored their own participation in the markets as consumer and customer, for instance, in formulating what they felt was the correct degree of intervention or involvement with the business operations of those markets. I find it extraordinary that in 41 pages of the White Paper the only reference to public purchasing is a single sentence in the section under the single European market where it says:
"The Government also want to see public authorities throughout the Community buying from whatever source makes best commercial sense, with effective enforcement of open public purchasing rules".
How limp, my Lords. Every other successful industrial country in the world employs positive discrimination in its public purchasing policy towards its native industries, in particular within the context of Europe and the prospective single European market. British industry will be significantly handicapped if this type of support is not given to British companies and to European collaborative ventures including British companies within the rules applied by the Community.
The White Paper also glosses over the direct role which the DTI has continued and will continue to have in certain limited spheres. All noble Lords, on these Benches at least, welcomed, for instance, the eventual agreement of launch aid last year for British Aerospace's further participation in the Airbus consortium. I for one would have liked to have seen some discussion on this type of support in the White Paper for fear that there may not be the pressure of an election and marginal seats to concentrate the mind of the Government on every occasion in the future.
The privatisation programme is mentioned with unusual reticence. That is perhaps not surprising in view of the misfortune of the BP issue. But the omission of any reference to the Rover Group, in contrast with the confident discussion of the British Steel Corporation, should cause concern. Admittedly, with Mr. Graham Day as chairman it
872
can be argued that the Rover Group needs no reinforcement in fighting its corner with the Government. Nonetheless, I believe that the White Paper should have provided an opportunity to state quite clearly the considerations which the Government believe to be relevant in the privatisation of any further companies.
The earlier commitment to the promotion of competition through privatisation has been shown—at least by the case of British Telecom—to be a thin cover story for more conscientious objectives, such as the massaging of the Government's borrowing requirements. The DTI should be a single-minded supporter of the longer term prospects of companies in its current charge against any encroachments by the Treasury with its legal eye for a fast buck. Rover should be privatised only if its prospects, and those for the component industry and for independent British engineering, design and technology, are enhanced by the sale.
The White Paper eschews any muscular support for British industry and business but makes a limp, semi-interventionist gesture to the problems. Five pages of the White Paper are devoted to the subject of business, education and management, expressing pious hopes in plenty but not promising a great deal of action. In five pages the White Paper attains the unimaginable achievement of avoiding any reference to business schools. That is hardly compensated for by the single, casual reference to them under the chapter entitled "Business Development". Perhaps in winding up the noble Lord will explain that Freudian slip in the context of the DTI's embarrassment that, simultaneously with the fond expressions contained in the White Paper, the Government are implementing the most massive reductions in financial support to the country's leading business schools. Even if in the long run alternative sources of finance from business and charities can replace government funding, in the meantime the desparately needed improvement in management training in this country will be delayed for the dubious reward of an increase in our exports of that training to our overseas competitors.
Such a multitude of areas are touched on, though hardly addressed, that it is difficult to know upon which to make brief comments. At the same time, despite the attempted comprehensiveness, there are other extraordinary omissions. The impression is given that enterprise is concentrated largely in senior management and absolutely no mention is made in the White Paper of any initiatives towards increased participation, involvement and democracy for the workforce as a whole, who need better education and training for sure (as do their senior management colleagues) and motivation and inspiration as well. In his speech the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to the need to increase the involvement and power of each individual in his or her business life, but there is little supporting discussion of that in the White Paper.
Ignoring those omissions, and even the customary red rag offered by the Government of statistics based on the 1981 starting point, I should like to comment briefly on two matters; one for its importance and the other for its topicality. First, the actual changes

873
proposed in competition policy, as opposed to the sentiments expressed, are arguably a move in the wrong direction, however welcome to the more rampantly expansionist companies. The SDP has long argued that the burden of proof should lie with the proponents of a merger; not just that competition should not be reduced but that all aspects of the public interest should be enhanced or at least not damaged.
Secondly, the White Paper reminds your Lordships that the DTI is responsible for the regulation of the financial markets and of financial services. I am sure that the Financial Services Act remains a vivid memory for any Members of your Lordships' House. Therefore I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Secretary of State for his assurance that he will resist with the greatest vigour any attempts to dilute the effectiveness and vigour of the Financial Services Act, imperfect though it may be, including in particular the unnecessary replacement of the current chairman of the SIB. The financial services industry cannot expect the ever more complex markets and dynamic practices to be subject to the same mild self-regulatory practices of a previous era.
Although speakers today can excuse omissions from their contributions by the time limit imposed, the same excuse cannot be applied to the White Paper. Its absence of real initiatives, and the noticeable omissions, damage those constructive but largely exhortatory sentiments contained within it. As the paper touches briefly on space research, albeit to freeze R&D support in that area, I am tempted to parody that wellknown television space programme, "Star Trek", by suggesting that the true message of the White Paper is, "DTI to Enterprise One. Omission completed". I regret the lost opportunity in the White Paper and urge the Government to consider the introduction of more constructive initiatives to achieve those objectives set out in the White Paper.
12.17 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, it is an honour to be here and I ask your Lordships' indulgence for my maiden speech. Were it not a maiden speech I should have enjoyed challenging some of the assumptions underlying the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams—particularly the last part—and I should have enjoyed crossing swords with the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. I am most grateful for the kind words of my noble friend Lord Young. I strongly agree with the strategy, both of his Department and of the Government, that he has set out.
I entered politics in order to try, however modestly, to reduce the widespread poverty of many British people. At the time, and for many years after, I was an unreflecting statist seeking short cuts to Utopia. Over time I have come to realise that perhaps the state can do better by setting the right framework and by intervening little.
Our neighbours in North-West Europe have done better than us. They have outstripped us in the buying power of average earnings and benefits. They have also outstripped us in education, particularly of
874
the average child, and in civic behaviour. The words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, might have warned me off saying what I shall say next but I yield to no one in my admiration for the career and the services of my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft. Yet I must say that the governments of our friends in North-West Europe—even their socialist governments from time to time—seem to have done better than have our previous governments (even the Conservative Governments of which I was a member) in showing how to enable free enterprise to create prosperity for virtually all.
Despite that, I hope that historians will say that during the 1980s British progress accelerated towards embourgeoisement—that is, towards a state in society where most people own and earn enough to have choice and scope and where everyone has the attitudes and time-horizons to make use of them. I readily admit that we have far to go with over 14 million people on benefit, with several million people not much better off, with 2.7 million people unemployed, with very much crime and with low standards of education. However, I still believe that embourgeoisement is within reach.
I hope that your Lordships will not think it odd that I emphasise the bourgeois. It was Engels who wrote to Marx that in this most bourgeois nation, as he called us, our aim was to have a bourgeois aristrocracy alongside a bourgeois proletariat and a bourgeoise. Embourgeoisement is the culmination of the movement from status to contract. It presupposes the money, the values and the readiness to enter into mutually beneficial arrangements over time and with freedom to vary the mix: to or from insurance, for retirement, for health, for accident; to or from savings, food, clothes, books, foreign travel, housing, education and charities.
The choice and priorities would be for every individual and every family. The range of choice is now immense. Yet, there are several million of our fellow citizens whose progress to embourgeoisement has been stunted by the framework created for housing, health and schooling and whose dignity and choice has therefore been diminished.
It is of course free enterprise—the decentralization of ownership and decision-making, subject to the law and in business, to competiton—that makes embourgeoisement possible. Free enterprise, if it is allowed a chance, is the least bad method yet invented to create for virtually all jobs, prosperity, social and public services and freedom.
Therefore, what can we do to advance embourgeoisement? It seems to me that we need to go further yet into the hitherto no-go areas. We are trying to improve schooling. We may argue about some of the methods. For me, the magic ingredient is the introduction of choice. The state may well procure better than it can deliver. We are now more embourgeoisé than we were but less embourgeoisé than our neighbours, most of whom were more shattered by the war than we were. The reason we are less prosperous—a different point to embourgeoisement—is that our average productivity is lower than theirs. I see the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, sitting opposite me. I should like to say that low productivity used to be blamed on the trade

875
unions. I think the responsibility is fairly upon management, although it is in the interests of unions it seems to me, to co-operate in their own interests.
Our average productivity in this country has increased fairly sharply during the 1980s, but productivity has also increased in other countries too; so the gap remains wide. Some industries have high productivity. How abysmal then must be the productivity of others. This White Paper necessarily concerns itself with jobs. I am not sure that, despite widespread and sincere concern about unemployment people in general understand where jobs come from. Jobs come from customers and so do social and public services. Upon our success in attracting and holding customers at home and abroad depend jobs, earnings, social and public services. If by chance we improve average productivity again, we shall need even more jobs to absorb the unemployed. For that we need even more—I use a French word again, for lack of an English one—entrepreneurs: the mobilisers of all those skills who, to quote the White Paper, "make it happen". We have more than we had but we need more still. In fact, if we are to be prosperous we need more millionaires and more bankrupts.
My noble friend Lord Young found the economic imperatives already in place when he went to his present department: namely inflation down; taxation down; price, wage, dividend and exchange controls gone; enterprise encouraged; denationalisation in progress; the trade unions returned to their members and competition largely galvanised. Therefore, the motivating framework is in place and my noble friend is surely right to think that it is that framework of motivation that will do most to improve our performance.
It is against that background that my noble friend seeks to improve further the performance of management, by offering them consultancies. I only wish that he had added to his list one specifically devoted to raising productivity. His purpose seems to be essential, although not dramatic. However, there is drama in the White Paper. Sponsorship, that insidious invitation to run to Whitehall, is out. An attack on cartels is in, and I welcome the systematic effort to offer all teachers a short period of experience in business.
The charm of the enterprise initiative is that my noble friend does not offer patronage. He is simply seeking to bring together two streams of expertise for the good of the country. My noble friend further recognises that other government policies may impinge on enterprise. Your Lordships will excuse the vernacular if I say that he can say that again. For example, the Government really must seek, it seems to me, to avoid unintentionally encouraging unnecessary dependence and to avoid discouraging people from taking up employment. This White Paper seems to me likely to help us towards embourgeoisement and I welcome it strongly.
12.27 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is a great honour and privilege that it falls to me, on behalf of all your Lordships, to congratulate the noble Lord on
876
his maiden speech so spendidly delivered and so deeply reflective. I have known the noble Lord for many years—we were colleagues in another place—and so it is a particular pleasure for me to hear his success today. I have only one cavil with him; that is, that he won a fellowship in jurisprudence to All Souls but then deserted the law. However, he was then a great success in industry and achieved high office in the state. He has brought that experience to your Lordships' House and your Lordships will undoubtedly want to hear him again on many occasions.
The White Paper is couched in that high mandarin style which seems to be the particular contribution of White Papers to the great pageant of English prose. So far as one can tear away the veil, it seems to me to suggest all the right things to do; though I shall concentrate on one chapter—Chapter 7 on regional policy and on the inner cities. I think that in producing that paper the noble Lord was right to devote a chapter to that very purpose, though I think that the phrase "North-South divide" is a dangerous oversimplification since there are areas of great prosperity in the North and areas of great deprivation in the South.
However, it remains true, on the whole, that the North of England is considerably less prosperous than the South. Indeed, there is a danger that the economy of the South may become overheated. I think that was the reason why in the summer we saw a raising of interest rates. That could only have reference to conditions in the prosperous South and could be quite irrelevant, indeed antagonistic, to the interests of the North wherever it was stagnating. Therefore, I think that the noble Lord was right in devoting a chapter to that topic.
Within that, I propose only to deal with one matter which is, I venture to suggest, a matter of omission; that is, the case for local pay settlements. There is undoubtedly much more to say on that chapter but I can rest assured that it will be said much better than I could say it by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, so I confine myself to regional pay settlements.
The case for that is surely overwhelming. If, as is the case, to take one example, housing is one-third cheaper in the North of England—the North-East—than it is in London and the South-East, you can negotiate a pay settlement at a considerably lower figure in the North which will produce the same standard of living as a higher figure in the South. If that is done, labour costs are reduced and there is an incentive for employers to go where labour costs are lower, particularly in industries which are labour intensive; that is, those industries which have been in decline in recent years.
The primary responsibility for local pay settlements is obviously with the employers and trade unions. A great responsibility rests with them. It is idle for the Government to expect them to perform in that way without themselves giving a lead. The Government do not give a lead; on the contrary, their pay settlements are central throughout. Worse than that, there is actually a London weighting and that enures towards pensionable pay, whether employees continue in retirement to live in London or elsewhere. That means there is an additional pull towards

877
London for government employees. It also means that it is much more difficult for the Government to relocate government departments, which I believe to be part of the Government's policy.
In fact, I think it was the Secretary of State himself, when he was chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, who relocated that body in Sheffield. I see that the noble Lord nods. Therefore, it seems to me that the Government have an absolute duty to review the London weighting, particularly as it is now to be accentuated by an additional pay element. I gather the amount is £600 for London and £400 for elsewhere. In other words, it is precisely the opposite of what it should he. Therefore, as an admirer of the noble Lord's own performance and of the economic performance of this Government, I appeal to him to give particular attention to that problem.
12.36 p.m.
Lord Stevens of Ludgate: My Lords, following the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, after his excellent maiden speech fills me with even more trepidation than before. I agree with the White Paper's analysis of the main causes of our economic decline; namely, an educational system that discourages youngsters from working in business, inadequate and inappropriate training, corporatism and union power working together to limit competition and inhibiting the formation and growth of new firms. This, linked with the large proportion of GNP absorbed by government expenditure leading to excessively high tax rates, has contributed significantly to our past economic decline.
I am encouraged to see the acceptance that industrial policy in the 1960s and 1970s was determined by pressures from special interest groups. It seems to me that the White Paper comes close to acknowledging that where you have a lack of enterprise, more often than not the Government have been the problem and not the answer.
The measures designed to reduce the burden of regulation—for example, the new legislation to reduce the cost of complying with the Companies Act, particularly for small firms, increased self-regulation under the Weights and Measures Act and reducing delays—are to be welcomed. I am particularly encouraged by the formation of an enterprise and deregulation unit. Later on I shall, if I may, offer a suggestion about where it might start.
The achievements that have been made in recent years by the DTI must be welcomed. As your Lordships might expect, I wholly agree with the philosophy of open markets and the encouragement of individual enterprise. It is encouraging to see a government department recognising the vital role of enterprise in economic growth. I also welcome the fact that the size of the DTI's budget has fallen by more than a quarter since 1979–80.
I now declare an interest as a publisher. Now that my company owns some national newspapers and a number of regional ones we may have difficulty in being allowed to buy further national newspapers. Therefore, since we may no longer be a bidder for newspaper companies, I should welcome an extension of the monopolies period of reference
878
rather than a shortening of it! Financial urgency in respect of newspaper mergers is, however, always a moot point since there seem to be many people who are anxious to enter the publishing industry and few who want to leave it, despite the immense competition and the huge fluctuations in revenue which are liable to occur.
I agree with the Government's determination, as expressed in the White Paper, to foster competitive markets by encouraging competition, tackling restrictive practices, cartels and monopolies, and by privatisation. Non-mandatory, pre-notification procedures and the obtaining of undertakings from parties in order to remove threats of competition are to be warmly welcomed, as indeed is the fact that undertakings will in future be legally binding.
I declare my second interest as a director of a fund management company. I hope that your Lordships will not find me too guilty of controversy. The Financial Services Act, which is supervised by the DTI, is hardly conducive to free competition. I appreciate the desire to disclose charges that are made to investors; I appreciate the desire to control some of the worst practices, but there are many industries where no control is exercised over charges and they are left to market forces for consumers to decide whether or not they want the product. Your Lordships' House proposed over 500 amendments to the Financial Services Bill, all of which were, I believe, accepted by another place. We have within our company, which manages unit trusts, pension funds, institutional portfolios both at home and abroad and private clients' money, to comply with the regulations of three regulatory bodies and to make 15 different membership applications.
Financial journalists will no longer be able to give anyone advice in a private letter or conversation unless they are authorised under the regulations. This may cost each of them several thousands of pounds. However, some of your Lordships may think that their inability to do this will save you several thousand pounds!
In October 1987 we experienced a stock market correction, which, although sharp and relatively large by the standards of recent years, still only took the stock market back to its levels of earlier in that year. A recent report has been issued stating that the Stock Exchange operated efficiently and that it was always possible to deal during those days in the middle of October. As a practitioner, I have to say that, while it might have been possible to deal in very limited quantities of stock, the prices which were offered were in many cases totally unrealistic.
There was a company of which I have some knowledge whose market capitalisation fell from £300 million to £200 million on a £50,000 sale order. A subsequent attempt to buy £50,000 worth of the same stock made the market capitalisation rise again by nearly £100 million. In my opinion, this is hardly making a market. Furthermore, for considerable periods of time, the market makers were allowed to operate what is known as a fast market, which means that they are not obliged to deal at the prices and sizes shown on the screen. However, one must acknowledge that these were unusual and unprecedented worldwide movements occurring in all world stock markets at that time.

