Sitting of 19 April 1989

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

    Information Technology
    Mr. Clelland: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the balance of trade in information technology in 1979 and 1988.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Tony Newton): For the information technology and electronic manufacturing sector the United Kingdom had an adverse balance of trade in 1979 of £444 million. In 1987, the latest full year for which figures are available, the adverse balance for this sector was £2,226 million.
    Mr. Clelland: Is that not a further example of the complete failure of the Government's industrial policy? Is it not time that the Chancellor of the Duchy and the Secretary of State got down to implementing a serious industrial policy for Britain? For example, will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with his right hon. and noble Friend the COCOM arrangements affecting trade with the Eastern bloc countries? If those arrangements were relaxed, would it not offer massive opportunities to British firms, mainly small firms, to export to Eastern bloc countries? Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about that?
    Mr. Newton: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, I should point out that the deficit in information technology doubled between 1978 and 1979, deteriorated dramatically in the early 1980s, and since then has remained broadly stable. I invite the House to draw its own conclusions from that. On the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, I draw attention to the many opportunities that British firms have taken and, perhaps most important of all, the obvious significance of the recent decision by one of the world's leading electronics manufacturers, Fujitsu, to come and do business in Britain.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: In the light of the interesting report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the subject, and in view of the fact that the rather regrettable deficit represents a large proportion of the total trade deficit, does my right hon. Friend consider the Government's response to the Select Committee report to be adequate?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State is meeting the Select Committee next week to discuss that
    320
    very matter. The Government have given their considered views in response to the Select Committee report. There are some differences of opinion, but well over half the Select Committee recommendations have been accepted or are already the subject of action.
    Mr. Stott: Is the Minister aware that last year the trade deficit in electronics was £3·9 billion—an increase of 15 per cent. on the previous year and accounting for almost one third of the total massive balance of payments deficit? In the past year alone, the deficit in electronics, telecommunications and audio equipment has risen by a staggering 40 per cent. In the light of those disgraceful figures, is it mot time that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department addressed themselves to the magnitude of the problem instead of contemptuously dismissing the recommendations of the Select Committee which at least attempted to point the Government in the right direction to rectify a quite disgraceful performance?
    Mr. Newton: First, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, despite the size of the absolute figure, the deficit is a relatively small proportion of a very large market and represents less than 15 per cent. of the United Kingdom market. Secondly, as I hope that I have made clear, there is no question whatever of the Government having dismissed the Select Committee recommendations contemptuously. Thirdly, the most important single thing that the Government can do is what they have done with conspicuous success—to make this country a more attractive place for people to invest in and develop their businesses.

    Manufacturing Productivity
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the growth in manufacturing productivity since 1979 (a) in Britain and (b) in other major industrial countries.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): Between 1979 and the year to the third quarter of 1988, the latest period for which full international comparisons are available, manufacturing productivity, as measured by output per person employed, grew by 42 per cent. in the United Kingdom. The comparable figure for Italy is 38 per cent., for the United States 37 per cent., for Japan 31 per cent., for Canada 28 per cent., for France 26 per cent. and for the Federal Republic of Germany 17 per cent.
    Mr. King: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that those are truly outstanding figures of achievement by British manufacturing industry? Does he also agree that many overseas companies investing in this country are finding that the levels of productivity achieved by their United Kingdom subsidiaries are at least equal and often greater than in their own countries? Is it not a fact that the chamber of commerce in Germany has identified that as a major factor in investing in Britain?
    Mr. Forth: Yes. My hon. Friend is correct to pay tribute to British manufacturing industry for its enormous achievements over the past several years. He is also right to recognise that it is the environment and framework provided by the Government that has enabled that to happen, and we should welcome it. We look for further improvements, but I believe that inward investment in

    321
    Britain, such as the recently announced investment by Toyota, Fujitsu and Bosch are examples of how the productivity record in Britain is now so good that it is attracting people here in enormous numbers.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm that the British textile industry is one of the industries that has notched up considerable increases in productivity? Will he also confirm that the men and women who have co-operated in achieving that increased productivity have not had a fair share of the increased wealth that they have produced? Is he aware that their low basic rates of pay have created an over-dependence on excessive overtime working and that it is time that the men and women in the textile industry who have contributed towards increased productivity received a fair and proper share of the increased wealth they have created?
    Mr. Forth: Any judgment as to what constitutes a fair and proper share should be established between the trade unions, if there are any, and the employers in a particular industry. Employers will see that it is right that the terms and conditions they offer their work force have to be acceptable and sufficient so as to attract enough labour to the company to enable it to continue. We all recognise the great strides that have been made by our textiles industries and hope that they will continue, even against a background of difficult trading conditions.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the vast improvement in productivity under this Government, whereby the average British employee produces 50 per cent. more than his counterpart in Japan, cannot have failed to impress and attract the Japanese and encourage them to choose the United Kingdom for Toyota —and what better location is there than the midlands?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct to pinpoint that aspect because it is important that we continue to set an atmosphere of success and productivity. In that way we shall continue to attract the type of investment that we have announced this week, which will provide employment for our people and continuing success in our economy. We welcome those developments and are confident that they will continue.

    Company Fraud
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has for improving his Department's procedures in investigating those suspected of company frauds; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): In April last year the serious fraud office was established for the investigation and prosecution of serious and complex fraud. An increase in resources last year allocated to investigations by the Department of Trade and Industry has already resulted in such inquiries now being concluded in a much shorter time scale. In addition, following a review last year, the Companies Bill at present being considered in another place contains provisions which significantly improve procedures and extend powers for the investigation of companies.
    Mr. MacKay: Even so, does my hon. Friend agree that there is still a regrettably long delay before people are prosecuted for company fraud, which is damaging for all concerned, including those being tried? Does he also agree, as a one-time practising barrister, that one of the principal reasons why it takes so long is that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Department find it difficult to obtain a conviction when there are jury trials? Does he agree that the House fluffed the opportunity to change to a judge and two laymen, as the Roskill committee recommended, and that that should be implemented as a matter of urgency in the next Session of Parliament?
    Mr. Maude: On the time scale, my hon. Friend will be delighted to know that in the past few years the average time for a Companies Act investigation has fallen from three years and five months to 18 months despite a general increase in the complexity of the investigations. I am sure that the House will welcome that marked improvement.
    My hon. Friend is right that for a few trials of exceptional complexity the Roskill Committee recommended trial by judge and assessors rather than by jury. That was the only significant recommendation that the Government did not accept and, as my hon. Friend said, it was highly contentious. We accepted a number of other principally procedural recommendations, which should make it easier for juries to deal with exceptionally difficult cases.
    Mr. Rees: Will the Minister look into the allegation of procedural confusion between the serious fraud office, his Department, fraud departments in the police force, the Crown prosecution service and the Attorney-General? With the best will on earth, people are getting the procedures wrong because they are too complicated.
    Mr. Maude: A degree of complexity is inevitable. I know of no country with as sophisticated a corporate structure as ours where it is possible for administrative matters of this kind to be dealt with in a neat and tidy way. Different functions have to be carried out, and prosecuting authorities must remain independent. I do not foresee much scope for streamlining administrative structures, but I foresee scope—we have worked extremely hard to achieve this—for ensuring that the processes are much swifter. We are having considerable success along those lines.
    Mr. Nelson: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the answer may lie not in increasing the powers of the serious fraud office or of his Department, but in companies and their boards considering more adequately activities which may not necessarily amount to fraud but are certainly not intended uses of shareholders' money? Whether it concerns loans or activities wholly unassociated with the activities of a company—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Tory party."]—and whoever the non-executive staff or directors of a company may be, I suggest that the House should reconsider the proposals of the late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams on audit committees, which would allow such activity because it would be separately reported.
    Mr. Maude: I hear what my hon. Friend says. As my hon. Friend no doubt did, I had a number of fascinating discussions with our late friend Sir Brandon on the subject. I do not accept the argument that the simple existence of an audit committee solves all the problems. Directors currently have a duty to account to shareholders for the

    323
    way in which shareholders' funds are used. Proper means are available for shareholders to hold directors to account for the way in which funds are used.
    Mr. John Garrett: Why has not the inspector's report into the House of Fraser takeover been published, when no criminal proceedings are pending? If the Secretary of State is still awaiting the serious fraud office report, how is he able categorically to state that there have been wrongdoings?
    Mr. Maude: It was perfectly clear from the outset, and it was stated in open court in the Court of Appeal. The hon. Gentleman should know enough about the world to understand that a case is not referred to the serious fraud office unless there is some sign of wrongdoing.