879
We may be heading for even further regulation in the financial area since, if the United States stock markets have limits placed on the extent to which stocks may fluctuate within a trading day, then it logically follows that we too may have to have some similar rules. Markets are, after all, international and if a price limit is reached in New York there is little doubt in my mind that investors will seek to deal in that same share or a similar one either in the United Kingdom or other stock markets. Does this mean that even further regulations are inevitable and how much will this curb enterprise?
Our financial markets were supposedly deregulated so that they could compete with the best in the world. The new regulations were supposed to protect the wave of new investors brought into the stock market by this Government. Instead they may run the risk of putting them off altogether. Charges will have to rise and in many cases they already have for the small investor. With regard to the fraud and insider dealing that one is trying to prevent, this, although probably harder under the new regulations than before, will occur wherever large amounts of money are at stake.
I applaud the desire to bring schools, universities and other educational establishments a closer understanding of the needs and hopes of the enterprises for which their students will one day work. I believe that, apart from removing certain restrictions, particularly in the industrial relations area, the responsibility for revitalising this country must come not only from the Government but also from management.
Most people welcome the opportunity to exercise their enterprise and responsibility for the jobs they are doing even though in a highly automated and computerised age this may at times seem remote. The proposals in the White Paper are to be welcomed although I can see difficulties in certain areas where the opposite of enterprise may occur if we are not careful. However, I have a certain scepticism about the department's born-again conversion to enterprise. Despite the White Paper's avowed determination not to make the mistakes of the past, one still senses that Whitehall may still not be ready to remove itself from an area where it may have no beneficial role.
I feel somewhat uneasy when I read at the beginning of the White Paper that DTI policies have been reviewed,
"in order to assist in the process of increasing prosperity throughout the economy and to champion the cause of all the people that make that happen".
How will these people be identified and by whom? Government and bureaucrats simply cannot handle the immense activity and detail of economic opportunity. It would involve a massive increase in the DTI's budget. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, quoted:
"Civil servants must not play God in the marketplace".
I warmly welcome the White Paper and I look forward to a continuing reduction in the Department of Trade and Industry's budget as the British nation seizes the initiatives.
12.47 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I hope I shall be in order in warmly congratulating both maiden speakers today, having myself shared a distant academic past with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and some less-distant years in the newspaper industry with the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. I believe that both of us shared the joys and the sorrows of open competition in that industry. I am sure that they both have a point of view which deserves to be heard again in this House.
I am also glad to welcome at least two elements in the Secretary of State's White Paper. The first is his belief that British education has long been too biased against business and industry as a career. Secondly, I welcome the statement on page 31 of the White Paper that inner city development should pay special attention to the employment of local labour. I particularly welcome that because it flatly contradicts the statement made recently by the Minister speaking for the Department of the Environment in this House, who told us that this would be contrary to EC law.
I am afraid I cannot equally congratulate the Secretary of State on the map which accompanies his White Paper. When I was responsible for regional policies I always found it useful to have some practical knowledge of the geography of industry in the British Isles. The Secretary of State's map shows Cardiff where Swansea really is, Poole where Weymouth really is, Reading where Oxford is and—most surprising of all—Coventry where Worcester is. I believe this is an odd start on information to industry and I hope there will be some improvement there. I do not know whether this is the new geography to be included in the new core curriculum which is to guide our education in the new world to which we are now being introduced. It rather strengthens my suspicion that at least this part of the White Paper was written not by the Civil Service but by Conservative Central Office.
I believe the same to be true of the pages which have already been mentioned today in the White Paper which rewrite history with a vigour of which even Stalin would have been proud. In the Financial Times Mr. Sam Brittan described these parts of the White Paper in rather stronger language than I would use as,
"a send-up of Thatcherism by a hostile satirist".
Then we have a kind of sacred text about the virtues of enterprise and competition, which also moved the Financial Times to describe these passages as being "peppered with rhetoric".
The word "enterprise" occurs five times on the first page of the White Paper and eight times on the last page. This seems to be not so much serious argument as ritual incantation. It is in danger of turning a good thing into no more than a sacred cow. By contrast, the words "employment" and "unemployment" are hardly mentioned anywhere in the 40 pages of this White Paper.
Of course enterprise, both public and private, and competition are often desirable and highly valuable things, but not always, in an imperfect world. Even the international drug traffickers exhibit remarkable enterprise sometimes. No doubt much enterprise was shown in the adventures of Wall Street and

881
Throgmorton Street last year which led to all the charges of insider dealings which we have read about, ending with Black Monday.
Competition is also very valuable, but that can also lead to risks being taken, for instance in the transport industry, aircraft, railways, ferries or even inflammable furniture, which we hear about from time to time. The press in this country has given us some examples of the less desirable effects of competition. I would not myself use the language of a distinguished journalist who wrote the other day,
"I congratulate Mr. Rupert Murdoch on the great enterprise with which he has led the Sun newspaper down from the gutters to the sewers".
As I say, I would not use that language myself but I know what he means. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, has some idea also. If you want further evidence about what competition can do, you only have to watch American television, if you can bear to do so.
Meanwhile, the main real action announced in this paper is the emasculation of the regional development grant. The Secretary of State incidentally asserted when he made a statement introducing this paper—and I think he said it again today—that the actual spending by the Government on capital ventures in development areas would not fall as a result of this. However, a few days later his predecessor Mr. Leon Brittan stated in another place that this statement rested on enterprising, or at least rather creative, accounting. According to him there is a slight drop when you work it out properly.
It is to my mind a strange policy, just when unemployment in these areas—to give one bit of correct history today—is much higher than at any time in the whole 30 years before 1979, when all agree that this country acutely needs more industrial investment, that capital grants in these areas are actually being reduced. This follows the abolition of the investment allowance by this Government a few years ago, which means a further reduction in the incentive to investment. The idea now seems to be that a firm should only be given a grant if it would not go ahead without one. But that is not quite how the issue usually arises in this case.
If a firm is asked whether it will go ahead with a development without a grant, it will in many cases answer, "I wouldn't do so here but I might do so somewhere else, for instance in the more convenient South-East". If you refuse the grant in those circumstances you will certainly add to the overloading of the South-East about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has already spoken today. The attempt to introduce selective grants will, I believe, from all experience of administering regional policies, create uncertainty, more bureaucratic delays and a slowing down of the whole development process in just those parts of the country where it is most needed. In the most successful years of this policy the principle always was that any reputable firm, local or incoming, domestic or foreign, would qualify for help provided it developed in the relevant area and took all normal business risks of producing and marketing itself.
Yet all these cuts in incentive to industrial development are, I am afraid, being made in order to
882
give large tax reliefs in the Budget to those who least need them and who will spend them very largely on consumer goods and to a great extent imported manufactured goods. The decision to rely on interest rates rather than budget restraints, which is apparently now the Government's policy to defend the exchange rate, will deter industrial development even further.
Therefore, despite all the cheery talk about enterprise and competition, it seems that the Government's present economic policies are encouraging consumption and imports of consumer goods and discouraging investment. Yet it is precisely in investment that everyone agrees Britain to be falling behind its industrial rivals and that there has to be improvement if we are going to face those years in the 1990s when the oil revenues will be falling.
12.57 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, in rising this afternoon to take part in this important debate with an impressive list of speakers, I seek the indulgence of your Lordships' House since, for the past 25 years, I have been exporting capital equipment to many different countries throughout the world. I have frequently been involved with the Department of Trade and Industry and the commercial wing of our overseas posts. I think my noble friend the Minister and his department are to be congratulated on this White Paper as it reflects the management thinking that is required today in a world where our industry must be successful. This requires the involvement of everybody and can only be done by continuing the quality revolution dictated by customer demands.
There is no doubt that commercial representation of government, both in this country and overseas, is generally extremely successful. However, when we see in the press that Britain has been awarded an order for a steel plant or a power station with a value of hundreds of millions of pounds, we must not forget that this only represents a very small proportion of our total annual exports. High profile contracts with international political impact tend to detract from the everyday energies of Britain's thousands of exporters who daily leave our airports, headed for sometimes unwelcoming foreign destinations. This remaining balance represents the backbone of our export effort and is evidence of British industrial vitality, energy and enterprise.
Because a large percentage of this country's exports consist of smaller, lower profile contracts, there must be a case for the decentralisation of management and decision-making to where the contract is going to be executed. Such streamlining could have an immediate effect on aid and trade provision. The average waiting time for a decision for aid and trade provision can take over three months. Commercially this delay can represent a major obstacle for a potential customer and can deter him from buying British, forcing him to seek support where there is less bureaucratic complication.
I envisage a defined level of autonomy being available to the commercial post overseas in liaison with the Department of Trade and Industry in such a way as to safeguard the requirements of aid and trade provision but to drastically speed up the

883
decision-making process. Such autonomy will guarantee the close involvement of the exporter overseas at the right time. It will also encourage the secondment of personnel between the Foreign Office commercial section to the Department of Trade and Industry, and vice versa. It is worth noting that today there are over 20 people seconded from the Department of Trade and Industry in overseas posts and there is a continual traffic in the reverse direction.
The need for a defined commercial presence in overseas posts is highlighted by the experience I had recently in a Latin American country with a contract involving a state authority. During my visit of less than 10 days the commercial secretary at the embassy, who was the most energetic of men, had his commercial availability reduced by the pressure of external forces. Most of these were urgent requirements from Whitehall: others were local issues.
In turn, he became the political officer reporting on unrest within the country; then the intelligence officer seeking information and reporting on the spread of AIDS within the country's hospitals and outside. Finally, when the ambassador went on leave, he had to undertake those duties as well. His situation was not improved when another British company that was also involved in an aid and trade provision application arrived in the latter part of the same week to press its case.
On returning to my office a couple of days later I spoke to him on the the telephone, first to thank him for his help and, secondly, to seek some commercial advice. After a pause he said he was under seige in the embassy; that there were protestors throwing bricks from a nearby roof and the police were replying with CS gas from the street. In the middle of all this chaos he was able to confirm several details of commercial significance that I sought, but finally warned that he had little hope of further communication for a while, due to the rather pressing demands on his political duties.
When one comes to consider the relatively high level of commercial staffing at some of our diplomatic posts in Europe, which under the definition of the single European agreement should be reduced rather than increased, as more responsibility will inevitably fall on the individual exporters, a case must surely be made for greater commercial involvement in those areas where we are currently understaffed.
The year 1992 will be one of the greatest challenges faced by industry in this country for a very long time. It is to be hoped that this liberalisation will eventually free our European commercial resources to be redeployed elsewhere to bolster our commercial effort outside the EEC. I know the government seek the secondment of experienced managers from industry to operate within departments, but suitably qualified people are reluctant to sacrifice, as they see it, a two-year to three-year period to work in an environment which has possibly a lower pay structure, combined with the very real fear that at the end of the period their places on their company ladder will have been lost.
How useful it would be for companies to understand the inner workings of government after
884
having had the practical experience of working with the Department of Trade and Industry and the commercial section of the Foreign Office. Similarly, how useful it would be for Whitehall better to appreciate the needs of industry. I also understand that some thought is being given to the possibility of allowing younger managers to be stationed overseas on short commercial postings of about six months, as paying guests in embassies and high commissions.
I consider that very few companies would forgo an opportunity such as this to educate and train their young men to a level of expertise that their seniors could possibly never attain. Markets like Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, America and many others are enormous potential outlets for our goods and services and need experienced managers. Rest assured, that our competitors abroad are using every means to penetrate these markets. It is the duty of industry and government to make sure that we are prepared and able to meet them on an equal footing.
Finally, this White Paper must be most welcome to those companies that have embraced the principles of quality management. For instead of fighting for what might have been mere crumbs from the Department of Trade and Industry Board they are now seated at the dining table, together with a menu of common objectives and a defined principle of future progress. I therefore warmly support the proposals in this White Paper.
1.7 p.m.
Lord Winterbottom: My Lords, when I was preparing myself to speak today I was somewhat concerned by the number of maiden speakers. I was not certain then in what order they would speak and whether or not I was to follow them. Fortunately, whoever is responsible for deciding the batting order of speakers has enabled me to listen to all three maiden speakers and to congratulate all of them on the very interesting contributions they have made to this debate. In particular this has enabled me on behalf of the whole House to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, on his speech. I have a special reason for saying that. First, it is probable that we shall become neighbours in the not too distant future. Secondly, I think that what I have to say will be in harmony with the philosophy he has expressed this afternoon.
Perhaps I may also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young, for the particular initiative that is being taken in connection with his department. I have worked for many years with the Department of Trade and Industry and I am very pleased to see it going over from defence to attack. That is what we all want to see.
I shall now put a very simple question to the Minister on one small point which I think is of importance for the future of our export industry during the very trying days that will come when we are in a truly common market. I refer to the effective working of free ports in this country. I have a particular interest in free ports and was absolutely delighted when in February 1984 the Minister of State at the Treasury stated that six free ports would be created: three on the coast and three at airports. I believe that particular decision was of much greater

885
importance than is indicated by the attention it has received so far.
I have always been interested in free ports, particularly because I worked for three years in Hamburg, which has a very large free port indeed, employing at present about 800 people. But of course the history of the free Hanseatic city of Hamburg goes back a great deal further than that. Mr. Pepys, if your Lordships remember, always had his draught of Rhenish at the steel-yard in the City of London because that was the free port of the Hanse. After the war Britain still had its piece of the port of Hamburg. Of course we built upon it a church and served God rather than Mammon. But as recently as that there was still the residue of a free British area in the port. My interest in freeports was sharpened when I was permitted to take part in a Select Committee on the creation of the Cardiff Urban Development Corporation. I then learnt about the area that had been allocated for the freeport and the problems that were being experienced by the important firm that had an option on the running of the port.
I should be most grateful if in his closing speech the Minister could assist me to find out how the problems that face the option holders of the Cardiff freeport are to be solved. The problem is that there are three coastal freeports. There is Liverpool, which is working effectively with only four men and which is making a profit. It has one interesting peculiarity which is that a great deal of its business comes from, of all places, Felixstowe. Bonded lorries travel from Felixstowe to Liverpool into the freeport. Their loads are then divided up and sent throughout the world. I understand that Southampton is apparently working satisfactorily; but Cardiff has not started. As I live close to Cardiff and served on the committee that set up the Cardiff Urban Development Corporation, I am anxious to see what I can do to assist the individuals who are responsible for the freeport to get their project off the ground.
The problem seems to be simple. Whereas both Liverpool and Southampton's freeports are within the port area and have existing warehousing facilities and so forth, Cardiff is a greenfield site. It is an excellent site. It has excellent lighting, sewerage and roads and is close to the main operational docks of Cardiff; but there is nothing there and there is no fence around it. The cost of fencing and of carrying out the various other operations is considerable.
There is a further complication in that the freeport is competing with the Welsh Development Agency. That agency is doing an excellent job but the trouble is that it is larger and more powerful than the private firm that is trying to develop the freeport. It has many empty warehouses available at low prices. That causes the freeport initiative to be hampered by competitive forces. I have been trying to find out how we can solve that problem. However, we run into one of the great black holes of government business. As I see it, there are no fewer than four departments concerned with the future of the freeport. There is the Treasury, which set up the project and which has some interest in it. The Minister of State made a helpful statement on VAT last November, but when the Treasury is, as it is at the moment, wrestling with the Budget, it cannot pay much attention to what is just a few hundred yards of fencing and six VAT men.
886
The noble Lord's department is responsible for the urban development corporation. The Department of Employment also has a say in small businesses. A solution to those conflicts might be found if the Department of Trade and Industry were to take over from the Treasury responsibility for the freeports, because I believe that they have an important part to play in this country's future export business. That lack of central control with regard to their future is damaging, especially to the Cardiff enterprise.
I believe that change to be important for various reasons. At present 60 per cent. of our export trade goes to Europe. I have two projects in mind for the freeports which would help us to overcome certain weaknesses in the European system. Forty per cent. of our trade goes elsewhere. A properly working freeport would help immensely the efficiency of our freeport system. I hope that the Minister will consider becoming the godfather of any future freeport system in this country.
The only other point I should like to make is a short one. Some of your Lordships may have seen a film on television about a distinguished firm in the North-East of England which, having carried out the research and design of a new type of underwater pipeline surveying vessel, ran out of money when it came to development. The French took over the project and have won an advantage over us. The spokesman said, somewhat sadly, that the difference between France and England was that in France finance was the servant of industry and in Britain industry was the servant of finance. I believe that that situation ought to be reversed. I hope in due course that that will be the case.
1.16 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, when the debate was first initiated I never dreamt that we would be discussing 100 years of our nation's history, but the White Paper goes back 100 years and tells us that the seeds of our economic decline can be traced back over that period and that after 1870 the UK's growth rate was persistently below that of the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and so forth. It deals with the fundamental question of the advent of the single European market and also with British Steel. The Government believe that British Steel is fundamental proof that releasing the inhibitions on private enterprise, which were certainly released in the 100 years the White Paper refers to, would make this nation great. British Steel is held up as an example.
Well, that 100 years was the period when free enterprise was completely free of restrictions. That had certain results. The White Paper goes on to say—I thought in an arrogant fashion—that:
"The change in policies in 1979 marked the major turning point".
It ignored all the previous Tory Governments and what took place in this country in 1940. I make no apologies for referring to 1940, the period of the Churchill Government, because what we had (the White Paper to some extent supports it) was an inefficient, decrepit, capitalist society in which the pursuit of private profit had led us to a situation where neither the country's coal and steel industry

887
nor its transport system could meet the needs of the war effort.
There was a turning point in 1940 when Churchill was lambasted in the Daily Express for introducing Socialism into Great Britain. We took control of the economy as a nation and the consequence was that we managed to hold our own and we increased productivity. As a nation we worked as Great Britain Limited, we stood alone in the face of the world and combated the forces in Europe. So it is a little arrogant to suggest—and this indicates what is wrong with this Government—that 1979 was the turning point; that if it had not been for 1979 we would have been nowhere.
The White Paper goes on to deal with British Steel. The Minister seems highly amused by going back into history. If he is amused then he should not have introduced history in the first place. He refers to British Steel and talks about BSC having reached a stage where it will benefit from the commercial flexibility and freedom from Whitehall restrictions which privatisation will bring. All very good.
He says that in the context of 1992, the single market. British Steel is privatised; it is a free enterprise company. It takes a decision alongside its partners in Europe that perhaps it would be more sensible to centralise steel production in the Ruhr. Because it has a long history of steel production, it could do it effectively. The Minister is nodding his head. I do not know why because all I am saying is factual. If a decision is taken to centralise steel production in the Ruhr, the question is, will this Government, if they are still in office, prevent it? Will they renationalise steel in order to control it or will they allow British Steel to take that commercial decision?
That will not be proved of course until the next series of difficulties. When we export steel plants to produce steel, that automatically means there will be less demand for the steel which we produce here. So that may well be the pattern of the future. All I am saying is that it is a question which needs addressing and the Government should give us a reply. Are they going to allow the steel industry freely to take a decision within the single market and so move on from there?
British Steel, history and what-have-you were mentioned in the White Paper but nowhere do I see mention of the 320,000 people who are employed in the most inefficient place in the United Kingdom. I refer to the South-East. This is the DTI—the department for enterprise, which is supposed to look at the fundamental nature of the problems of our society. We are spending more money on London weighting than the whole of the North-West gets in regional assistance. The situation will get worse, because in the White Paper the Government are applauding the idea that there will now be selective grants.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a second question. He maintains that the grants should not be paid to an organisation which does not need it. They should be paid on a selective basis, not a geographical basis. Would Barclays Bank have received a grant under the new procedure? If so, where would it have gone?
888
Under the new procedure it will be a selective grant and I do not think that Barclays would have qualified to go to Wavertree Science Park in Liverpool. The probability is that it would have gone nearer the market, somewhere in Manchester. That would have been the effect.
In 1945 we were really in trouble. The situation was that after the war we had to start straightening things out. We did it in several ways. First, we nationalised the steel industry or took control of it. We took control of British Rail; and in 1945 when the war was over there is no doubt at all that the private sector was not prepared to tackle the major areas of our economy. It had already thrown away the idea of tackling the coal industry. If it had not been for the nationalisation of certain activities in our society, Ford and the rest of the private sector would not have been able to develop in the way in which they did.
This White Paper is going back to the old Victorian values, the values which ultimately led to the situation which we are in today. It is no use lauding private enterprise with all the problems of Rolls-Royce, British Leyland and the motor industry in general. It is no use lauding private enterprise if it was under private enterprise that those industries failed the country as they did. The Government switched from not blaming private enterprise to putting all the responsibility on the trade unions, but they are all part of private enterprise.
I have mentioned that there are 320,000 civil servants in London who are not included in this report and I do not wonder at that, because if one examines London weighting one will discover that it is a myth, a fraud. With the growth of chain stores now, food and clothing cost no more in London. So the only matters of extra expense are housing. That could be rectified if we removed some of the housing congestion out of the South-East to elsewhere. We could do it quite simply by moving the 320,000-odd people or a vast majority of them, decentralising and sending them to the regions. In reply to a question of mine when this paper came before the House, the noble Lord, Lord Young, said that he was not averse to moving government departments out of London. He is not even averse to moving the House of Lords out of London. If he is not averse to that, he must think that there is some benefit in looking at the problem.
Perhaps I may ask another question. Will the noble Lord look at the problem? Is he going to decide whether it is worth while moving some of the Civil Service to the regions, in the same way as he advises the private sector to do so with their activities, in order to save money and move them to a place which is much more efficient? Will he or not? Perhaps he can give us an answer.
I asked a question of the Leader of the House yesterday. I asked whether he could tell me who will take the decision under the new so-called efficiency set-up about the decentralisation of the Civil Service? Will it be the new agencies or will the Government do it? Is it not important that we should have an answer to that question? It arouses much concern in the trade unions and among the people involved. Is it not important that we should have an answer to this question? Are the Government going to take those

889
decisions? If they are, will they tell us when they are going to take the decisions. If a decision is to be taken in regard to the decentralisation of the Civil Service, it must surely be taken before these proposals in the report which we considered yesterday are dealt with.
I suppose the point should have been made perhaps in the North of England, but I want to make the point that I am very concerned that people in the North of England do not realise the magnitude of the problems which they are about to face. Noble Lords have heard reference to the wishes or the thoughts of the noble Lord about the Channel Tunnel. I have mentioned the possibility of British Steel, within a single market, deciding that steel should be produced somewhere else.
I have mentioned the problems that Ford is facing in Britain now. Those seem to me to be leading inescapably to the conclusion that if Ford can get a better negotiating deal with the trade unions in the centre of that market it may well be that the expansion of Ford would not take place in the UK but that it would take place somewhere around Cologne. If we leave things to the free enterprise market of course that is a possibility. If that happens it would be tragic because the situation around Merseyside is already bad enough. If Ford goes, and possibly with it Vauxhall, the place will be decimated and will become a desert beyond destruction.
I have asked three questions. Perhaps the Minister will address those questions when he replies; or perhaps he will not. I have made that offer before without any effect. Perhaps the Minister will write to me and inform me whether the Government intend to do those things I mentioned. If they do intend to do those things, when will they do them? If they do not intend to do those things, will the Minister tell us plainly whether there will be a change in the distribution of civil servants in this country? If that is the case, what the Minister is in effect saying is that the rest of the country in a line from Bristol to the Wash will have a charge levied upon it in order to pay the London weighting for those civil servants. That is my 14 minutes up now.
1.31 p.m.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord at least on one point if on no other. I agree that this is a very wide-ranging White Paper. One could talk about many things, from restrictive practices to regional policy. But for my own part I should rather concentrate, as the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, did in a brilliant maiden speech, upon the principle involved here. This paper in some ways goes to the root of the relations between industry and the Government. It is part of the pattern which this Government have drawn up on how a government should conduct themselves in a free democratic society.
Governments have a number of options open to them. They can if they wish try to run the whole contraption, and some of them do. They can try to decide what is made, where it is made, who shall make it, where they shall make it and what they shall be paid. I remember as a young man I once had the opportunity of talking with Gosplan, which is a body
890
rather like General Motors. Gosplan was delighted to talk to me. It was as frank about its failures as about its successes. But in the course of time some doubts have arisen about the Russian system. Even Mr. Gorbachev today is seeking a few Thatcherite adjustments, if I may call them that, to try to achieve something a little better for the people who live in those territories.
Or one can fall a little short of that. One can go for the commanding heights of the economy, as it has been called. One can seek to control the steel, the coal, the transport and the communications. One can seek to tax, to borrow, to spend and to intervene in seeking to provide the necessities of life to all.
Certainly all of us in this House can claim —not just the Labour Party—that we have had a jolly good go at this one. There is nobody who has not had a go at it. We have called it consensus policies or the mixed economy. The Liberal Party has been in the thick of it. The Conservative Party is also tagging along to the best of its ability. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, that we have all been involved in the same kind of policies. Yet that control did not seem to work and does not seem a very popular option today.
Or we can try for the market. In the market economy the decision as to the main lines along which one goes is not in fact taken by governments. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is quite right. That decision is taken by thousands of individual decisions all over the market. People vote with their little purchases here and there in Marks and Spencers or the Co-op. They decide where the main effort will be made.
I think that your Lordships' House would agree that over recent years that method has chalked up quite a lot of successes. I shall not go into them now as I do not have the time, but that method is going rather well at the moment. That is the popular theory at the present time.
I should probably carry the Labour Party with me at any rate if I said that there were some snags even about that great system. Markets are not perfect. They can be abused by the employers. We have certainly heard some horror stories in the past few years about abuse by employers of the market system. I mention Guinness in this connection. Markets can be, largely scuppered by the trade unions. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, could tell us all about that. Markets can be discriminated against by local authorities. We were debating that issue the other day. They can be closed due to protection from overseas. Part of this debate will concern that matter. So there are plenty of snags about all systems.
I have never stood up in any assembly and claimed that there was a system that worked perfectly. But this is the system which will be tried for quite a number of years ahead. We are really embarked on the market economy. We are not debating whether or not we should have a market economy but what kind of pattern of government it should operate within. In that, more is involved than the DTI. The Treasury is involved, as are industrial relations and education. Education is the most important factor. The Foreign Office is involved as regards what happens in Europe. A vast number of departments are involved. But I