    Consumer Rights
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he now plans to bring forward legislation affecting consumer rights.
    Mr. Forth: We intend to improve the protection given to consumers in a number of ways, including the introduction of regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 on price indications at bureaux de change and changes to other legislation affecting consumers' interests.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply, but is not the consumer getting an increasingly worse deal under this Government—who are supposed to believe in consumer choice—as a result of electricity and water price rises and private greed being put before public water and food quality? Is it not time that the consumer received a fairer deal?
    Mr. Forth: The consumer gets an excellent deal in the United Kingdom, partly as a result of the general productivity of manufacturing industry, to which reference was made earlier, partly as a result of competitiveness and choice in the market-place and partly —the hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to this —as a result of excellent arrangements that have been put in place for the protection of consumers' interests in the process of privatising our major supply industries. All of that is ample evidence that consumers are extremely well served in the Britain of 1989.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware that at this very moment the main clearing banks are holding a press conference at which they intend to make an announcement about the £50 limit on cheque guarantee cards? I am sure that he will join me in hoping that the banks will announce that the limit is to be increased and that each bank will be able to set its own limit. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful that the banks have been allowed to carry on this cosy little cartel which has operated against the interests of the consumer? Will he join me in supporting any moves to see that the Office of Fair Trading investigates that kind of closed shop?
    Mr. Forth: Such matters must primarily be matters for the banks themselves. It is for them to make a judgment on how best to deal with their consumers and customers in the market-place. Each of the banks must make its own judgment about how to respond to consumer pressure from time to time. I hope that they are prepared to take a
    324
    realistic view of the matter and to examine a limit which has stood for a long time, but it must be a matter for the banks themselves and I have no intention of seeking to interfere.
    Ms. Quin: Why is the Minister not proposing more fundamental improvements to the Consumer Protection Act 1987 so that, for example, agricultural produce is included and the unjustified exemptions in relation to product safety and liability are ended? Will the Minister also consider the introduction of environmental labelling such as exists in other countries so that the increasing number of consumers who are concerned about the environment can be sure that the products that they buy help the cause of environmental protection?
    Mr. Forth: On her second visit to the Dispatch Box, the hon. Lady is being slightly mischievous in seeking to lead me into concerning myself with matters of food policy which she and the House know fall principally and rightly to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is more than capable of dealing with all matters of food protection and food hygiene which come before the House.
    Mr. Harris: Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether he has undergone something of a conversion on the basic question of consumer rights in the short distance from his former place in the House to the Dispatch Box?
    Mr. Forth: I am confident that when my hon. Friend studies whatever proposals I may bring before the House from time to time he will find himself fully able to support them.

    Atlanta Sports Industries Ltd.
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, in the light of the problems of Atlanta Sports Industries Ltd. of Hellaby, near Rotherham, he will take urgent action to bring in amending regulations under patent law.
    Mr. Forth: My Department is aware of this case, on which I have corresponded with the hon. Gentleman. As I understand the position, the problems of Atlanta Sports Industries Ltd. arose under copyright law, not patent law. The House will be aware that the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 has sought to remedy some of the weaknesses of the old law, but it cannot be retrospective. It is our intention that the detailed regulations will be in place by the summer.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister recognise that deficiencies in the law have caused serious and possibly increasing difficulties to that business and probably to others? After all our letters, does the Minister not recognise that a successful and enterprising business is being held back by the deficiencies of his Department, not least because the problem arose as a result of the company accepting the invitation of his Department to attend a particular trade fair?
    Mr. Forth: I cannot accept that because a company has been helped by, in this case, the British Overseas Trade Board in attending a fair, the Government have any responsibility for transactions which may result from that. I believe that that is unreasonable. As the hon. Gentleman knows, most of the defects in the old law have been

    325
    remedied by the new law, but we cannot and should not make it retrospective. Much though I regret the circumstances in which the company finds itself, it is not a matter for Government and that must remain our position.

    European Regional Development Fund
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the value of grants allocated to England from the European regional development fund since its inception.
    Mr. Newton: The value of grants allocated to England from the European regional development fund since its inception in 1975 is £1,602 million, out of a total United Kingdom allocation of £3,307 million. Since 1975 the United Kingdom has received a larger allocation from the European regional development fund than any other member state apart from Italy.
    Mr. Knox: It is a large figure. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the grants are making an important contribution to strengthening the British economy, and is he satisfied that the British people are fully aware of the scale of the grants?
    Mr. Newton: No, I suspect that people are not fully aware of the scale of the grants and I should be glad to join my hon. Friend in trying to improve their knowledge of that matter. It is encouraging that local authorities and others concerned with the areas that are eligible are increasingly aware of the grants and are being increasingly effective in preparing good plans and playing a key part in making sure that we get our due share of the money.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister satisfied that west Cumberland is getting its fair share of those European moneys? Is he aware that in west Cumberland we have 43,000 sq. ft. of empty new factory in the middle of an enterprise zone in an area of high unemployment? Will he help us to find someone to occupy that factory? How about a bit of the Japanese money which seems to be circulating as we seem to have very little Japanese investment in west Cumberland? Can we have some?
    Mr. Newton: First, I welcome the warmth of the hon. Gentleman's implied welcome for some of the investment that has been going elsewhere. I am afraid that I am not in a position to direct Japanese companies, but I shall certainly draw their attention to the existence of one enthusiastic Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Soames: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituency is the engine room of the British economy and that the infrastructure has consequently suffered greatly, especially due to the parsimony and greed of the Department of Transport? Will my right hon. Friend have a word with those responsible for the European regional development fund to see whether they can give us any assistance to build some better roads?
    Mr. Newton: I must say that the prospect of the European Commission proposing the distribution of funds designed to help those who are having more difficult times for what my hon. Friend describes as the engine room of the British economy seems remote. I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me not to comment on his remarks about
    326
    my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, save to say, within the terms of collective responsibility, that I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I am delighted that such opportunities exist in England, but will the Minister draw to the attention of the European regional development fund and to incoming industrialists the fact that my constituency of Cynon Valley, which contains the deprived town of Mountain Ash and 45,000 sq. ft. of factory space—2,000 sq. ft more than that in west Cumberland—would be delighted to have any industrialists come to our area, where one in four men are unemployed?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady will have noticed that I gave not just a figure for England but a much larger figure for the United Kingdom which, of course, includes the area in which the hon. Lady is interested. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to the hon. Lady's remarks, but his response may be that, in general, Wales has not been doing too badly recently.
    Sir Hal Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that parts of Hereford and Worcestershire have recently been removed by the European Commission from the scope of objective 2 of the European regional development fund? In those circumstances, will he confirm that the parts which remain United Kingdom assisted areas will not suffer in any way in terms of applications for regional selective assistance from the Government?
    Mr. Newton: I am aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes and I can confirm that the Commission's proposals for the distribution of objective 2 money have no effect on the existing entitlement to assisted area status in this country and the help that goes with it. There is no direct coincidence between the two kinds of area.
    Mr. Caborn: What proportion of the regional funds to which the Minister has just referred has been applied under the additionality rule, on which I understand that the regional funds have been allocated? Will he assure the House that the new European regional development fund and the Community's new structural fund arrangements will be additional to the national spend on regional assistance?
    Mr. Newton: The agreed aim of everybody involved is that the European regional development fund shall add to the amount of investment taking place in development areas. The hon. Gentleman will know as well as I do that there can be a great deal of argument—I will not pretend that there is not—about precisely what that means. I do not think that I can give a more specific answer, because the whole question of the allocation under what has recently been announced in defining the objective 2 areas depends on the submission of plans, not all of which have yet been submitted.

    Industry-School Links
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a further statement on his policy to increase links between industry and schools.
    Mr. Forth: One hundred and forty-six DTI advisers on enterprise and education are now working, and the education service has asked them to find around 100,000 pupil work experience places in their first year.
    My Department is also now offering a teacher placement service, which is being managed on our behalf by Understanding British Industry. I am pleased to announce that we have appointed a director for the service —Mr. Peter Davies. More than 80 local bodies have already expressed interest in offering the service, and the first organisers are in place. Teachers will be able to choose between a number of high-quality briefing packs. This year provides the opportunity to test both these packs and the matching service, to ensure that it all runs smoothly. The teacher placement service has been developed from the successful pilot schemes run for my Department by UBI last year. I will place in the Library a copy of the UBI's report.
    Mr. Hunter: While acknowledging that industry is responding positively to the need for closer contact with schools, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he accepts that more needs to be done by all interested parties? Is he aware that in areas of high job creation, such as Basingstoke, followed closely by Crawley, the shortage of skills is becoming yet more acute, and that every measure must be taken to ensure that our school leavers have the attitude and the aptitude to contribute positively to the industrial and economic life of the country?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has summed up the problem extremely ably. We all recognise the increasing difficulty of skill shortages in many parts of the country. We have gone a long way towards recognising that this problem arises, as much as anything, from the schools. That is why the education and enterprise initiative seeks —and I believe that it has made a very good start—to address the problem of the lack of what might be called enterprise culture and understanding in many of our schools, which gives rise to a lack of proper career and educational counselling of youngsters. We hope that we shall see a lot of young people getting work experience and, more important, that we shall see teachers getting experience in the business world so that they may better advise and guide their public towards careers in the wealth-creating sector.
    Mr. Skinner: I wonder whether part of one of these briefing packs that are to be issued to schools will contain information about fraud in the boardroom. Will it include, for instance, the city page of The Daily Telegraph of 15 April 1989, where it is reported that Blue Arrow loaned £25 million to de Savary and his gang; that, under section 432 of the Companies Act, the shareholders should have been fully informed of that matter, but were not; and that one of the directors of Blue Arrow is none other than the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)? Since that right hon. Member is supposed to represent those shareholders, he ought to be asking the Secretary of State to order an investigation, but as has is not here, I am doing it for him.
    Mr. Forth: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in the wealth-creating sector. I shall send him one of these packs, in the hope that it will increase his understanding of the process of wealth creation.
    Sir John Stokes: Is not this a serious matter? Would it not be helpful to school leavers if leading industrialists could be more articulate about the scope for getting things done in industry, compared with some other professions, which I shall not mention? Why are these industrial tycoons such shy violets? Why can they not tell us how they make money and how that benefits the country also?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has made an important point. We hope that people in industry and business will be much more forthcoming and co-operative in trying to carry their message into schools and colleges so that young people may better understand how wealth is created and that it is only by the creation of wealth that we as a society can provide all the other services that we want to provide for our people.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that there is a clear understanding in industry that healthy links with schools depend on a parity of esteem and resources on the two sides, and that there is major concern that schools are simply not getting the teachers, particularly of science and mathematics, whom they need? Is he aware that, this year, applications were down by 25 per cent. for physics and by 16 per cent. for mathematics? Will the DTI lend its voice in support of industrialists who demand greater resources and esteem for teachers?
    Mr. Forth: I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is aware of existing problems, and is tackling them with great vigour. The esteem in which the teaching profession is held is a matter for it. I hope that the conduct and dedication of teachers in future will help to increase the esteem in which they are held.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of our biggest problems is schoolchildren's perception of engineering, inventing and manufacturing, and that we must sell the status of those occupations? Without them Britain will never rebuild its industrial and commercial strength. I am not one of those, and I am sure that the Minister is not, who say that Britain cannot manufacture products competitively. We must demonstrate to young people that engineering, inventing and manufacturing are the future for Britain.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I recently discussed those matters with the Engineering Council. It is acutely aware of the matter, and is mounting a positive and active campaign to carry the message to where it will be heard and understood. Our record in manufacturing productivity increases, to which reference has been made today, amply demonstrates that we still have the ability and the will to make improvements and to continue to make manufacturing and industry generally an attractive proposition for our young people.

    Multi-Fibre Arrangement
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the future continuation of the multi-fibre arrangement within the current negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): We are committed by the GATT declaration at Punte del Este to

    329
    formulate "modalities" for the eventual return of trade in textiles and clothing to strengthened GATT rules and disciplines.
    The United Kingdom attaches the highest importance to the strengthening of GATT rules—in particular, a more effective safeguards clause to allow defensive action to be taken against sudden and damaging surges in imports, and better disciplines on unfair trade and on counterfeiting.
    We look for a reduction in barriers to trade and better access to developing country markets, especially the newly industrialised economies. The committee acknowledged the contribution which all participants could make to the process of liberalisation, while preserving our existing rights under the present MFA.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Having regard to recent developments in the GATT multilateral trade talks in Geneva and the importance of those developments to the knitwear industry in my constituency and in other areas, will the Minister guarantee that he will agree no further changes to the trading system for textiles and clothing unless he secures some of the aims that he mentioned, such as the effective prevention of dumping and subsidies, the GATT safeguard clause, and the dismantling of excessive trade barriers, which effectively block our exports in trade and clothing items?
    Mr. Clark: I accept that all the factors that the hon. Gentleman mentioned must be taken into account in considering the degree to which the provisions of the multi-fibre arrangement are relaxed or dispensed with. Safeguards clauses are important. As many hon. Members with textile constituencies know, the existing mechanism is unsatisfactory. It is cumbersome and slow. I will ask my officials to look at possibilities for improvements and making better use of the provisions under article 19.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend will know that many hon. Members are legitimately concerned about the undeveloped world, but that same lobby also seeks completely unrestricted entry into this country of textiles from the undeveloped world. Such a policy could destroy tens of thousands of jobs in the Nottingham and east midlands area. I hope that we will not go down a road that will destroy those British jobs.
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right. Paradoxically many of those jobs are held by former citizens of, or immigrants from the very countries for which the lobby that he identifies seeks unrestricted access.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister make a clear statement that the Government are committed to the renewal of the MFA? The Confederation of British Wool Textiles Ltd., the employers' organisation based in Bradford, is concerned that there has not been a clear and unambiguous statement, particularly as the industry is faced with a Community quota by 1992, instead of a quota for each member state, to make sure that there is a burden-sharing arrangement for the whole of the EEC. Emloyers are also fearful of increased water charges. The effect of those developments will be a loss of jobs. Will the Minister make a clear commitment to maintain the textile industry?
    Mr. Clark: There is no commitment to maintain the MFA. The commitment is to formulate modalities for the eventual return of trade in textiles and clothing to
    330
    strengthened GATT rules. That has been unchanged for the last 15 years since the MFA was promulgated. As I have said on the Floor of the House in debate on the subject, that return is dependent on a satisfactory solution of a very large number of other related problems.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the commitment of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) to Liberalism appears to be somewhat lukewarm in the attitude that he has evinced in his supplementary question? Does my hon. Friend also agree that arrangements such as the multi-fibre arrangement are an arbitrary restriction on consumer choice and on the export potential of Third world countries, and therefore contribute to their impoverishment? Why do we support free trade in every other area of the economy but not in this?
    Mr. Clark: It is not for me to comment on the esoteric varieties of policy that the Liberal party adopts at any given moment. Consumers do not have a high purchasing power when they are out of work. There are large numbers of consumers who constantly seek advice about buying British goods. There is no special adjunct of faith that dictates and obliges that consumers should always buy the cheapest thing. They consider other factors in making a consumer choice.
    Mr. Henderson: The Minister for Trade's personal commitment to the MFA is recognised in the House, and the arrangement is an important way of regulating trade between the far east and ourselves. Is he not also concerned about the growing trade gap in textiles with the EC, which is now £1.75 billion? What does he think has caused that gap? If he is concerned about it, what action will he take to try to narrow the gap?
    Mr. Clark: That is a completely different subject from the multi-fibre arrangement. Trade with the EC is not governed by it. Competition, measured in terms of delivery, quality, price and so on, is the yardstick. There are elements where Government subsidy is present. Those are subject to Commission scrutiny. If any hon. Member advises me of cases where EC subsidies affect the balance of competition, we will immediately consider them closely.