891
certainly agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, when he mentioned in a debate the other day that it was important to have a really powerful Department of Trade and Industry. He said that that department should be able to advise and supervise in this field.
I do not quite know what is said about the old Board of Trade, but I always felt that that was what it tried to do. I was very happy there. I stayed in the saddle there for six years, which is longer, I dare say, than many have been able to ride the Department of Trade and Industry. I wish the Minister every success in staying there for as long as I stayed in the Board of Trade.
I would say about this White Paper that I think in a way that its basic principles could have been written by any party in this House. If we are not going to have a communist society and we have abandoned looking after the commanding heights of the economy and trying to run the blooming thing ourselves, I think that most of us would have tried something along the lines that have been suggested in the paper. Let us not quarrel too much about it.
I remember so many old friends. I can picture Anthony Crosland giving us this kind of a policy as a new approach for an important role for government in a free society. Let us not quarrel too much about the principles that are involved in this. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, it is a bit more than window dressing and public relations.
To those who live in the DTI, it must look more like an earthquake. The department is moving from the large to the small, from the general to the particular and towards the ability to discriminate, if I may say so to the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, who made such an excellent speech. This sort of policy will enable him to work like MITI and like the French. Within the DTI there must be freedom to intervene with effect and not simply to spend money indiscriminately all over the shop. That does no good at all. I think it will actually help us to move in the direction which the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, rightly wants.
Perhaps I may make two further points. The first is about men and the second is about markets. As regards men, if we depend on the growth of small industries, the management of them has to be right. Only a fifth of our managers have degrees or special training at the present time, compared with 63 per cent. in Japan and 85 per cent. in the United States. It is not on. I pay tribute to the CBI for the steps which it has been taking in launching the Charter Group, which deserves support.
We are not only short of managers; we are short of artisans and skills. Above all, we are short of a spirit of enterprise. Mr. John Rae, an ex-head of Westminster School, who has not been an unqualified supporter of the Conservative Party, recently said, in speaking of the Education Bill, that its aims ought to be set out. He continued:
"The aims of British education are to develop the abilities of individual children so that they become independent-minded adults; to teach all children the skills and attitudes they will need to find employment and to contribute to national prosperity; and to ensure that all children understand the language, history and cultural values by which our society has been formed".
892
As regards markets, they must include Europe. I hope that we can agree on that, and also about one other thing. It is going to be no end of a battle to get into the Common Market in the way in which it should be done. Much of it is a closed shop at the present time. I remember, more than 30 years ago, as a young President of the Board of Trade, leading the negotiations for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and coming back to find the Conservative Party still wedded to imperial preferences. Perhaps I may say to the Labour Party that imperial preference is rather like Clause 4. It is crazy and out of date; nobody believes in it. But attacking it is something terrible to do. I was allowed to go and fight it at Blackpool at the party conference with the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, my Minister of State, beside me. And we won.
However, it is no good Bryan Gould saying that we must go back to that. We won that battle 30 years ago. We have to move forward. We must get into a new market which is as open and as free as the United States itself. My noble friend faces no end of a struggle in order to do that. This is a brave, good and ambitious paper and I wish it well.
1.45 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I join in welcoming the maiden speech which we have heard and particularly the distinguished speech of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph. He was typically thoughtful, analytical, persuasive and modest. It is a delight to welcome him.
However, I wish to raise some practical questions about regional policy financial incentives. I wish to speak particularly about attracting investment from Japan. As chairman until recently of Telford New Town, which is now a booming, self-confident city in the Midlands, I have been involved with a lot of companies in seeking government grants. I have been a frequent visitor to Japan. Next month, at the same time as the noble Lord, Lord Young, I shall be having my 14th visit in the last few years to Japan.
I should like to begin with a complaint about another part of the White Paper. I warmly welcome all the proposed help for small firms. But I feel particularly sad about Paragraph 6.12. It says that the small firms service of the Department of Employment will continue to be separate from the DTI services. The two now need to be combined. The noble Lord should have had a go at that. He should have been allowed to mould them into a more complete service for small companies.
The paragraph states that the work of the two departments will be closely co-ordinated. I wonder. In Telford, where the new DTI satellite office, mentioned in Paragraph 9.7, is sensibly being located in the new town corporation's offices, the Department of Employment is taking offices a mile away. Surely the noble Lord can achieve better co-ordination than that. It is not a good start. He knows how important a one-stop shop is for helping small companies.
I turn to the issue of regional development grants versus regional selective assistance—automatic grants in development areas versus discretionary grants over a wider area. The case for phasing out automatic grants is not overwhelming. In my view the

893
argument is finely balanced. First, as the Federation of Industrial Development Authorities—the 100 or so local authorities who have taken a special interest in economic development—points out, the certainty of grant is often most important for very small enterprises. I believe that the 1983 White Paper actually pointed to the importance which industry itself attaches to predictability in that matter. Indeed, some small companies are ill-equipped to go through the hoop of satisfying all the criteria required for selective assistance.
Secondly, as regards attracting foreign companies, let us always remember that other European companies anxious to attract a firm from the United States or from Japan will be offering automatic grants. Nevertheless, on balance I support the switch from development grants to selective assistance.
After my long experience in helping to regenerate the economy of the old East Shropshire coalfield that is now Telford New Town. I must remind your Lordships that no grants were available in the early years of Telford. It has only recently been made an assisted area and it is a good example of learning in that matter. However, the absence of grants did not stop hundreds of small firms from coming and starting up locally. Many of them are now outstanding success stories after continual growth. The development coporation in the local authority gave effective support. Perhaps local authorities should learn a lesson from that. They can do a great deal in helping small companies to get over teething problems.
The second reason for supporting the switch to RSA is that levels of unemployment, which are a good index of the need for extra financial incentives, have begun to even out between development areas and assisted areas. It is sometimes no longer fair that automatic grants should be available in development areas and not in assisted and often neighbouring areas with the same levels of unemployment. That again has been a Telford problem; firms recruited to Telford have been lured over the border into Wales to areas of similar unemployment by the prospect of automatic and more generous grants. I could give specific examples.
Thirdly, I think that it is true that UK industry is safely out of the recession and growing strongly and ought not now to need the automatic grants. Attracting footloose foreign countries can succeed quite well under selective assistance, as I shall illustrate in a moment in relation to companies from Japan. While I support the switch to selective assistance I must qualify that support by insisting that the noble Lord, Lord Young, should make the criteria for selective assistance clear, open and transparent. Only then can industry know where it stands.
For example, can he confirm that the present criteria will continue? Can he confirm that assistance will be given where a project brings new technology or helps to economise on imports—and as several noble Lords have said that is an important issue again now that our balance of payments is not quite so healthy—and that it is not simply available where there are heavy start-up grants and a project is less likely to go ahead without grant? Will equal weight be
894
given to all those criteria? They are desperately important, and I hope that the noble Lord will see that the criteria for RSA are now made more public and clear. There is no mention of them in the White Paper, it is all left rather vague.
In addition, will the noble Lord make sure that there will be adequate staff to process the selective assistance applications? It will need a lot more manpower in his offices than did the automatic grant system. We do not want long delays, frustration and sheer despair leading to cancellation of projects. I hope that we can have some assurances on that.
Now I come specifically to paragraph 7.10 dealing with internationally mobile projects. Learning to understand Japan, the Japanese and Japanese industry over the past 10 years by frequent visits and friendships with Japanese in the UK has been for me a rewarding and fascinating experience. I am proud of friendships with leaders and management of great Japanese companies. I appreciate the way in which they have enabled me to begin to understand Japanese industry and the reason for the extraordinary dynamism of their economy. It is good to have seen from my own experience that once established here they are good employers, great sponsors of the arts and sport and that the few staff that they bring (usually about a dozen in a factory employing hundreds) are happy and well received locally.
I hope that your Lordships understand and appreciate the emerging power of Japanese industry, which is illustrated by one figure alone. Early in the next century, on the basis of very modest growth rates, the Japanese gross national product will equal that of the whole of the EC countries put together, despite the fact that the population of Japan will be only one third of that of the EC. That dynamism will achieve that result, without any doubt in my mind whatever.
Of course Japanese industry knows that tariffs or quotas will be inevitable if its trade surplus continues. The Japanese Government are pressing their industry to set up overseas. Our job—and it has been my particular job in Telford—is to get a good share of that investment for Britain. The figures on the whole are encouraging. One third of the manufacturing investment by Japan in Europe has come to this country—about 60 companies. Eight of them are now in Telford, four of those on over 50 acres each and set to employ at the first stage over 2,500 people and indirectly, through purchasing of components in the Midlands, about as many again. They are expanding steadily with extra jobs, and now a second wave is beginning to arrive. Component suppliers are beginning to arrive to follow the great names like Hitachi-Maxell, NEC, Ricoh and Seiko Epson already in my own town of Telford. It is important that our town has attracted them by providing a full service—good quality campus sites in a fine environment, help with factory design, help with finding component suppliers, help with negotiating Government grants and work permits, and delivery on time of everything that we promise.
Looking ahead and thinking about RSA, the UK prospects are good. It is estimated that 2 per cent. of Japanese production now takes place overseas but

895
that this will rise to 10 per cent. in the 1990s. We have the dickens of a lot still to aim for.
RSA selective assistance has been vital in this process. In Telford something like £15 million in grants has attracted over £100 million in first stage Japanese investment. The grants were important for two reasons. First of all, the whole of Europe is competing for those investments and other countries are less reticent about grants than we are. In several cases within my experience it has always been a final choice of Telford or Düsseldorf.
Let us also remember that Japan is desperately new to this world role. A lot of my time in the past 10 years has been spent in gaining Japanese personal trust and confidence and assuring them of their welcome here. A government grant is seen as a visible recognition that they and their new technology are wanted here. Let me add the converse. Recent success stories make the Government start thinking that grants will now not be so necessary. I would respond quickly by saying that taking away grants will be seen in Japan as a sign to go elsewhere and that no more are wanted here.
In the light of that experience I welcome the assurance in paragraph 7.10 of the White Paper of no diminution in the availability of such grants. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Young, will stick firmly to that. I am glad that he is going to Tokyo in March. The annual Tokyo seminar on Telford—an important date in the calendar for hundreds of Japanese managers—will be taking place during his visit. I hope that he will drop in on it, as our Ambassador in Tokyo normally does, to see how we set about attracting investment to the UK. I hope that I shall have the pleasure of welcoming him there.
1.57 p.m.
Lord Nelson of Stafford: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the three maiden speakers today. It has been a pleasure to hear from them all and particularly from my noble friend Lord Joseph, who has contributed so much original thinking to our affairs over the years.
I also add my welcome to the many other ideas that have been put forward during speeches this afternoon, including the Secretary of State's new initiatives for the DTI outlined in the White Paper. We can all applaud his concern to promote wealth-creation and enterprise, both in industry and commerce. There is much in the White Paper with which I agree. However, I have one or two small concerns on the measures proposed and on some of the omissions. It would be helpful to clarify those in this debate.
Over the years in industry I have been deeply involved in overseas trade and have reason to praise the work of the Department of Trade and its predecessors, the Board of Trade. In many ways they have been of immense value to those of us who have been working overseas. I should like to be assured that this assistance will continue under the new White Paper as it has in the past.
896
The White Paper says that the DTI will change its structure:
"to give much greater emphasis to issues which will span all industry and commerce [and that] The existing industry divisions will be replaced by market divisions".
I hope that we can have today the Secretary of State's assurance that this will not weaken in any way the support given to our exporting companies overseas which has been so valuable in the past.
The White Paper also emphasises the desire to promote free and open markets. I do not criticise that aim but I hope that the department will constantly bear in mind that it is not a United Kingdom market but a world market with which we are concerned and that we shall be concerned after 1992 about operating in a free European market. So we are not only concerned about free and open markets; it is vital to ensure that they are fair markets.
There are good grounds for suspicion as to whether all national trading practices are always fair. I am all in favour of British industry looking after itself, but in many areas it is a matter for government to ensure that the conditions are fair and equitable for all. British industry needs to have confidence that it will be operating in a fair market at the same time as it is operating in a free and open market.
In the White Paper there is also reference to the promotion of small and medium-sized firms, which is admirable in itself and much to be applauded. I am chairman of a local enterprise board and give it every support. However, we must recognise that a large proportion of our overseas trade is gained through a relatively small number of firms, which are mainly large firms. I hope that in giving emphasis to the work of small firms, the department will continue to give every support to large firms in their efforts to secure overseas markets. Many of the small firms will be efficient and reliable sub-contractors and suppliers to large firms but they depend on those major contracts. If market penetration by major firms is to prosper it will require the continuing support of the DTI in the future just as in the past.
I very much welcome the reference in the White Paper to the need for everybody to be aware of the competitive position that will arise in 1992. That cannot be emphasised too much. I am delighted that the DTI is to mount a campaign to make everybody aware of the situation. That is necessary, because our overseas competitors are already very active in this field. In Europe, and in France particularly, governments and government agencies are actively promoting the restructuring and regrouping of their firms to ensure that they are in the strongest possible position to compete in the market. We must do the same.
I do not dissent from the Secretary of State's emphasis on the fact that this is up to firms and private enterprise. However, the DTI has a large role to play over this period in bringing together all the forces that are at work in this country which can influence the situation. I have in mind in particular the harnessing of our purchasing power to the promotion of our export industries, which was a point made earlier by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. That has not been done as well as it ought to have been in the past, but it must be done over the

897
next five years if our exporting industries are to be in a necessarily highly competitive position. That can only be done if the purchasers as well as the suppliers are involved in tackling the problem. I believe that it is a matter for the DTI and I hope that it will form part of its campaign.
My second group of concerns relates to research and development and on this subject I speak not only as an industrialist but also as a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology. Noble Lords will remember that in its report on civil R&D the Select Committee concluded that support by the DTI for civil R&D was inadequate and recommended that it should be increased. It also recommended that grants should be more specifically targeted and not spread too thinly.
In its report, Innovation in Transport, the Select Committee recommended that the DTI should give more support to joint projects involving both suppliers and users. The DTI's own technology requirement board in a report last July entitled Focus on Innovation recommended substantial increases in DTI support. The White Paper contains very little about that matter except to say that grants to individual firms will cease and support will shift to consultancy, technology transfer and collaborative research. Worthy as those three aims are, they are not identical. This country still needs support for specific R&D in carefully chosen fields. I ask the Secretary of State whether the recommendations that have been made by those bodies have been taken into account in arriving at the policy outlined in the White Paper.
On many occasions the Government have rightly emphasised the need for the private sector to increase its spend on research and development. That is also the view of the Select Committee. However, I cannot see anything in this White Paper which indicates how the DTI proposes to create a different climate in order to bring that about. In his opening remarks the Secretary of State said that the DTI should be a catalyst. I hope that it will continue to be such but I suggest that it needs to be an active catalyst in this field. I wonder how my noble friend the Secretary of State intends to change the atmosphere and encourage private companies to devote more of their investment to research and development.
Finally, I should like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the White Paper devotes one small paragraph to the subject of space, about which it says that no increase in expenditure is envisaged. The Select Committee recently studied this matter and issued a report on United Kingdom space policy. That report is to be debated at the end of March and therefore this is not the time to pursue the matter further. However, I should like simply to say to my noble friend that the committee was appalled by the Government's decision, announced on 10th February, not to participate in any of the European Space Agency's optional programmes.
Space is not just a research programme; it is a whole spectrum of new endeavour, stretching into the indefinite future. Your Lordships' committee believes that it was a grievous mistake to be out of this new field. This point will be made forcefully in the forthcoming debate. Meanwhile in conclusion, I would ask the Secretary of State this question. How
898
do the Government reconcile this decision with the declared intention in the White Paper to promote more collaboration in the research field, both on a national and a European level? Surely space must be an ideal field for such collaborative research.
2.8 p.m.
Lord Basnett: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel has said, there are issues in the White Paper that we can welcome. There are, however, silences within it that are most unwelcome. It is certainly the case that it is stronger on presentation than it is on detailed proposals.
However, it is a welcome sight to see the DTI being given more prominence and recovering some of the status that it has lost under this Government. I should like to think that the more prominent image of the DTI will be reflected in its policies—a recognition within government of the importance of trade and industry to our economic well-being. That remains to be seen, but it is against that measure that this White Paper should be judged.
The impression that many of us have of government policy is not solely the result of what Ministers have said; it arises out of the record. No one claims that what has happened to manufacturing industry since 1979 is simply the responsibility of the Government; but the facts are there. Our main competitors may have suffered from the recession after 1979 but only in the United Kingdom did it take until last year for manufacturing output to recover to its previous level. The fall in manufacturing employment over this period was faster than in any other industrial country, including Spain and Ireland as well as our more successful competitors in West Germany, the United States and Japan.
Although output has now recovered somewhat since 1983, and it would be foolish to deny that the economy is growing relatively fast, the central problem has become worse. The deficit on manufactured goods had reached £5·5 billion by 1986 compared with a surplus of the same size in 1980, and all the signs are that this gap is continuing to widen. Therefore, whatever else the current pace of growth is doing to our economy, it is not solving the underlying weakness of trade performance. The danger is that Britain is becoming locked into being a low pay, low productivity economy, unable to compete in the high technology sectors that offer the best prospects for export growth; and increasingly dependent on imports as the economy grows.
The challenge facing the Government is therefore to help Britain escape from this trap by designing policies to create real improvements in productivity over the long term. It is difficult to believe that the White Paper does that. It is difficult, not only because of what the White Paper tells us, but also because of what it does not tell us, especially if we wish to know what the policy means for industry in the regions. Certainly it appears reassuring when it tells us,
"The changes do not reduce the planned level of spending on regional industrial measures.".
But a planning total is not of course the same as actual spending.
The public expenditure White Paper is hardly more illuminating. Here we find that figures for regional