    New Businesses
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many new businesses have been established in Leicestershire each year since 1983; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maude: The numbers of new businesses registered for VAT in Leicestershire for each of the five years from 1983 to 1987 were respectively, 3,003, 2,885, 3,033, 2,961 and 3,347. During that period the total numbers of businesses registered has increased every year, growing by 13 per cent. overall.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Hinckley, the principal town in my constituency, demand for industrial land far outstrips supply, that the council has just had to release another 120 acres, and that 158 acres are currently under consideration by private developers? Does he agree that that demonstrates the effectiveness of

    331
    Government policies and the prudent policies adopted by the Conservative-controlled Hinckley and Bosworth borough council?
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend has it exactly right. Because my constituency borders that of my hon. Friend, I know from my local knowledge that there has been a considerable growth of economic activity in our area. New companies are doing well, employment has increased substantially and the prosperity of the area has grown markedly.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important element in industrial growth and in the growth of new industries is the infrastructure? Within my area of north-west Leicestershire, an excellent road system is being built, including the new M42-A42 road. However, an important element of that road system is correct and proper road signs so that people who want to go to the new industries in towns such as Coalville and Ashby know how to get there. Will my hon. Friend speak to the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that there are properly marked road signs?
    Mr. Maude: I know that a great many people are seeking to find a way to my hon. Friend's constituency. I shall certainly speak to my right hon. Friend about whether steps can be taken to enable them to find their way to it more easily.

    Cordless Telephones
    Mr. Wood: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is being made in discussions between his Department and the industry in connection with the development of the next generation of cordless telephones.
    Mr. Forth: We have issued some 2,000 copies of the consultation document "Personal Communications in the 1990s" and held initial briefing meetings with a number of companies. We are asking for responses to the document by 28 April.
    Mr. Wood: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Will he ensure that the discussions are sufficiently brisk and that the aims are sufficiently straightforward to enable us to have successful competitive manufacturing in that sector, without undue Government or other bureaucratic delays that could adversely affect our competitive position?
    Mr. Forth: I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking, but I believe that he will agree that we have already demonstrated as a country remarkable success in that area due to the liberal regime allowed by the Government. We will continue with that policy in the hope that we will continue to be world leaders in what will be an important industry in the future.

    Mergers and Acquisitions
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the percentage increase in expenditure on mergers and acquisitions since 1979.
    Mr. Maude: Expenditure on acquisitions and mergers by industrial and commercial companies within the United
    332
    Kingdom in 1988 is estimated to be about £22 billion. In current prices, that is about 13 times greater than the 1979 total of about £1·75 billion.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister agree that, if Scottish industry did not have to spend so much effort in fighting off mergers and takeovers, it could create new work, which might help a constituency such as mine where the official unemployment rate is 22 per cent.?
    Mr. Maude: The idea that merger and acquisition activity reduces employment is manifestly absurd. Over the period when merger and acquisition activity has been at its height, unemployment has come down and employment has risen to record levels. The premise on which the hon. Lady bases her question is utterly absurd.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should be congratulated on not allowing the bid for Scottish and Newcastle Breweries? Scottish Members should congratulate my hon. Friend rather than indulge in negative comments.
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the careful scrutiny of that bid by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. As a result of the commission making an adverse public interest finding, the bid was not allowed to proceed. I did not hear all that many cheers from the Opposition when that happened.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister think that it is wise for former holders of his ministerial post subsequently to take up paid appointments as advisers on mergers and acquisitions? Is that not a misuse of the information and knowledge gained in that post?
    Mr. Maude: No, Sir.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Precisely because merger activity has increased so much would it not make sense, particularly because of the conflict of interest that exists between investment management and corporate finance, to bring the role of merchant bank advisers under the aegis of the Financial Services Act 1986, as some of us recommended in the debate on the financial services White Paper four years ago?
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend was lucky enough to be privy to discussions on that Bill at which I was unable to be present. I suspect that his proposal to extend the scope of the Financial Services Act into an area which, at the moment, it does not cover would not be at all welcome. There are proper mechanisms for making sure that conflicts of interest do not arise and that proper interests are preserved. It would not be right to extend the system in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

    Hosiery and Knitwear Industry (Leicester)
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the current state of the hosiery and knitwear industry in Leicester.
    Mr. Alan Clark: The hosiery and knitwear industries continue to make a major contribution to Leicester's economic and industrial development. They continue to adapt to technological and other changes, to the further benefit of local and national economies.
    Mr. Janner: While noting the Minister's tribute to the hosiery, knitwear and textile industries may I ask him whether he recognises that there is still grave concern in those industries about the continuing recession and that there is also concern in my constituency about the redundancies in Coras? How many jobs have been lost in Leicester in the hosiery and knitwear industries in the last few years and what is the Minister proposing to do, if anything, to help those industries to survive in the light of the increased water charges that are now on the way?
    Mr. Clark: The hon. and learned Gentleman sometimes reproaches hon. Members for not addressing him as learned, although I do not think that he aspires to the sobriquet of gallant. As a man of the law, the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that there are many international restrictions. Trade in textiles is governed by treaty, by arrangement and by restraint arrangements.
    Mr. Skinner: And the Minister does not like them.
    Mr. Clark: I would tighten them up if I could. The hon. and learned Gentleman well knows that any interference with the flow of trade outside those limits would lay one open both to judicial review and to legal action by importers.

    Export Promotion
    Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress on recent initiatives on export promotion.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Since the launch of My Department's export initiative about 3,000 inquiries have been received in response to our advertisements in the press alone. I believe that the initiative has been well received by British industry and is succeeding in encouraging more businesses to export successfully.
    Miss Widdecombe: Is it true that the initiative is costing about £100 million per annum? If so, what is likely to be the long-term effect on our balance of payments? Will it repay this investment?
    Mr. Clark: The total amount expended in export promotion by the Government is £100 million per annum, or rather more. The initiative has a number of different headings, chiefly related to the giving of advice and information to would-be exporters. Export initiatives single market campaigns, such as Focus Germany and the Opportunity Japan campaigns have been extremely successful. During the year in which the campaign was in place, our exports to Germany increased by 17 per cent. compared with an international average increase of 3 per cent.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister satisfied with the operation of the exchange equalisation account?
    Mr. Clark: The exchange equalisation account is a matter for my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury. In so far as it affects the exchange rate, plainly, one has to accept that it is a transient and temporary phenomenon. Many traders would probably prefer it not to exist or to operate at all.

    Information Technology
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects Britain to have a trade surplus in information technology.
    Mr. Newton: It is not possible to make a prediction of the kind that the hon. Member seeks. What is important is that the Government's economic policies have led to record levels of productivity, output and investment and have helped to attract companies like Fujitsu, which will provide a major boost to our balance of trade in information technology through both exports an import substitution.
    Mr. Eadie: I thank the Minister for his answer but would it not have been better, in all candour, for him to have said "unlikely"? Since, in reply to a similar question, the Minister made it clear that the Government policy was to make Britain attractive to foreign investment, and since we are told that there is a lot of footloose capital and industry in this country which apparently prefers to invest abroad rather than in Britain, how does that square with the Minister's policy that he has enunciated to the House?
    Mr. Newton: I see no inconsistency whatever. Not only are a lot of people from overseas investing here, as has become clear in recent weeks, but there has been a substantial increase in the rate of investment by Britons in manufacturing industries and in other sectors. Our aim is to make the whole country a good place to invest in for foreigners and those already here, and we have succeeded in that.