899
and national industrial assistance are presented together. Even if one makes generous assumptions about how these figures break down, it is clear that regional industrial support is set to fall over the next three years. If the Secretary of State can reassure the House that that will not happen, we shall welcome his reply. Indeed, I believe that we should be given more information about the meaning of the White Paper; not just its generalised rhetoric but hard facts about the amount of money which will be available and where it will go. We cannot judge these proposals unless we know whether the assistance will exist to support long-term investment in real productivity growth.
This is not merely a matter of throwing money at a problem; it is also about the way in which the money is spent. Many noble Lords have been concerned about the way in which automatic grants to industry have been awarded to large-scale projects which would have gone ahead in any event. Some of us would support the greater use of selectivity, but that begs the question of what will be the criteria for selectivity. Spending on regional development grants over the last year has been over £500 million, and that is by a considerable margin the largest element in total regional assistance. Regional selective assistance was less than one-quarter of the total.
If regional development grants are to be abolished, and the total is not to be reduced, there must be a large expansion of the selective scheme. If that is what the Secretary of State intends, he will find that there is a great deal of common ground. He will have created a powerful lever to promote industry in the development areas and in the country as a whole. However, our fear is that that is not what he intends and that selective assistance will remain more or less at its present level, used as an incentive to attract foreign investment but not the expansion of indigenous firms.
Our fear is also that, unless total spending is maintained, companies will not have the back-up to help them to implement the advice that they will be receiving through the consultancy initiatives. Improving performance in areas like manufacturing systems, design and marketing, is not merely a question of knowing what needs to be done; it also requires substantial investment, often over a long term. It would be a bitter disappointment for many companies to be told that they could receive advice from private consultants, while at the same time they were being told that they could no longer have the finance for implementation.
That is particularly the case as regards investment in research and innovation. The effects of the White Paper are easier to see in the area of innovation, but unfortunately what we see is not encouraging. Here again, it must be said that we are not told what the overall level of spending will be. The belief that, left to itself, industry will, or even should, finance its own research and development expenditure is simply not borne out by the facts. The Government are already cutting their expenditure on research and development but industry is not filling the gap. The CBI points out that industry-funded R&D accounts for a lower share of national wealth than is the case
900
with any of our major competitors, and that the pace of growth is a long way behind them all.
To become competitive we must achieve an increase in spending in absolute terms and, more importantly, achieve a rate of increase that is faster than our principal competitors. As a recent DTI report acknowledged, if that is not achieved, our industry will fail to match up to the degree of innovation of foreign companies in key areas such as electronics, telecommunications and information technology. It is in those areas of high technology—the growth industries of the future—that our economy will succeed or fail. They require very substantial increases in investment, innovation, training and new manufacturing systems. They require more than rhetoric about an enterprise culture and business dynanism. They require more than the White Paper.
2.20 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I do not believe that it is a criticism of my noble friend's White Paper that he has the presentation right. I believe it has been a criticism in the past of the present Government—certainly when I was a member of it—that our policies were splendid but our presentation was bloody awful, if I may coin a phrase. My noble friend clearly has the presentation right but I also applaud his philosophy and his priorities. I read this White Paper with growing enthusiasm.
I do not see it as a major change of direction. I see it as a change of emphasis. The major change of direction came under the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, when he became Secretary of State for Industry in 1979. Then there was a cultural revolution in Ashdown House. There has been a steady progression since then. However, I welcome the emphasis on open markets, on competition, on the promotion of enterprise, on the support for small and medium-sized businesses and on the more rational and effective support for regions and the inner cities, and I should like to say a word about each.
Before I do that, perhaps I may say to my noble friend the Secretary of State that when I held what was part of his present office I called the Department of Industry the listening department. He has a major role in talking to his colleagues in Whitehall and articulating to them the needs of business in those areas where they are responsible. I shall suggest one or two areas where perhaps he might do that.
On the question of open markets, my noble friend knows that I chair the United Kingdom Japan 2000 Group—the high-level non-governmental discussion group set up to try to improve relations and establish better contacts with Japan. I have been very grateful for my noble friend's encouragement and, indeed, that of the Government generally. Of course there have been trading difficulties with Japan. The trading relationship has not always been easy. There is a profound difference in the national ethos of the two countries, one of whom, ourselves, has always had the proud boast that Britishers can go into shops and buy goods from all over the world, and it has been a point of advertising by retailers that that is what they can offer. For a long time in Japan the consumer has

901
held very firmly to the ethos: why should he buy something foreign if his Japanese compatriots can provide something as good?
If anybody believes that that is still the view in Japan, I invite them to spend 90 minutes watching the contents of a Boeing 747 as it disgorges its Japanese passengers at Anchorage and watch what they do in the duty-free shops there. They will realise that they buy goods from Britain, America, France, Italy and indeed from every country and they go back to their plane laden. That is actually happening now in Japan. Their imports are rising strongly and British business has been one of the most successful at taking advantage of rising imports in Japan.
In his recent very successful visit to Japan the Foreign Secretary talked of a dynamic, plain-speaking partnership, and I support that. That is as true in trade as it is anywhere else. Sustained pressures and friendly persuasion should reinforce the very strong influences that now exist in Japan towards internationalisation. The Cable and Wireless saga is an excellent example of how the Government and the private sector between them overcame the resistance that was there. We are now seeing the same sort of thing happening in relation to Scotch whisky. However, one must avoid sudden spasms of ill-tempered anger and outburst because that is totally unproductive and absolutely undermines the efforts of our diplomatic representation in Tokyo, which is of a very high order indeed, and makes its task more difficult.
Our exports to Japan are now rising faster than anyone else's. There are huge opportunities, but there are obstacles. Language is an obstacle; distance and cost of travel is an obstacle. Why does it cost twice as much for a British businessman to fly to New York as it does for a New York businessman to fly to Tokyo? The answer is that there is competition between the American airlines but no competition on the air routes to Europe. I hope my noble friend will give me his support in seeking to secure lower air fares for travel to Tokyo.
There is science and technology collaboration, and my noble friend has been extremely supportive on how we can expand that with Japan. Much useful work has been done. In the area of competition, I warmly applaud the emphasis given in the White Paper and the resistance to all the wilder demands being made until recently. However, I direct my noble friend's attention to some very useful minor suggestions to deal with the merger problem. These are to be found in an article by Professor Mervyn King and Dr. Ailsa Roell in the current issue of the National westminster Bank Review. The Takeover Panel should have power to issue sanctions after the event and not merely before it. There should be a power to compel the disclosure of nominee shareholding. A company and its pension scheme if acting in concert should be treated as a concert party. They are minor, technical changes in the merger scene but they could restore a little more stability into what at one point looked like becoming a dangerous development.
On the question of promotion of enterprise, the schools are the most important target. I inherited from the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, an industry
902
education unit at the department. I doubled its budget and its staff because of the importance which I attached to it. To read in the White Paper of what more is being done is indeed encouraging. However, I identified one problem and I do not think the position is any better today than it was then. If industry is asked to make people available—for example, to serve on governing bodies or address school conferences—it tends to be old Joe who does not have anything much else to do; whereas it ought to be someone, probably in his late twenties or early thirties, who is rising up the ladder in marketing production or research and development and who can give from his immediate experience at a time in life when youngsters will identify with what he is saying.
I asked the CBI if it could use its influence to try to persuade companies to do that. Unfortunately, those are the very people who are hard pressed in running companies but they will have much the best impact in trying to inculcate the young at an impressionable age with the enterprise culture.
As regards support for small and medium-size enterprises, this White Paper has got it absolutely right. I very much welcome the greater emphasis on consultancies and I underline in particular the area of production engineering. So often it is in the straightforward production processes that one sometimes finds the biggest contrasts between the less up-to-date smaller companies and their competitors, both in this country and overseas.
Often, what is required in those companies is a change of style and philosophy. Recently I visited a factory where I serve on the board, which was full of JIT—just in time. One by one the production lines—and I apologise to your Lordships for the jargon—were being JIT'd. I was shown one that was in the process of JIT-ing. The language is coming in but the problem is that there are some people who find it extremely difficult to adapt. Some people at junior levels of management find it very difficult. I think consultancies may be necessary, and that process should be rather longer than the five to 15 days specified in the White Paper. It is sometimes quite a major psychological change and consultancy takes longer. The management may feel that it needs more help.
Perhaps I may say a few words concerning the changes in regional policy about which many noble Lords have spoken. My noble friend has succeeded where I have failed. I tried to persuade colleagues that it would make sense to concentrate regional aid by giving a regional dimension to enterprise policies and to pay for them by phasing out the automatic regional development grants. I was rebuffed. Perhaps the time was not right. It was certainly at a time when unemployment in the regions was still rising and it would have been very difficult perhaps for Scottish and Welsh colleagues to have defended such a policy. Unemployment is now falling strongly in these areas and conditions are much more favourable.
I sometimes wonder how much better the regions would have fared over the past five years if I had been successful and able to channel the regional aid and the amounts available in a more selective way, as my noble friend is now proposing, rather than paying

903
very large sums in automatic regional development grants. Some arguments have been used to attack the proposals in the White Paper which I find very strange indeed. I read of a debate in another place where it was remarked that it would have been impossible to persuade Nissan to come to settle here without automatic regional development grants. It was said that it would not have wanted to sit down and try to persuade the department that such an investment was a desirable investment. All I can say is that such a person could not have spent the two and a half years that I spent in negotiating with the Nissan company, both in Tokyo and here, and with successive managers. We negotiated in great detail the terms of selective assistance and issues such as local content and a number of other matters. It is a matter of some pride that Nissan is now the largest single Japanese investment in Europe and it is expanding rapidly. It is bringing literally thousands of jobs to Washington and the North East.
Let us look at the subject rationally as the noble Lords, Lord Northfield and Lord Basnett, and others, have done. It may be an evenly-balanced argument but I believe that the right decision has been made. The issue of supporting the cities in this context is right.
Perhaps I may end with one niggle which I hope my noble friend will take back and consider. I have been helping a small company called Initiative Development Ltd, which has created the concept of an enterprise development centre. There is the idea of converting a large disused mill. It goes further than many of these schemes have done. It will require both public and private input. It will provide management guidance and the kind of consultancies which the White Paper talks about. It will provide financial support for businesses in terms of help with equity capital or loan capital. This is going beyond what most other people have done. It will require a partnership between the public and private sector including my noble friend's department, the Department of the Environment and the Manpower Services Commission, or the "Training Commission" as it will be known. It will require the private sector in terms of the initiator, financial advice and management. It will also provide most of the capital.
The mechanisms exist in the regions to do this. There are CATs—city action teams—and there are taskforces where three departments can sit around at a table and a project can be stitched together. The private and the public sector can work in partnership. But those CATs and taskforces cannot authorise the money. That question goes to Whitehall. The impression of those who are trying to bring this project to fruition is that at that point it disappears into a bureaucratic black hole.
Co-ordination exists in the regions but it still does not exist in Whitehall. I had hoped that my noble friend's fellow Minister, Mr. Clarke, would have the authority to pull this scheme together at the national level. One understands, however, that his role is primarily one of presenting the inner city initiatives and selling the concepts around the country. He does that extremely well. I had thought that perhaps the Cabinet Office unit headed by the civil servant who
904
was an extremely effective head of the Liverpool and Merseyside taskforce when I was with the Department of the Environment would be able to do the same. However, if someone is wanting for an enterprise development centre, an urban development grant from the Department of the Environment, a Section 7 grant from the DTI, and training help from the MSC, I have to say that the perception is that there is nowhere where that can be brought together and a decision can be made quickly. It seems to me that with the emphasis which this White Paper places on partnership both within Whitehall and between government and the private sector, this is still lacking. I hope my noble friend may be able to give the matter some attention.
That is what I described as a niggle. I think that this is an extremely good and very encouraging White Paper and I wish my noble friend well.
2.36 p.m.
Lord Russell of Liverpool: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the Minister for giving us the opportunity to debate this most promising and potentially far-reaching statement of DTI policy. I must apologise to the House for not being present at the start of the debate owing to an unforeseen and regrettably unavoidable business commitment. I shall not speak for long. I crave the indulgence of the House should I unwittingly repeat what other noble Lords may have said rather better than myself.
I should like to address myself to Chapter V of the White Paper and the subject of management education. I should declare an interest in this matter as a member of the advisory council of the Association of MBAs, until recently known as the Business Graduates Association.
Management education has recently enjoyed a degree of public attention and interest that last appeared in the white heat of the technological 1960s. Reports such as that of Professor Handy, which is mentioned in paragraph 5(2) of the White Paper, have confirmed that we British, as ever, do things rather differently to our major competitors. The statistics make for dismal reading. Only 7 per cent. of our 2.5 million managers have a degree. Only 2 per cent. have any kind of management qualification. Many reasons have been put forward for these uncomfortable facts. Two reasons are I think peculiarly our own.
First, there is the belief still widely held in this country that higher education stops at the age of 21 and that time spent on further education in the workplace is a nice soft option and a form of skiving off from the real task of day-to-day business. Secondly, there is the belief of British businesses in trial and error as the best means of management education. Yes, you may learn, but at what needless and avoidable cost on the way.
I recently had the privilege of addressing 400 sixth-formers on the subject of the challenges and intellectual stimuli that industry could offer. My main advice to them was to look behind the slick facade of companies involved in graduate recruitment and to ask those companies hard and perhaps discomforting questions about what could happen during their subsequent careers.