    Liquidations (Investor Losses)
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has concerning losses to investors in financial institutions which have gone into liquidation over the last 12 months.
    Mr. Maude: My Department only keeps records of those financial institutions in respect of which it has itself applied for compulsory winding-up orders. In the past 12 months such action has been taken against eight financial institutions. In these cases the losses to investors are estimated at £4 million. This figure does not include cases where winding-up orders were sought by the Securities and Investments Board.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that Greenan Investment Management in Ayr went into liquidation with a loss to investors of £1 million? Following this up, I find that some of those investors will not be fully compensated by the investors' compensation management scheme. Will the Minister look into the matter to see whether there are ways in which compensation can be improved?
    I understand from Sir Anthony Barrowclough, the Parliamentary Commissioner, that his report on Barlow Clowes, which was expected this month, will take several months more because of the complicated nature of the investigations into the affair, which he is supervising personally. In the light of that, does the Minister think that it is fair to ask investors to wait many more months before they have any chance of receiving compensation, or will he now consider some kind of scheme to help those who have

    335
    lost very substantially indeed, some of whom are retired people, including retired miners in my constituency, who are now in great difficulties as a result of the collapse?
    Mr. Maude: I am very much aware of the distress and hardship caused to people whose money was not repaid to them following the liquidation of Barlow Clowes. I cannot comment on how long the Parliamentary Commissioner's investigation will take; it is a matter entirely in his control and it is for him to draw it to a conclusion when he can. All I can say is that my Department has co-operated fully with his investigation at every stage.
    As regards providing compensation at this stage, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I see no reason now for changing the view that we reached in the autumn, when we concluded, on the basis of Sir Godfray Le Quesne's detailed and exhaustive report, that the Department's handling of the case had been careful and considered and that, on those grounds, there was no basis for making ex gratia payments.

    Merchant Ships (Orders)
    Mr. Clay: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent information he has on new orders for merchant ships.
    Mr. Newton: Based on information from Lloyd's register, new orders as well as completions in 1988 were at the lowest level for many years. The most recent figures
    336
    suggest that a period of recovery may be beginning, but there is little evidence that it will be lasting and it is expected that the world shipbuilding market will remain dominated by considerable excess capacity for several years.
    Mr. Clay: The Minister must also be aware of figures from Lloyd's maritime information service which I have sent him. They demonstrate conclusively from the most reliable source in the world that for the kind of ships built by British shipyards and, in particular, North East Shipbuilders in Sunderland, the last quarter of 1988 was the best for new orders for many years and that what we were told by the Government throughout last year and the year before, which was that there was no evidence of an upturn, has proved categorically wrong. We also now know that in 1988 prices for new build ships rose by 30 per cent. in one year. Has not the penny finally dropped that the Department of Trade and Industry has got this wrong and that this is a crazy time to close major British shipyards?
    Mr. Newton: I have two comments. First, the hen. Gentleman puts more weight on the statistics to which he referred than they will bear. Secondly, whatever the state of demand for shipbuilding, it is necessary—as it was, unhappily, in the case of North East Shipbuilders Ltd. —to consider the prospects against the background of those seeking to run the yards so that they will be able to build such ships in a competitive and commercial way.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise the matter of separation of powers. As I understand it, the police are not an arm of the Government. No information has been given to the House about the way in which a list of five people, shortlisted for the position of Scotland Yard's director of public affairs, was given to Scotland Yard by the Prime Minister's chief press secretary.
I consider that the functions of the police are a matter that should be of concern to the House. If the Prime Minister's chief press secretary now has the additional function of telling the person in charge of the Metropolitan police who should be shortlisted for such an important position, the House should be notified and we should be able to table questions.
Mr. Speaker: That may well be a matter of interest to the House, but it is not an appropriate subject for a point of order.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like your advice on a matter of great importance—certainly to the people of Liverpool. The Sun today contains a front page story headlined "The Truth". It is not in inverted commas. The story is based on a statement made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick). It says:
"Irvine Patnick revealed that in one shameful episode, a gang of Liverpool fans noticed that the blouse of a girl trampled to death had risen above her breasts."
I do not intend to continue; it is so painful to read it.
The article also states that the hon. Member for Hallam spoke to officers on duty. A police inquiry is taking place at the moment and I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman—I notified him that I would be raising this matter in the House, and if he is not here that is his business—will be asked to give evidence to the police inquiry.
I find it difficult to raise this matter because the other day in the House I said that we should not be looking for scapegoats. On the front page of The Sun is a picture of Superintendent Marshall. We should not look on him or anybody else as a scapegoat. However, the hon. Member for Hallam is now suggesting that Liverpool people did the most despicable things to their own people. All the television programmes showed evidence to the contrary.
I do not want to become too angry and emotional about this, but I find it degrading and disgusting—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the point of order?"] The point of order is clear. It is time that hon. Members showed some dignity, restraint and understanding. If they think that this is funny, they should explain it to my people in Liverpool who are now in deepest grief because 95 of their people died on Saturday. May I have an assurance, Mr. Speaker, that that hon. Member will go to the police inquiry and give the so-called evidence? We need that evidence to prove beyond doubt that matters are going beyond the bounds of decency.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The whole House has been deeply affected by this major tragedy. I think that it would be wisest for us all to await the result of the inquiry and not to speculate.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from a Minister to make a statement clarifying the position of two senior Government press officers who, we learned last night from a BBC programme at 7.20 pm, are being disciplined for having argued that they were required to take action that infringed party political neutrality? The programme, which lasted for 40 minutes, was about the Government's chief press officer, the most important man—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an Opposition day, in which a large number of hon. Members wish to participate. I have received no request for a statement. The hon. Gentleman must find other methods of raising the matter before the House: he cannot do so through the Chair.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to a comment made to The Sun by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick). Do you agree that on Monday you called that hon. Member to speak in the debate? Do you also agree that he made no such comments to the House then? Would you advise hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, to be temperate in their language when commenting on the events at Sheffield and not to repeat to newspapers hearsay that they are not willing to put to the test by raising it in the House first?
Mr. Martin Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is one of the few places where we can say something at such a tense time in Sheffield.
I am the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough. On Saturday night, when I went down to the ground, I was not even admitted to the premises. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), whose constituency is nowhere near Hillsborough, could have gone into the mortuary and talked to policemen on duty, while I, as Member for Parliament for that general area, could not even get into the ground. That is beyond me. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is doing precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has described.
Mr. Speaker: I say again that this is a matter by which we have all been deeply affected. I suggest that we all keep our counsel until the result of the inquiry is known.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of questions have been raised about the suppression of the Department of Trade and Industry report on the Harrods takeover. I wonder whether you have received any notification from the Department that it intends to publish the report, or that a Minister intends to make a statement to the House.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the matter has certain implications. In the report, the Sultan of Brunei is alleged to have supplied some money for the takeover. As he is apparently on close terms with the Prime Minister, it is naturally a matter of great concern that the report should be published as soon as possible to eradicate the rumours that are circulating.
Mr. Speaker: I have not received any such notification.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice on a matter of

339
serious concern that has arisen this week. The Secretary of State for Social Security has sent to DSS officers in Scotland a memorandum giving them instructions on taking unpaid poll tax from people's income support. The memorandum is based on a statutory instrument which has been prayed against but which has not yet been debated on the Floor of the House. Has the Secretary of State the right to give instructions to DSS officers based on a statutory instrument to which the House has not given its approval?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Lady should seek advice when that comes into operation. I have no knowledge of the matter that she has raised.
Mrs. Fyfe: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, at least to look into the matter?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I shall certainly look into the matter.
Mr. Winnick: You stated, Mr. Speaker, that right hon. and hon. Members could pursue matters by other means. As you, Mr. Speaker, decided on such matters, may I have an assurance that, if I wish to table—as I probably shall —questions relating to Mr. Bernard Ingham's role in the recommendation as to who should be appointed director of public affairs at New Scotland Yard, I will be able to do so? Mr. Ingham is now virtually the deputy Prime Minister, and we should surely have an opportunity to discuss his role.
Mr. Speaker: Certainly, and the hon. Gentleman will have opportunities to do so—but not through me. I am not responsible for what he does.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Rather than right hon. and hon. Members raising points of order, would it not be much better if the Government themselves, in the traditional way, made a statement, or even had a written question planted, about the disciplining of civil servants? Why should right hon. and hon. Members have to demand information on every possible occasion? Is it not for the Government to show the House what is happening in respect of the disciplining of civil servants?
Mr. Speaker: I am placed in great difficulty because I cannot give answers on matters for which I am not
340
responsible. I am here to ensure that the rules of the House are observed. I am not responsible for what is said by right hon. and hon. Members, provided that it is in order.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Instead of Opposition Members coming to the House to crowd out the debating time available to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and to his right hon. and hon. Friends with bogus points of order in prime time, and to make statements that they would not dare to make outside the House because they would be actionable as defamatory, would it not be better if a change were made to the rules of the House so that Opposition Members could have a whole day set aside for bogus points of order and they could all be raised together?
Mr. Speaker: I should not like to be in the Chair for that.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The fact that Bernard Ingham is not a Member of Parliament creates some difficulties for you, but there is a way out of them. Mr. Ingham has plenty of admirers on the Conservative Benches, and I suggest that one of them takes the Chiltern Hundreds and nominates St. Bernard and his dog so that he can stand on behalf of the Tory party. Then we can deal with him.