905
The real challenge that companies face is not in the attraction of good people but in their retention. Some companies are way ahead of others. IBM spends £2 billion annually on worldwide employee education. Other companies are content to let others do the training and survive by enticing managers from their more enlightened competitors. Most companies are somewhere in the middle, feeling their way step by step, unable to adjust their relatively short-term focus to make the large-scale, long-term commitment required to make management development successful and self-regenerating.
The publication yesterday of the paper entitled Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps by the Prime Minister's Efficiency Unit is most timely. May I ask the Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that the department for enterprise is fully committed to the spreading of a management development culture internally? With the advent of a single European market in 1992, what steps is the department taking to ensure that its senior staff are fully conversant with the dynamics of international competition? Are internal management development courses either in place or being considered in order to enhance both the department's management of its own affairs and the type and quality of advice that it gives to the business community at large?
I mentioned that I had advised sixth formers to ask awkward questions of prospective employers. Could I entreat the Minister, his colleagues and his department to do the same? Regrettably, many companies still place management development low in their list of priorities.
We are a small, crowded island, possessed of limited natural resources and a long and distinguished history that sometimes seems to threaten to suffocate us. We have to live by our wits and our skills. We have no divine right to continue to enjoy a standard of living in the top quartile of the OECD index. We need people: trained, motivated people.
Could the Minister undertake to ask those awkward questions about management development of companies emphatically and regularly? I know that if I were subjected to close questioning by the noble Lord it would most definitely concentrate my mind and I anticipate that it might have the same effect in a great many boardrooms across the country.
2.42 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, one of the great advantges of being the 17th speaker in, if I may say so, the general list of speakers—the general list of course being headed by the great and the good, including my noble friend the Secretary of State and the noble Lord, Lord Williams—is that one can luxuriate in the pearls of wisdom that fall from the lips of those who know better than oneself. On the other hand, it gives one the advantage of being able to pick from the basket of goodies those points that one wished one had written into one's draft speech, had failed to do but would like to underline. Therefore in effect one gets the best of both worlds.
The first of the goodies I should like to pick out of this basket is the only one, I am sad to tell the noble
906
Viscount, Lord Chandos, upon which I agreed with him. That was his plea that we should have a further and perhaps a narrowly self-centred look at our public purchasing policy. I believe that that matter was also underlined by my noble friend Lord Nelson. It really is no good, talking in terms of competition, to say that the cheapest shall prevail. In my experience there is very little that is cheap in this world: most things are expensive although some are less expensive. It is not always best in the long term to pick the less expensive, and I think that sometimes we look too shortsightedly at the effects of such a policy.
The next plum I should like to pick out the basket was first referred to by my noble friend Lord Joseph in, if he will allow me to say so, a most admirable maiden speech about industry and the teacher-link. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding reminded us, it was my noble friend Lord Joseph who set up the industry education unit in the Department of Trade and Industry. That was a unit with which, in the short time I was there, I had a lot to do in relation to Industry Year. The enterprise shown by the RSA and the department in fostering Industry Year is spelt out even further in the White Paper.
The tragedy was that industry always grumbled that education did not provide it with the right type of graduate or person, and education then asked, "How do we know what you want unless you tell us?" I thought a lot about that matter and talked to many people while I was working in the department. Sadly, I found that it was industry which could not identify what it would need, so how could academia provide it? I think that we should, in the words of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, look further into the matter, start deeper and work faster.
I should now like to dip into the basket of my noble friend Lord Oxfuird. He made what I thought was another splendid speech, and one which I understood, in which he dealt with overseas trade. When I was a travelling Minister, I felt that we missed out badly in the garnering of knowledge. We have commercial officers, both men and women, and very good most of them are. We are currently employing more what we call "locally engaged officers", who do not come within the traditional ambit of Whitehall. They are, I suppose, more free-wheeling. It might be better if we were to encourage a greater use of overseas chambers of trade and commerce. When I travelled around, one found them from Aberdeen to Accra and from Chelmsford to Chittagong. Many of those organisations have expatriates in their membership. Far greater use of their knowledge could be made.
Another tragedy was that commercial officers had to subscribe to the export intelligence service. That always seemed to me to be a numbers game. Foreign Office inspectors would require to see that a post sent back 150 notices per month, per quarter, or whatever. They were disseminated in Eastcote and sent out to the "10-bob" subscribers. I should like to get rid of that system. It would be a good idea if the export intelligence service was transferred to the private sector, where those who provide the lead share the reward of a successful sale. Only the private sector can adequately relate those two aspects.

907
The noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, as he usually does, amused us with his speech. But of course he always has two or three major points. He spoke about his six years at the Board of Trade and said that he hoped that our noble friend the Secretary of State would stay in that position longer. However, that is where I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft. I hope that my noble friend does not stay at the Board of Trade—the British Overseas Trade Board as it is now called. That department should be totally divorced from the Department of Trade and Industry.
I think this is one of the subject areas which came within the speech which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made yesterday on the Civil Service. Split it away from the umbrella of the department, where there are both the assistant secretary in the department and the boss man of BOTB. What a clash, what a conflict of interest! It is now headed by a businessman, it is mostly subscribed to by businessmen, it is run by businessmen freely, therefore free it entirely from government. It has a pittance of an allowance, it has to make three times its allowance from government even to survive. Set it free to do its real job, harness it with the British chambers of trade and the overseas chambers, and let it go.
Lastly, seriously addressing myself to the White Paper, which I welcome, I am glad to see the change in the regional development grant because my experience taught me that in very few instances was a potential overseas investor concerned with the amount of grant. That was a little bit of icing on the cake. The investor was mainly concerned with the stability of labour and the stability of government policy which would enable him to make his investment and look for a long, long-term return. So the automaticity or the abolition of the grant is something which I very much welcome.
I think we can do very much better with selective assistance. If that selective assistance is identified in the wider network of regional DTI offices, all to the good. I would ask my noble friend whether he will ensure that the regional directors have such a degree of responsibility as to attach their fingers to the purse-strings and loosen them when they see it as appropriate rather than having to make a back-referral. Even though we have what is. I think, spelled out in the White Paper—that there will be criteria to which industry can address itself and by which it can measure itself —at the end of the day somebody, somewhere, probably back in Whitehall, will assess that company's measurement against the criteria. Who better to do this than the director on the spot?
I broadly welcome the White Paper. There is much to be fleshed out and I hope that before too long we shall see some of the flesh put on some of the bones in the White Paper which spell action.
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am very glad to be able to say, as is not altogether common from these Benches, that there is much in the White Paper to which we can wholeheartedly give our support. This has been said on all sides today, which must be no
908
small relief to the Secretary of State, who is not always received in this very enthusiastic manner. Well, "enthusiastic" is perhaps overdoing it!
First and foremost I should like to say how glad we are that we have the wholehearted support of the noble Lord for genuine competition and open markets. That is one of the many changes which has gone on inside the Conservative Party which we from these Benches very much welcome. We can also give our support to the changes in relation to regional grants. I think there can be no doubt that some of that money at any rate was not used in the most useful way. The idea of selectivity, provided it is done properly and provided, above all else, that it does not involve cutting down the amount of money which is available, is something with which we would at least like to experiment. As other noble Lords have said, it is something to which we can give at any rate a provisional welcome. We shall watch with great interest to see how this develops, but it seems to us to be a movement in the right direction.
Here too we would especially welcome the wholehearted support of the Secretary of State for the development of the single market. We would also welcome his understanding—although he has not elaborated on this today but it came through in what he was saying—of the very considerable changes that are required if we are to make a success of the single market and his understanding of the extreme importance for this country that we should make a success of it.
The noble Lord would not accuse me of indulging in flattery towards him as a rule but I think that he probably has been the spearhead of dragging his Gaullist colleagues into a state of relative enthusiasm for the single market. I shall not expect him to comment on that, but to the extent that it is true I should very much like to compliment him. There seems to me no doubt at all that we have a great opportunity to go forward but we shall sink back further if we do not take full advantage of the single market and the developments which we expect in 1992.
That said, it would surprise the noble Lord even more if I did not say that I have certain reservations and questions that I want to put to him. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I regret that the White Paper does not deal with the central questions of the balance of payments and the growing volume of imports. I know that one could make certain comments to modify that criticism but the fact remains that we are in a serious balance of payments position, that we cannot just ignore it and that with the decline of North Sea oil unless action is taken our balance of payments is likely to get more serious and not to get better. It will not right itself without action.
We on these Benches believe, as does the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and as of course your Lordships' Committee on Overseas Trade stressed three years ago and repeatedly since, that one cannot have a prosperous future for this country without restoring not necessarily the same manufacturing industry but a manufacturing base.
But that requires the backing in research and in development money of key industries particularly in the information technology area. It requires the

909
encouragement of private investment—the message there is perhaps more for the Chancellor of the Exchequer than for the Secretary of State for Trade —and also public investment in the development of the right kind of infrastructure. Manufacturing industry cannot in fact prosper without proper infrastructure support, both physical infrastructure in roads, railways, airports and so on and also in education and training, to which I shall return in a few moments.
That whole area, as we see it, is inadequately dealt with. I know that the Secretary of State will say that this is all very old fashioned business and that we are moving away from the manufacturing base into the service sector. But I put it to the noble Lord—and I should like a better answer to this than I received when I raised the matter a few weeks ago—whether he agrees that it is now very out of date to make this sharp distinction between manufacturing industry and the service sector and that a great many of what we call service jobs exist only because of the manufacturing sector. When I asked how many of the newly created service industries are dependent on successful manufacturing industries, I was told that there was no statistical information to answer that question. There is no statistical information to give any idea of how much the advance in services rests on a continuing success in manufacturing and how many so-called service jobs are in that part of the economy which is producing manufactured goods for overseas trade. That is what matters.
Apparently we do not have that information. But we should stop making what seems to me the very false distinction between manufacturing and services and think instead about added value and the extent to which particular kinds of production contribute to our increase in the share of world trade. Those are the questions which we need to have answered. Perhaps the terms of the discussion in the past have concealed what the important question is.
When it comes to competition I hope that the Secretary of State will follow through his assertions of support for competition in the whole area of privatisation. It seems to us that sometimes the Government have spoken with two voices in their enthusiasm for competition in general but when it comes to privatisation, particularly in British Gas, British Telecom or in certain aspects of the airways, their devotion to competition has been less than 100 per cent., to put it mildly. I do not know. It is possible that the noble Lord may even have fought a battle in order to ensure that that was not so. If he did, may there be more power to his elbow and may he return to the fray.
I want to concentrate on one other point in particular. I wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has said with regard to the number of departments represented at local level. Particularly when those departments are dealing with related problems, they can be very confusing to people who are actually trying to do the job. Only yesterday a very hard-pressed director of a local chamber of commerce, operating in a particularly difficult area of the country, said to me that the number of different government departments that were promoting the entirely worthy business of the relationship between
910
schools and industry was driving them absolutely mad. Different people were going to the same schools and asking for the same kind of things to be done.
Developing links between industry and education is something of which we are all in favour. But it would help if the Government could see the development of the one-stop shop about which we have all spoken. I recognise the difficulties but I think that the Minister could look rather more closely at co-ordination at local level so that it is easier for local people to find out where to go, and, when they have gone there. to get an answer so that they can get on with the job. That would be very helpful indeed.
In the few minutes remaining I should like to put some emphasis on education and training. Of course we are all in favour of education and preparing people for the world of work. I think we have to remember—perhaps we shall discuss the matter further when we discuss the Education Bill—that although that is a very important purpose of education, it can never be the sole or even the primary purpose. Education needs to turn out difficult, awkward people who ask difficult, awkward questions and who do not fit smoothly into the established ways of working.
If (as I believe he is in his heart) the Secretary of State is a person who wishes to break up established ways of doing things, bring in new ideas and let in fresh air, then we must get the people who are not trained to conform. We need well-trained, vigorous and non-conformist people such as those who in the past have contributed so much to the development of industry and who do not like things the way they are. An education system which is too devoted to thinking about how we make the economy work better is not an education system which produces that kind of person whom we so badly need.
I very much endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has said about management development. We are very much behind in this country. There is no doubt about that at all. That is a matter on which we could have a debate in its own right. However, I think it is worth saying that it is true that in too many cases universities and institutions which have taken on teaching in that area have simply tried to develop their work along the traditional lines of universities. Moreover, they have seen their success in producing learned articles rather than in focusing the talents that they have in interdisciplinary work in order to tackle the problems of management and management training. If that had been what was wanted, it would have been better to have put the money into the universities and told them to get on with it. Those should have been quite different kinds of institutions, of equal status, but different in the way in which they worked and the way in which they rewarded people. By and large they are not; there is a whole area of work to be looked at there.
As regards training, I should like to make two points. The White Paper talks about consultancies and tells us the areas in which they are to exist—marketing, design and so on. That is all very well. But nowhere is there any mention of consultancy in that whole area which deals with the effective use and development of people.