BILL PRESENTED
  ANTI-HACKING
  Miss Emma Nicholson presented a Bill to create offences of unathorised access to electronically stored data and of its transmission; to confer powers of monitoring search, seizure and destruction of such data; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time: and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 120.]

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS Ordered,
  Orderes,
  That European Community Document No. 10470/88 on batteries and accumulators be referred to a Standling Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Leasehold Reform (Commonhold)
3.41 pm
Mr. Dudley Fishburn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform leasehold.
Many hundreds of thousands of people live in flats that they own under long leases, yet those Englishmen's homes are someone else's castles. The unsatisfactory nature of leasehold reform as applied to long leases for mansion blocks has long been recognised, although it is only recently that the abuses of the system have dramatically grown.
There have been a number of attempts at leasehold reform by various Governments as well as by individual parliamentarians. My distinguished predecessor as Member for Kensington, the late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, was for ever in the House introducing measures to allow residents of mansion blocks to acquire more rights under their leaseholds. I am here as one more foot soldier in that campaign.
Leaseholders might own a property for 50 or 100 years yet possess only a diminishing asset, with little control over who owns or runs their property. Under English law, it is almost impossible to own a freehold flat. That has been widely recognised as wrong, not only by reformers in this country but, more tellingly, by other nations that inherited British leasehold law as part of their colonial paraphernalia. Those countries wisely changed their laws. Shamefully, we have failed to do so. In the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, laws have been passed that seek to increase home ownership, and particularly flat ownership, in urban areas by dropping leasehold law from their statute books and replacing it with something else. It is that something else, which is called commonhold, that I seek to introduce today.
The law of commonhold varies slightly from country to country. The common thread, however, is that in every case it permits the freehold ownership of flats and allows residents to own and run their blocks. Therefore, it is vastly superior and more encouraging to home ownership and equity than our antiquated and unreformed practice. The building societies and Consumer Association are among those who have led the attempt to introduce this measure of leasehold reform into England and Wales, encouraged by a report of the Law Commission, their own careful research and the unhappy complaints of an increasing number of flat owners.
The building societies, among others, have pushed for the adoption of the Australian system of leasehold reform and freehold flat ownership, which, anglicised to our own quaint ways, is called commonhold. This system gives residents in a block of flats a freehold with standardised rights and obligations for the rest of the residential block. The individual owners have full ownership of their flats and joint ownership of a management body which owns and administers common parts such as the hall, the roof and the outside walls, and looks after the building's repair to the satisfaction of the people living in the block and not some remote and ever-changing owner of the residual freehold.
342
Under commonhold, the law is completely clear in contrast with the current position in England and Wales whereby flats have to be sold on long leaseholds. Often the lease is badly drafted, and frequently is incomprehensible even to lawyers. The system allows in the unscrupulous landlord and gives the flat owner a dwindling rather than a growing asset which becomes more difficult to sell and on which it is more difficult to raise a mortgage as the lease runs out.
Thousands of flats in London now have leases of less than 50 years, and that is where the danger creeps in. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 helped to alleviate some of the difficulties, and the Government are to be congratulated on implementing the recommendations of the 1986 Nugee report which gave flat owners a say in insurance arrangements in their blocks and forced the landlord to give them first refusal when he decides to sell the freehold. However, that did not go far enough and was merely tinkering with an essentially defective system.
Commonhold will get rid of that landlord-tenant relationship. Each flat owner would own the freehold of his unit and share in the administration and the ownership of his block. There is no lease. Under the Bill, all new blocks of flats will be sold automatically in commonhold, which most developers are keen on, as few reputable developers want to be left with a residual freehold interest and normally sell it on to less reputable people as soon as they can. Existing leaseholders would have the opportunity to buy their freeholds and convert to commonhold. I am assured that building societies would readily lend the money for such a purchase, and many of the freehold cowboys who own a residual freehold interest would willingly be bought out.
In short, commonhold would give flat owners full, first class ownership of their homes for the first time. The Law Commission is even now beavering away, on instructions from the Lord Chancellor's Department, to write the necessary legislation to bring commonhold to the statute book. According to the Lords Hansard for June 1988, that is well under way.
More recently, according to Hansard of 19 January 1989, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), it was said that these things are under the active consideration of the Attorney-General with the idea of converting theory into law. The purpose of my Bill is to speed that action so that the system of flat ownership designed in the last century might be reformed, with luck, by the next. This reform is one that I believe is called in the Treasury a "lollipop" —it costs nothing but it would be exceedingly popular. I commend it to the House
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dudley Fishburn, Sir George Young, Mr. John Heddle, Mr. Gerald Bowden, Mr. Chris Butler, Mr. Hugo Summerson, Miss Ann Widdecombe and Mr. Matthew Carrington.

Leasehold Reform (Commonhold)
  LEASEHOLD REFORM (COMMONHOLD)
  Mr. Dudley Fishburn accordingly presented a Bill to reform leasehold; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 121.]
Opposition Day
  8TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Investment in the Future
    Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    3.50 pm
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I beg to move,
    That this House notes the long-term failure of the British economy to meet the challenges of a competitive and technological world; expresses its profound concern at the increasing United Kingdom trade deficit in the information technology and electronics industries; notes the United Kingdom's gap in computer and other technological skills; and calls upon the Government to boost investment in high tech infrastructure and civil research and development and to work with industry and the education service to create the skills base that is vital to the modern, efficient and innovative economy that the United Kingdom desperately needs, if the next decade is to overcome the missed opportunities of the 1980s.
    I think that I am right in saying that this is the first major debate for some time on a trade and industry subject. It comes in an afternoon in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), has answered questions on trade and industry matters, and a private Member's Bill on hacking has been introduced. Therefore, it is an important day for trade and industry and I am delighted to be able to introduce a debate of this nature.
    I am glad that the Chancellor of the Duchy will be replying to the debate. He and I do not agree about many of the main planks of the Government's policy. However, he is widely respected as someone who considers and is briefed on his subject closely.
    I do not want it to be believed that I and my party think that everything the Government have done has been wrong. That is not the case. In the past 10 years the Government have had some considerable achievements. The greatest achievement the Government will have to their name is the democratisation of the trade union movement. That will be their enduring memorial—[Interruption.] I hear the Labour Members sitting in front of me disagreeing. We will wait and see the evidence of history.
    One of the Government's most significant achievements is the pursuit of enterprise and self-employment. My argument with the Government on those matters is that they have not gone far enough or fast enough in the direction of the policy they have outlined.
    We must ask whether the propaganda we are fed by the Government—that all that adds up to an economic miracle— stands up under examination. The old moss-covered tombstones of British industrial decline still stand after 10 years of Thatcherism. We still have the highest inflation of any major advanced industrial nation; we still have the highest interest rates of any of our major OECD competitors; we still have wage rises racing well ahead of inflation; we still have net investment—investment as a percentage of GDP—which is at best static and, according to some figures, falling; we still have overall industrial production only just blipping above the 1979 level; we still have a continual loss of our share of world markets as our
    344
    goods fail to meet the right standards in terms of price and, perhaps more important, quality and we still have a trading deficit of unheard of historic proportions which is now seriously undermining the strength of the British economy.
    In many ways, all those symptoms are depressingly similar. Far from having an economic miracle in the 1980s we have, standing clear and evident to everybody, the old signposts of British malaise. We have an industrial system which has failed to produce effectively for world markets and has failed to win new shares of those markets. We have not made progress in what I believe to be the fundamental change that the British economy and British industrial base must achieve in the last years of the century if they are to face up to the new challenges. That fundamental change must be away from being a low-quality industrial assembler to being a high-quality industrial producer.
    Perhaps a more fundamental change is needed in our industrial base away from a high-resource use, low-value-added industrial base to a low-resource use and high-value-added base. Information technologies are the key to that fundamental change. In The Times on 16 September 1986, the Alvey committee said that the
    "basic economic situation dictates that we must become a net exporter of high technology and high value added goods."
    That statement was right, but the committee was wrong in the prediction that followed. It said that, if things continued as it calculated when it wrote the report, by 1990 Britain would become a nation in deficit in high technology information-based trade by £1 billion a year. We have yet to reach the end of the 1980s, yet that predicted deficit is already twice as high: it is running at £2·19 billion and growing. In 1984, the figure was £1·8 billion, but it has increased to £2·19 billion. In 1979, we had a surplus in information technology trade that amounted to about 0·5 per cent. of GDP; we are currently running a deficit of just over 0·5 per cent. of GDP.
    Many believe, and I am one, that the underlying weakness in our industrial base lies in information technologies. It is essential that Britain corrects that. It will involve not only inventing new technologies but manufacturing and, above all, applying them. Our failure to do so underlies our weakness.
    Behind the bold figures of the industrial deficit that. I have given, there are even more worrying facts. Let us consider innovation. Britain is second only to the United States in Nobel prize winners, and per capita our inventions and achievements are greater than any nation. Between the 1950s and the 1970s, Britain had a truly superb record in innovative technologies. But that record is a past record. Our innovative capacity has dropped sharply. In 1963, over 26 per cent. of European applicants for new United States patents were British. By 1985, the figure had fallen by 16 per cent. We are the only major advanced OECD country whose percentage of applications for United States patents has dropped. We now apply for 2 per cent. of United States patents and are below even France as an innovative nation.
    Perhaps that is not surprising, as the number of people working in research and development—scientists and engineers—has fallen over the past 10 years. Using a figure for every 10,000 of population, of all the OECD nations we have the fewest scientists and engineers working in the research sector. In 1983, 32 per cent. of engineers were working in research and development, yet now we have only 30 per cent.

    345
    Britain has opted out of many of the new technologies, such as the space programme. The Secretary of State for Energy had to go to Moscow to hitch a ride on a Soviet spacecraft sponsored by British industry for us to have any input into the space programme.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the underlying problems of our poor research base is the dreadful salaries paid to brilliant research scientists? Does he accept that at the Electricity Council research centre at Capenhurst in Cheshire the best salary a brilliant 30-year-old researcher can expect is well under £30,000, which is poor compared with salaries available abroad?
    Mr. Ashdown: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend's comment. But that is not the only underlying reason. I shall come on to that subject in a minute. Another reason is the lack of adequate research money to provide researchers with the facilities that they need. As I shall point out later, there has been a major flood of some of our highest and best researchers to, for example, the United States and other nations where they are paid much better.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: And to the City.
    Mr. Ashdown: If they had been going into industry, I might be a little more optimistic, but they seem to be leaving this country altogether.
    These facts show up in our own domestic market. Britain has the fastest growing new technology market, after Japan, in the world, yet our share of our own market and our capacity to even fulfil our own market demands has now dropped massively from 50 per cent. to less than one third in the past seven or eight years. A National Economic Development Council report in June 1988 identified the reason for that clearly—lack of investment.
    Investment in research and development is a contentious subject in Britain, as we already spend a higher proportion of our investment in research and development on defence-related research and development than any other nation in a way that frequently holds up the research and development we need in our industrial sector. Even in terms of non-defence research and development, whereas, between 1971 and 1985, all our major industrial competitors increased their research in non-defence research and development, we reduced our research in the non-defence sector. In Japan, it has increased from 1·8 per cent. to 2·8 per cent. of gross domestic product. In West Germany, it has increased from 2 per cent. to 2·5 per cent. It has increased in France and the United States and only the United Kingdom's share of non-defence-related research and development has dropped, from 1·8 per cent. to 1·5 per cent.
    I see the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wondering about those figures. I direct him to the "Save British Science" report which gives the figures. I have them here if he wants to look at them. I ask hon. Gentlemen who may read the Hansard report later to plot those figures on a graph and then to plot on a graph the level of industrial production in each of those nations. They will find that the two curves correlate almost exactly. Nations that have
    346
    invested more in non-defence-related research and development have seen overall industrial production rise, whereas ours has similarly declined.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a correlation between the success of both the Japanese and West German economies and the small percentage of gross national product that they spend on defence, as opposed to the large amount that we spend on defence? Most of our research and development is defence-related. Why, then, does the right hon. Gentleman support such a high level of defence expenditure?
    Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman must have missed the point I made earlier. I conceded that Britain is spending 50 per cent. of its research and development on defence and I said that that was one factor holding back the proper development of civilian research and development. Other factors, such as secrecy, are involved, too. In the United States, defence-related projects in which new ideas are developed will move across into the civilian sector, but our own secrecy frequently prevents that from happening here. I could give the hon. Gentleman examples of how that happens.
    Government-funded civil research has dropped similarly. Between 1981 and 1989, it dropped from 0.73 per cent. to about 0.5 per cent. In terms of money, that means that £800 million less is going into Government-funded civil research. Even allowing for the extra £100 million that was put aside in last year's Autumn Statement, it means a £700 million drop. It means that as a percentage of gross domestic product, Government-funded civil research will be lower in 1990 than it was in 1981.
    But we are not talking merely about a lack of investment in physical goods, research or technologies. We are talking as well about the other component, which is lack of investment in people. In Britain today, the largest and most significant factor holding back production is the skill gap that afflicts our industries.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to the brain drain. Indeed, at the top level, we are seeing a major brain drain. I visited silicon valley a little while ago; it is a fact of life that the greatest expatriate population of silicon valley, not even excluding Hispanics, comprises expatriates of Britain who emigrated to pursue new technology.
    In November 1988, the New York Times made an extraordinary statement about the influx of our intellectual capital into the United States, stating that it composed
    "The largest single influx into this country"—
    that is, the United States—
    "from a single source since the Jewish professors were forced to leave Germany and Austria in the 1930s."
    Mr. Robert Hayward: The right hon. Gentleman has failed to identify when those expatriates went to silicon valley. Is it not the case that the head of Bell-Labs, the head of Hewlett-Packard's research department and the head of Rolm are all expatriates of this country, but that they emigrated in the 60s and 70s? Is it not also the case that there is now substantial evidence of reverse migration among many of the people who emigrated 20 years ago?
    Mr. Ashdown: I can tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what he wants to know, because, as I recall, I visited silicon valley in 1985 when the present Government had been in power for six years. Every person to whom I spoke—they were all either high in the research structures of firms or running firms themselves—had emigrated from Britain since this Government came to power. If there is evidence of a reverse trend, I shall be interested to know it, but I will bet the hon. Gentleman any money that he cares to lay that over the 10-year period since 1979, Britain has lost massively more researchers and scientists abroad than have come to this country.
    I turn now to the skill gap as it affects industry. I refer to the National Computing Centre—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may find this strange and amusing, but I do not and nor, I believe, do the people of Britain. In 1988 the National Computing Centre estimated that we now have 6,000 fewer programmers and analysts than industry needs.
    On 27 February this year, The Independent published an article stating that British industry is now short of about 30,000 experienced information technology staff. It predicted that unless there is a change of Government policy, by 1993 Britain will be short of about 100,000 experienced industrial information technology staff.
    We know that a report published earlier this year by the Confederation of British Industry identified that the skill gap in Britain posed a major barrier for many of our firms. Even in Merseyside, which has high unemployment, 30 per cent. of firms are being held back because they cannot find people with the appropriate skills.
    Meanwhile, the number of those applying for information technology-related degrees in our universities is dropping fast. Those figures underlie our industrial weakness and will ensure our continuing decline in information technologies.
    However, the picture given by the bald statistics is not the whole picture, because it misses out the central fact which, more than anything else, is a contributory cause of the deplorable position that Britain is now in. I refer to the Government's attitude towards information technology and new industries. I do not pretend for a moment that the Government found themselves in an easy position because they did not.
    No one can doubt that Britain was facing a major problem when the Government came to power in 1979, but the Government's inability and unwillingness to tackle that problem effectively now holds them to be indicted. Time and again they have shown that they do not care about British invention and technical skill. Indeed, time and again they have shown that they do not even recognise it; and time and again they have refused to support British invention, so that time and again something is invented in this country, but others then produce it, and we end up adding to our balance of payments deficit by buying it back from them.
    I want to give the House three simple examples of how this has happened in the past.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Hovercraft.
    Mr. Ashdown: Hovercraft is not one of them. Nowadays I do not count it as in the front range of new technology.
    Let me take, first of all, the transputer, invented in INMOS, which was established by Labour's National
    348
    Enterprise Board. The transputer—sometimes known as a computer on a chip—is still 10 years ahead of the field. Indeed, transputers are currently being used by NASA for its communications and radar systems. Much more important, they are being used by the Japanese as the basis of their new laser printer technology. They offer a unique parallel computing opportunity and unique abilities to interconnect with other systems. They are also one third cheaper than any comparable silicon chip mechanism.
    For ideological reasons, as we all know, the Government sold INMOS, complete with the transputer, to Thorn EMI in 1984. Almost immediately, Thorn EMI decided to go out of computing altogether, and into music publication, which provided quicker access to short-term profits. INMOS was then put up for sale. Thorn EMI refused to invest any further in the factory in south Wales—at least, it refused to invest significant amounts in it and showed absolutely no interest in making sure that the transputer was developed adequately. The Government—by this time, too late—stepped in and tried to persuade universities and others to use the transputer, but it was far too little, far too late.
    Last week S.G.S. Thompson moved in and bought INMOS. Let it be on the record that S.G.S. Thompson is a wholly owned Franco-Italian firm and is less profitable, in overall terms, than Thorn EMI. But it could see a good thing, which our own Government and, I must say, our own industry—the industrial electronics giants—could not see. S.G.S. Thompson has promised to invest in the transputer—something that neither the British Government nor British industry was prepared to do. It has promised to recruit 100 new engineers, and, according to its new managing director, will put limitless investment in what he described as a jewel in the new technology area.
    Is it not ironic that, in the very week in which, for instance, Fujitsu has said that it will launch a £400 million factory at Newton Aycliffe to assemble its computers and laser printers, the very week in which we have rejoiced at Toyota moving in to establish assembly plants in the north-east, we have sold one of our own world-beating inventions, and been relegated to the position of an offshore assembly?
    Mr. Bob Cryer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point that the Government have sold a valuable public asset, which could and should have been developed in public ownership. I resent that very deeply. But then the hon. Member talks about a Franco-Italian company taking that asset over. But the United Kingdom is a member of the Common Market. Surely freedom of movement of capital, freedom for predators to go and buy anywhere, is a fundamental requirement of the Common Market, of which the hon. Gentleman and his party have made absolutely no criticism.
    Mr. Ashdown: Absolutely, and I would be the last person to believe that a firm like that should not be available to purchasers in Common Market countries. As the hon. Gentleman will discover in a minute, I believe that the European context is essential if we are to be able to develop a decent high technology industry. My argument is not that a Franco-Italian company should move in and buy up; it is that it is extraordinary that, whereas people from France and Italy can see the advantages of a British invention, our own Government and British industry are