911
All that will break down unless the proper recruitment and training of people is undertaken. A great deal has to be done in-house. It has to be done inside enterprises by people who understand how to develop internal training schemes. That is not done easily. In industry as a whole the number of people who can make a proper analysis of training needs and on the basis of that analysis, develop and implement a training programme is not very large. They are very skilled people. I urge the Minister to look again to see whether he ought not to designate an area of consultancy to be provided by the people who are able to deal with the whole aspect of the development of staff inside enterprises.
Finally, we have talked a great deal, and rightly, about the money that should be devoted and the help that should be given to the black spots in our economy. Perhaps I may suggest that we are also approaching a problem in our white spots—if that is the opposite of black spots—and that there is a strong case for reinforcing success. I talk from experience of one area, Buckinghamshire, with which I am connected, in which the unemployment rate is now below 5 per cent. There are unfilled vacancies in high-tech jobs, and not only high-tech jobs, but it is not possible to bring people in from outside because the cost of a roof over one's head in Buckinghamshire is impossibly high; and there are still unemployed people. I believe that with intensive modern training methods one could convert some of the presently unemployed people—some of them women, blacks and long-term unemployed—to fill the vacancies.
We need experimental training work, backed by resources, in the areas in which that position has been reached. It is not the kind of grant or support which would be appropriate or available for the country as a whole. However, where the position that we have in Buckingham has been reached, there is surely a case for experimental work along those lines. Contrary to what I am constantly being told by both my management and trade union friends, that it takes years and years, I do not believe any such thing to be true; nor do I believe does the Secretary of State. I should love him to provide the opportunity to see whether some remarkable acts of conversion could not be achieved if the money and the resources were made availble.
3.8 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I too may start by congratulating the noble Lords, Lord Joseph and Lord Stevens of Ludgate, and the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, on their maiden speeches. I do not say that merely as part of the normal courtesies of your Lordships' House. I could not flatter them more than to say that I wish that their speeches were not maiden speeches so that I could respond in my more usual controversial and acerbic fashion. Suffice it to say that I look forward to more such opportunities in the future.
This has been a very good debate. It is a pity that it has not been attended by more of our colleagues. For those who are keen on the market mechanism perhaps we ought to have a differential Friday
912
afternoon attendance allowance that would attract more noble Lords.
We are certainly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for introducing the White Paper. It is an important document, whether one agrees with it or not. It sets the agenda, or one might say that it sets the battle lines. I do not believe that our differences on this matter are trivial, and therefore I welcome the chance this afternoon to comment on some of the points on which I disagree with the Minister and with other noble Lords.
Before doing so perhaps I may utter one word of apology. I shall not cover to any great degree the enormously important material in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 on business education. That is not out of discourtesy to the noble Lord and his department or because I feel that the matter is unimportant. However, perhaps if I may trail my own forthcoming debate in three weeks' time, I shall be introducing a debate on business education and I prefer to retain my more detailed contributions until then.
However, I should like to make in passing three points on business education as it is at the moment. I agree of course with the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and other noble Lords on how fundamentally important it is, but the first point that I wish to make is that it is in connection with exports that foreign language tuition at all levels—schools, higher education and training—is so enormously important. It has been so throughout our history and so it must remain. As regards foreign language tuition this country has failed. When I am abroad it is a source of constant embarrassment to me to discover that virtually none of my business colleagues has even the beginnings of an idea of how to converse in any language at all other than his own. What is even more embarrassing is that they not only cannot speak a foreign language, but they have no sense that they ought to be able to do so. That is an important point to which I shall return later.
Secondly, I agree that there is a problem in the relationship between education and business. However I must emphasise that the problem is two-sided. I have spent a great deal of my academic career in trying to persuade first-class students to go into manufacturing industry and even more in trying to persuade manufacturing industry to recruit first-class students, who can be particularly difficult people. When young they tend to be sensitive and require to be coaxed; they do not wish to be told that they are useless and worthless until they have had some shopfloor experience. I agree with the noble Baroness. Lady Seear, that this is a fundamental problem which must be looked at. If we are to move forward on this matter, industry itself has at least as big a role to play as has the education system.
My third point relates to a matter that was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and again I hope to be able to build upon it in a few weeks' time. I am most concerned that so much of our business education seems to be business education for foreign businessmen. We are actually rather good at providing it and they are very keen to buy the product. But we do not seem to have anything like the resources required to persuade our own people to buy

913
our own product. Again, that is a matter that I shall return to later.
I turn now to the opening part of the report. I must say that in so far as it is meant to be a genuine history or an account of our experience I find the first part of the-document absurd beyond belief. I think that it is a travesty of history. If officials at the Department of Trade do not know anything about the economic history of our country, then our education system is an even bigger failure than I thought it was. However, even if they do not know anything of that history, they might at least apply a little logic. In dating the decline of our fortunes from 1870, they should realise that that period was when free trade was in its heyday. If that is supposed to be the critically wrong time, the decline cannot be put down to statism, corporatism or other philosophies of that kind.
Having listened as I always do with enormous pleasure to the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, en passant I suppose that perhaps I remain a statist, a corporatist and all those things which we are supposed to have learned were erroneous attitudes in the past. In particular I was most interested in his reference to the late Tony Crosland. I ought to say that I remain a Croslandite. I believe that The Future of Socialism is a truly great work of analysis of our problems and, mutatis mutandis, I still hold that view today. It is not true that we have all changed our minds. Some of us have a kind of consistency of thought, even though we try to adapt it to new circumstances.
I turn now to competition policy. On this subject the Secretary of State lost me somewhat but I may not have been paying enough attention to what he said about all the different papers that will appear. It seems that we shall have a White Paper, a Green Paper and a working paper. It seems to me that that would make a very good examination question: define a White Paper, a Green Paper and a working paper and explain why particular problems go into particular areas. As I understand it, we shall be addressed on the subject of deregulation, on competition and on restrictive trade practices in separate White Papers. I find that a bit odd. I cannot see why we do not have those topics all in one major paper that we could debate.
However, there is a key question. The area of competition policy seems to me to be highly controversial. It is controversial because it is a very difficult subject but it is not all that political. We could disagree but not have a political row. It is simply a different judgment of how we think markets work and could be made to work.
In that connection I must ask the Minister, in view of all the papers that he intends to publish, why will he not publish the Liesner Report, which was the report that investigated the current state of competition policy and related matters in his department. Knowing the people involved. I think that this report will be of the highest standard. It may well lead to controversy, but it is controversy that we, and more particularly the Secretary of State, could afford to have and would wish to encourage.
I am a little concerned that the key document that I should like to read—I hasten to tell the noble Lord that I have not seen it; it has not been leaked to me;
914
I wish it had—has not been made available to us. I am concerned as someone who works in this field.
Speaking more generally on competition policy, it is very difficult to contribute this afternoon because we are waiting for the relevant papers. One lacks some specific detail. For example, it is not certain how merger policy will work from now on. I go back to the standard point. I believe that the subject has been investigated at great length. It is not the case that mergers on the whole are beneficial to British industry. We have the even bigger paradox that mergers do not seem to be beneficial to the merged firms themselves. Despite all the arguments about businessmen knowing best, it seems to me that one ought to a considerable extent to be strengthening methods to enable companies not to choose mergers as the way out of their difficulties, but to reinforce the good forces within the companies as the correct method.
I should therefore like to see a greater attempt to resist mergers. I should like to see it made much harder to accept mergers. In particular, I should like to see the position changed in two ways. The first is the way which the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, mentioned and which many of us have argued for some time. Indeed, many experts in the field, whose political persuasions are on the other side of the House, also believe this; namely, that the burden of proof should change. It should be a requirement that one can demonstrate advantages in a merger. I go further. In the case of some mergers I should like to see a requirement that any advantage can be shown, let alone a net principle.
The other matter that concerns me on competition policy generally, and mergers in particular, is that the regulations, or law—whichever is relevant here—should change so that all interested parties should have rights of intervention when evidence is given. I refer to the rights of consumers, and those who represent consumers, to be called in at an early stage to say what they think.
In that connection perhaps I may say this. Others have commented on the good parts of the White Paper; I shall concentrate almost entirely on the parts with which I disagree. I feel that we could have had rather more in the document on the role of the consumer, the importance of the consumer, consumer protection, and so on. I do not wish to bore the House excessively with the words of Adam Smith, but it is the consumer interest that must always lie behind all industry and all enterprise. We cannot take that factor for granted. It has to be spelt out. I should have liked to hear a little more from the Secretary of State on that issue.
The document refers to some of the achievements of open markets and competition. En passant, I am a little puzzled about where the expression "open markets" has suddenly emerged from. This is new terminology in this area. Since I teach the subject, and have been researching it for a great many years, I am delighted that a new expression has come in. It will be grist to the mill of academics who will be able to set many academic questions such as, "Distinguish open markets from free markets from perfect markets. State what contribution the noble Lord, Lord Young, has made in this field". However, I should like to know whether any specific meaning is

915
to be attached to open markets as compared with markets or competitive markets.
In paragraph 2.30, with reference to achievements, there are two matters that I should like to emphasise. The Government refer to the telecommunications market, mobile telephones, and so on. This point has nothing to do with fundamental issues, but as I read the advertisements in the Sunday newspapers I am bothered by the enormously high cost of mobile telephones. The prices of them are so enormously high that although there are experts present I cannot but believe that they are excessive relative to cost. I am not certain that we should wish to see every noble Lord walking around these precincts with a mobile telephone in his pocket. However, I consider that a good test of whether there has been a great achievement in the area will be when mobile telephones are at least as cheap as "walkmen" or "walkpersons".
I mention it as a theoretical point but I am intrigued by the achievement on copyright and so forth. We have ploughed through the Bill already and are about to plough through it again. I cannot hesitate to draw the attention of noble Lords to the most peculiar doctrinal characteristic of the copyright area. It is the fact that it grants a monopoly and it is the area where the conversion of monopoly is somehow good. I cannot resist making that point and arguing that I believe we have gone as far as we should in that area and may well be granting too much monopoly.
Time is running out and I know that all noble Lords are desperately hoping for an early tea. I should now like to deal with the opening of markets in Europe. I welcome the move in that direction and strongly hope that the Department of Trade and Industry will do all that it can to prepare businessmen and the public at large for that entry. My experience is that most people have appreciated neither the fact that it will happen nor its significance. That will be a major problem if a large shock is not suddenly to hit delicate sectors of our economy.
I should like to make a trivial remark and say that I strongly believe in free trade and free competition where they are appropriate. However, I believe that there is a kind of symmetry. With respect to Europe, I and several other noble Lords are worried by the fact that, with our traditions, we shall be involved in the opening up of Europe in a naive way. We shall be opening up markets here while they, in one way or another, covertly and subtly, will be closing their markets to us. That is a matter of great worry.
I refer particularly to financial markets—a subject that I have raised before—where overwhelmingly this country has a comparative advantage. We should undoubtedly be the main provider of financial services to the rest of Europe on free competitive grounds. Whatever it says about the opening of the markets, the real question is whether the rest of Europe will let us capture its markets, and that is an important question. I say en passant that I am always a little struck by the contradictions in the opening up of markets, particularly in industry, and of the continuation of the common agricultural policy, which is a continuing insult to any concept not merely
916
of market forces but of efficient allocation of resources in any form. I say that although I know that regretfully it is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
I should now like to deal briefly with regional policy. Like many other noble Lords, I am on the margin and I want regional policy to work. It is enormously important that the regional matter is taken seriously. I argue, as have others, that the regional problem is one for both the successful and the unsuccessful. It is as important for us in the South, where labour is scarce, that the North and other areas should develop as it is for them. The two areas have a certain jointness and if the economy is to run into inflationary constraints—we may return to this subject at other times—we shall see an inflation developing in the South-East which may hold back policy and cause the North to suffer. That is one of the reasons regional policy is important.
If selectivity works, that is fine; I have no argument either way. If selectivity can be demonstrated, I should be happy with it, but I should like to make three points. First, I do not see how the policy will work without a considerable commitment to public spending. In particular I fail to see how the policy can work without a commitment to infrastructure and training and all such matters. I also add—and I do not do this simply to annoy the Secretary of State, although I never hesitate to do so when I have the opportunity—that one thing about selective policy as opposed to other forms of policy is that I should have thought that it would be more bureaucratic. It includes a closer scrutiny of all the relevant matters and it seems to me that it would involve more rather than less civil service activity, and I ask whether that is fully appreciated.
However, subject to those points, I keep an open mind. If, in a couple of years when we come to look at what has been achieved, the policy has achieved more, I shall say, "Congratulations", to the Secretary of State, but if it has achieved less, then I shall say, "You ought to show a similar open-mindness and move in that direction". I say a couple of years because I do not suppose there will be a general election for another three years.
Perhaps I may conclude with two other matters in what of necessity has to be a rather rushed response. A great deal has been said about R&D. I am bound to say that I still feel that the Government in general and the Department of Trade and Industry in particular have not appreciated the importance of that problem and I do not believe that we are doing remotely enough. I have said this before in debates and will continue to do so. I do not believe that it is naive nationalism on my part that makes me upset when I read in the newspapers that we are not in advanced electronics any more because we cannot afford it; we will not be at the forefront of space research because we cannot afford it; we will not be in the forefront of micro biology and its relevant matters because we cannot afford it. To put it differently, positively what I wish to see more and more is the Government giving the kind of support to industry—of course industry has to do it and I am not saying that the Government can do it—on a much larger scale. In other words, there should not be a budget constraint on this matter.

917
Before coming to my final remarks on the balance of payments and such matters, let me say that one should not be deluded by the rhetoric of some of our foreign competitors. They often talk as if they do not believe in government intervention. An outstanding example is the United States of America, which portrays itself as an economy dominated by unassisted private enterprise in which the government keeps at arms length, whereas nothing could be further from the truth. The United States economy and in particular its business economy is fundamentally underpinned by American procurement policy, public expenditure policy and matters of that sort. I should certainly like to see the department led by the noble Lord pursuing at least as ruthless support for our industry as the Americans show for theirs.
Perhaps I may conclude by referring to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Williams in his speech essentially to say— and I do not think that the Secretary of State will disagree—that we must take a very long view here. We are concerned about the whole future of our country but in particular we arc concerned with what our country will produce and sell when North Sea oil runs out. What will happen then? We see now the very first signs that there are problems ahead. The balance of trade figures—and I am not one of those who say that we should look only at the balance of trade; I believe that we should look at the overall balance of payments—in themselves are beginning to be alarming. I can say no less than that.
Again I give the Secretary of State the benefit of the doubt. We will return to this theme. However, it seems to me that, in whatever way policy is judged, we must leave our country in a state where it will be producing the kind of output and on the kind of scale that will give our successors in the next century a decent and rising standard of living.
3.29 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords. I rise to reply to the debate this afternoon in a slightly unusual position. On the one hand I am a member of that endangered species—at least, your Lordships will send me away a member of that endangered species—a comparatively happy Secretary of State after all the kind things that some Members of your Lordships' House have said about my White Paper. At the same time, I am also a thoughtful Secretary of State since a number of very valid and important points have been raised, all of which I shall give consideration.
Of course, your Lordships would not expect me to agree with all of them. Indeed, some are questions of interpretation. Many noble Lords sitting opposite have today questioned my interpretation of history. I must have a kindred spirit in the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who produced statistics to show that the world has not changed since 1978. I remember 1978 clearly. Even if we do not refer to social conditions and industrial relations, looking at British goods and the products of British industry and their reputation in the world at that time I must tell your Lordships that not only have I noticed but other countries have noticed a change. When I go overseas I see many people who have now returned to buying British goods and services and who have noticed the
918
enormous changes that have taken place during the course of the decade.
The noble Lord also accused me of trying to market regulation. Of course not. My department has two quite disparate functions. One is to regulate: to regulate the City in order to ensure that there is a correct and fair balance between the rights of the investor and the workings of a market which has now become one of the two main international exchanges. There is, of course, regulation in many other ways. At the same time, the department does have a role in offering services to industry and helping to influence attitudes in industry. For those functions, and those functions only, the department must of course market; and it will.
The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, raised a very good point. I would be the first to admit that merely by issuing a White Paper civil servants cannot change the habits of a lifetime and change from sponsorship to marketing divisions. We have set off on that change. I expect to keep it under close scrutiny and I expect that it will take some considerable time to change attitudes within a government department. It is not easy to do, but it is necessary. My counterparts in France have done precisely the same. They, too, are experiencing difficulty in making the change but it is important that governments have the correct relationship with industry and not one in which industry wishes to muddle through changes or one in which government hears too much from, in many cases, the lowest common denominator within a particular industry—from those who suffer the most in particular sectors—and not from those changing and benefiting most.
The noble Lord could at least distinguish between our regulatory functions and the remainder of the department. They are important, but the regulatory functions also form a very real role in helping to open the economy. Throughout our debate noble Lords have spoken about public purchasing in Europe. That must be open. One of the fundamental tenets of the completion of a single market in Europe by 1992 is that all countries will open their public purchasing freely. It will not be an easy change to accomplish.
There are those who ask me whether I really believe that the market will be open and in existence as a single market in 1992. I must say that I wonder myself. Occasionally I think that the first 200 years will be the worst, after which I hope to be able to take life a little easier. However, I believe that we will be a long way towards that objective by 1993. It will require continual vigilance. We shall have to look at it regularly and it will be an essential function of the bureaucracy in Brussels to ensure that tests are carried out and that slowly and carefully we do to markets what we do to our own market.
I welcomed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and I congratulate him on a distinguished maiden speech. Perhaps I may say to him that it is difficult to see how we can have a consultancy that would raise productivity. However, if we can get design and quality right, and if we can get many other elements together, that will make a considerable improvement in productivity. Productivity has been improving steadily throughout this decade and one reason why we have consistently been able to afford wage increases well above the rate of inflation is that

919
each year productivity has increased to ensure that unit labour costs are running beneath the rate of inflation, even if still slightly above that of our principal competitors.
I hope very much that as we look at an era in which inflation is running at 3·3 per cent. and wage increases are running at 8·5 per cent. we make sufficient productivity gains to ensure that we can afford these wage increases. It is imperative that if we wish to become a high-wage society we carry on year after year making productivity gains, because there is no other route to becoming a high-wage society.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, also raised the question of barriers to incentives which still exist in society. It is still a part of the process in which we corrupted the original concept of a safety net in order to ensure that the least fortunate members of our society did not fall too far, but providing ladders of opportunity. In the past four decades that process was one in which we took that safety net and promptly put it right on top of the ladders. It is another matter outside this particular area and I hope it is one which we can address in the future.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, unwittingly, I suspect, paid me a considerable compliment. He complimented me on the high mandarin style of the White Paper. Alas, I must confess to having written part of it myself so that I am not sure what that actually says for me. However, I shall accept it as a compliment. The noble and learned Lord also drew attention to the importance of regional pay settlements and said that we should seek differentials in them. I believe that next week we shall discuss at great length in your Lordships' House differences that may perhaps exist in different parts of the country. I shall then take the opportunity of saying a little more about that.
I also welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Ludgate. I greatly welcome his support for deregulation. It is imperative that we actually do it. I question slightly his less than effusive welcome for parts of the Financial Services Act. I ask many who worry about the operation of the regulatory structure under the Financial Services Act whether they have ever read the laws of cricket. I believe it is impossible to read the laws of cricket and to construct the game from that. I hope very much that after April and May of this year when the new system is in operation we will find that we have an effective system of regulation and that the market proceeds and works well. It is a difficult Act. Above all else, we must ensure that London is a competitive market and does not lose its present place in the world. We must also ensure that we have an adequate system of regulation. I believe we are getting it about right. I put on record before, and I happily do so again today, that should there be any cause to change any of the regulations in order to help the working of the market we will do so quickly and as far as necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, drew attention to a fact for which I apologise straight away. It was not actually the White Paper which replaced Britain's cities, although it would have been an incredible act of job creation if we had demolished and rebuilt eight
920
cities in one year! The popular version of the White Paper was a little too popular. The new edition of it puts back many of our cities where they should be. I hope they still exist.
The noble Lord protested at the abolition of the regional development grant. I share a fear with large parts of the regions in that decades of the regional policy of governments have succeeded only in producing some form of branch economy. Time after time the head offices have ended up in the South and what we had in the North were temporary factories which were there until the cold winds of change came again. I recall a few years ago going to Belfast and in one morning I visited six empty factories, each of which was over 1 million square feet. Each had been constructed by government to cater for different activities. In one case it was carpets and in another it was an early form of computer. In each case, after a few years, the business disappeared and what was left was an empty factory of 1 million square feet. I believe that that money would have been far better spent if we had encouraged existing businesses to achieve the diversity of interest which exists in the rest of the country. That is what my White Paper is determined to see happen.
I also welcome the maiden contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird. He restated the principle that the quality and quantity of exports is dictated solely by customer demand. It is that market which is so very important. I am concerned to hear about the delays which the noble Lord has experienced and I shall look into the matter straightaway. I hope to write to him to see what can be done.
I am arranging to have more of my staff in overseas posts and more of an interchange with the Foreign Office, because I believe that that is very important. While I accept the noble Lord's point about the volume of our staff in commercial posts within Europe, I believe that until 1992 we should be very careful before we diminish any work that we do in Europe, because it is most important to see that we have the best of information available in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, when dealing with the problems of Cardiff, said that it would be a greenfield site. He drew attention to difficulties of competing with government agencies. One of the problems in this world is that as soon as the Government interfere in anything, it distorts the market, creates problems and becomes difficult to withdraw. Nevertheless the free ports are a five-year experiment. They will be reviewed in 1989 and we shall then be able to see exactly where we are going with them.
I am glad to be able to assure the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, who I suspect this afternoon was not characteristically warm towards some of my suggestions, that this very day my department is announcing that it is going to move the Patent Office to Newport. If that is not enough for him, this very day we are also announcing that we are to move our Insolvency Service to Birmingham. Those are two examples of where we are moving parts of our department away from London, where they can properly be. In my last job I had a department in which 92 per cent. of my staff was outside London,

921
and I had over 60,000 civil servants, so that is a fair degree of dispersal.
Let me say to the noble Lord that if we want help for regional policy, nothing will be of more help than the new rating system, which will transfer over £700 million each and every year from the South to the North. I believe that when it comes in it will be of very considerable help to the regions.
My noble friend Lord Thorneycroft presented a concept with which I am still grappling. A Thatcherite Gorbachev is something I will take away with me for a long time. He reminded us of the market where people vote with their purchases. That is very important indeed.
My noble friend drew attention to the danger of markets being too free. A number of noble Lords this afternoon, including the noble Lord, Lord Peston, have commented on the use of the words "open markets". Open markets are not free markets. They are not markets which are totally untroubled. They are markets which maintain a sufficient degree of control of competition in order that they may prosper. So it is a concept between that of a controlled market and that of a totally free market. It is the type of market which we shall have in this country and which will prosper. Therefore, I can answer my noble friend's first exercise paper on that ground.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord Northfield, for all the work he did over the years in Telford. I travelled to see him on a number of occasions when I was first in the Department of Trade and Industry. It is very encouraging to see the enormous changes which have taken place since then. Let me assure the noble Lords who have queried this that the criteria for regional selective assistance are published. In brief, they are that the company genuinely needs public money in order to proceed, that the project is viable, that it will create or safeguard jobs in the assisted areas and that it will produce benefits both for the regional and national economy. We are not changing the criteria but we arc looking for improved value for money. We do not have civil servants by themselves to apply and judge these tests but panels of outside private sector people. The test we want to apply is that we have value for money. The noble Lord is quite right to draw attention to the one-stop shop. It seems that the arrangements being made in Telford are rather curious and I will certainly make inquiries to see what we can do in order to make them work.
The noble Lord, if I may say so, might perhaps express his predictions with a little care. From the time of Malthus onwards we have got into trouble with predictions in which we have extrapolated on a straight-line basis. I am not sure whether the Japanese economy will be larger than that of the whole of Europe by the year 2000. I recall that it is only 16 years since Herman Kahn of the Hudson Institute forecast that by 1995 the United Kingdom and Albania would have two of the lowest standards of living in Europe. I do not think that forecast will be right: that of the noble Lord may not be right either.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Nelson of Stafford that I accept the words of caution that he expressed. The change to market divisions is quite
922
separate from the support for export services that my department provides. I have spent much of my time over the last few years working to help export services and the export of capital goods in foreign markets, as the noble Lord may recall, and I believe that some of them are going to meet with considerable success.
While the noble Lord is right to point out the difficulties of R&D, as indeed have many speakers this afternoon, it is salutary to remember that as a proportion of GDP the United Kingdom Government still spends more than Japan or the United States. Indeed, since 1979 my department spend on R&D is 70 per cent. up in real terms, but in the private sector we spend far less than the United States, West Germany or Japan. I have a suspicion that the private sector spend on R&D is always rather better spent than that of the Government on R&D, and that these are the matters which should concern us more. As the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, was concerned about the government spend, let me assure him that the regional spend will not be falling: nor will our spend on R&D. Just to confirm the figures to him, they will rise from £432 million in 1987–88 to £500 million next year and to £527 million in 1989–90.
I should like to pay tribute today to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding in respect of the time I spent with him when, alas, he had to take advice from me as his special adviser. It was a very enjoyable period. It was also a very different world and much of what I am able to do now is done on the firm foundation that he and my noble friend Lord Joseph were able to provide during the first four or five years of this Government. I am glad to note his welcome for open markets and indeed to pay tribute to the work he does on UK—Japan 2000. I look forward to leading a delegation of businessmen to Japan next month. We are going there for the purpose of helping to improve British exports to Japan, which at the present time are rising at over 25 per cent. per annum. compound. I hope they will continue to rise at an even faster rate.
I will certainly take away with me my noble friend's point about air fares. That is indeed a very good point and I will carefully consider his suggestions on competition. May I assure him that not only will I look into the matters he has referred to but I will ask my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to look into the Enterprise Development Centre. I will certainly do that and I should like to assure him that the length of consultancies in practice will be longer than the five to 15-day limit referred to. I hope that firms, when they take consultancies, will recognise the value of them and will then go on to and invest further.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said about management education. I was in the fortunate position of being able to commission the Handy Report and have paid considerable attention to what it had to say. It draws attention to what has now received wide publicity—to the undertrained way in which British management has operated until now. I shall pay considerable attention to how we train our people within the Department of Trade and Industry. I shall be asking more questions of industry to find out the best way in which that training can go ahead.

923
Generally within the field of education, it is far better that we do not rely on universities, which have a tendency to make management education rather academic, or on government; we should rely on the private sector. That is why I welcome the work of the Charter Group. I have even asked my own department to join the group as an ordinary member. I hope that the group, together with the CBI, can in a comparatively short period erect a structure of business education which will cover not just MBAs and those at university level, but which will start the foreman on the shopfloor on a ladder of progression that will ensure that throughout British industry more and more people who are concerned with decision-making will have at least a broad idea of the basic concepts.
I say to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth that today he demonstrates a holy alliance between himself and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, with their concern for public purchasing policies. Well over 10 per cent. of the European Community's GDP is used in public purchasing. That is something which we must see open and which I believe we shall begin to break open in the next few years. I shall take away my noble friend's thoughts on the export intelligence service.
The British Overseas Trade Board could well be a candidate under the new "next steps" system of separate agencies following the Companies Registration Office in Cardiff, another decentralisation function of my department. We shall see whether we can make it a free-standing agency and perhaps even take it further to see how far we can go towards its privatisation. I welcome his support for the changes in regional assistance that we have made.
I am grateful, in a way in which I have not been grateful for some considerable time, to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for her support for a large part of my paper—support for competition and for a single European market. While the noble Baroness was speaking I was trying to work out which of my colleagues were Gaullist. If some of them are, I shall endeavour to keep the report of today's proceedings away from them for fear that they might find out that I am taking them faster than they would wish. However, I assure all in your Lordships' House that throughout government there is a general cautious enthusiam for the concept of the single European market. It is cautious, because we arc aware of the hurdles and problems to come; but there is enthusiasm, nonetheless, because we are also aware of the considerable benefits which it can bring not only to the United Kingdom but to the living standards of the whole of Europe.
The noble Baroness also raised an important point. Of course there is an interdependence between the manufacturing and the service sector. There has been a breakdown in the one-time simple division between what was manufacturing and what was service. It is becoming increasingly difficult to measure one from the other. Draftsmen whose activities used to be part of a factory have now been hived off as part of service sector activity. A restaurant that provides lunches or canteen services for a factory is now classified as a
924
service activity, whereas at one time it was part of manufacturing.
I believe that the argument is wrong. It is a false distinction. We should forget about the difference between manufacturing and service. We should be looking at the difference between wealth creation and wealth consumption. In tomorrow's world, more and more wealth creation will come from the service sector, and the proportionate value of manufacturing will diminish as we spend more and more of our GDP on things other than manufactured goods. Therefore, we must ensure that, as a nation, we can be competitive in what we call the service sectors, rather than in simple manufacturing. That is something on which I think we must spend some time and I hope perhaps that even in your Lordships' House on later occasions we can explore that concept further. In am very intrigued with the idea of the noble Baroness on the use of the people as a consultancy. I shall take that away and see whether we can develop it further.
Finally, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, totally on language training. Alas, I am a not very good example of a one-time British businessman since I speak but one language. I should like to assure him that there are considerable changes. Only last week I went to Warwick University and saw a programme which was integrating graduates into manufacturing industry. Professor Bhattacharyia was running it and it was extremely impressive. What is more, it was funded entirely by the private sector with a very substantial amount of money and I saw nothing but considerable enthusiasm from the private sector for it. That promises well for the future.
However, I assure the noble Lord that his remarks, and indeed those of many noble Lords opposite, showed undue concern for the historical basis of my paper. One hundred years ago we may well have been in a period of considerable free trade. But the decline of the entrepreneurial spirit in this country had to do with a change in our cultural base and not with the decline in free trade. What we have seen in the last 10 years is the restoration of that spirit of enterprise and of the respect for wealth creation, for working for yourself, which had sadly declined for many decades in our history.
Perhaps I may also assure noble Lords that we shall be issuing a White Paper on deregulation. It will be a White Paper because it will reflect government policy. It is a Green Paper on restrictive trade practices because that is a discussion paper. We shall be issuing a working document which will be explaining further, in rather more detail, the changes which we shall be making to competition policy, outlining in more detail the way in which the Director General of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be working within the field of competition. I hope that the noble Lord reads that document, because I must confess that I feel he does not really believe in competition. He may well be a great student of it, but in what he says he is advocating methods designed to reduce competition.
The noble Lord said that he was concerned about the vast spread of mobile telephones and that the cost seemed to be excessive. If they were not necessary and were not wanted there would not be many of them. It is the market for them which tests whether they are

925
competitive. I suspect that we shall see a vast increase in the use of mobile telephones and that the cost will come down; the operation of a regulated open market in all its glory.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord in case he misunderstood. I was under the impression that I was making a joke; I was being a trifle frivolous. I should love your Lordships' House to be full of mobile telephones.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord would not expect me immediately to suggest that I take his entire contribution as a joke. I shall not do so. However, I quite agree that we shall
926
have to take the long view. With the way the economy has gone in the past eight years, with the changes which can be seen throughout the economy and increasingly in the regions, and with the differences that we find when we speak to young people in schools and universities, the longer the view we take, I suspect, the better the economy will be. We have had a good debate today. I commend the White Paper to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at one minute before four o'clock.

  SOUTHEND HOSPITAL: RADIOTHERAPY SERVICE
  SOUTHEND HOSPITAL: RADIOTHERAPY SERVICE
  NHS BED CLOSURE STATISTICS
  NHS BED CLOSURE STATISTICS
  NUJ: CODE OF PRACTICE
  NUJ: CODE OF PRACTICE