    349
    too blind to see them. I can find few more depressing examples of the short-term and myopic view of this Government.
    There is, however, perhaps one—gallium arsenide, in many ways a sister to the transputer. It is a new high-speed chip.
    Mr. Hayward: The right hon. Gentleman referred to gallium arsenide as a high-speed chip. It is not a high-speed chip. It is a product on which one can produce a high-speed chip. The right hon. Gentleman also described the transputer as unique. It is not unique. There are a series of competitors. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would stop displaying his ignorance of high-technology subjects.
    Mr. Ashdown: I am delighted to hear from the hon. Gentleman. He is wrong about the transputer. There is no equivalent to the transputer. One or two chips are now being developed which are transputer emulators, but they are not in the same league as transputers. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that, technically, gallium arsenide is not a chip. Without wishing to go into long and detailed explanations, let us accept the short term of a chip in the sense that it can at least fulfil many functions of high-speed computers which the silicon chip can perform.
    What is unique about gallium arsenide is that it has several special properties. It is light-emitting, its architecture can be varied after it is made, and it is about five times faster than the conventional silicon chip equivalent. What is also important is that it was invented in Britain. Many people believe that it will replace silicon in high-speed computers and certain other applications.
    In 1985, the advanced materials and devices committee predicted a world market for gallium arsenide of £9 billion. On 11 March 1985, I initiated an Adjournment debate, backing up that committee and asking the Government to support a programme to develop gallium arsenide invented and developed in Britain. I asked them to set up a structure similar to the Alvey committee to press forward the development of this British invention. That Adjournment debate was answered by the then Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, who is now Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. Hon. Members can look at columns 125 and 126 of the Hansard of that date. The Minister's answer was disparaging, to put it mildly. He described gallium arsenide as
    "not an easy material to process."—[Official Report, 11 March 1989, Vol. 75, c. 125.]
    He described it as an "immature technology" when contrasted with the advanced silicon chip technology, and said that the development should be left to industry. He went on to state that the Ministry of Defence was investing some money in it, and he gave the impression that is would have only a Ministry of Defence application.
    For the record, gallium arsenide is not now being made in Britain in any commercial quantities. Far from having only a Ministry of Defence application, gallium arsenide chips are at the heart of every compact disc player imported into Britain today.
    However, Britain leads the world in some aspects of gallium arsenide technology. Last week I was at St. Andrew's university, where I spoke to Professor Sibbett. He has developed a specific, individual application for
    350
    gallium arsenide which enables it to produce the fastest laser pulse in the world—so fast that the duration of the pulse in relation to the duration of a second has the same relationship as the duration of a second to the history of the universe. That is important. It will mean that we can develop extremely high-speed computers in future.
    I looked at what the professor was doing, and as I left his laboratory one of his researchers said to me, "We have established a world record, and that world record has stood for four years. This will be the basis of new high-speed computers. I have absolutely no doubt that the technology will be bought out, used by others, and that we will import it in high-speed computers in years to come."
    I now refer to gallium arsenide's sister technology. Gallium arsenide produces a light impulse. It is a fibre optic which will transmit light, not only in computers but around the country. Again, we have a technology that was invented in Britain—at the British Telecom laboratories in Marplesham. It carries a signal that is thousands of times faster than the conventional twisted copper pairs. The United States study said that in 1991 delivery and installation of fibre-optic cables would be cheaper than installing the twisted copper pairs that we currently have. We will see the development of speeds of transmission down fibre-optic cables increased by perhaps 20 times before the end of the century. The fibre-optic cable offers the possibility of a broad-band, interacting computer communications network for the whole of Britain, possibly reaching into every house.
    Conservative and Labour Members seem to think that this is not an important matter. It will be very important. [Interruption.] I am glad to get some support from the Conservative Benches. Just as our Victorian forebears thought it right to construct an infrastructure of roads, railways and canals to carry the commodities to support their industrial revolution, so we will need a modern infrastructure to carry the commodity for our industry. That commodity will be information. A fibre-optic network will be as essential for our future industry, based on high technology, as were the railways, canals and roads in the past.
    A great many people have considered whether we might invest in such an infrastructure. The Peacock committee said that we should; so did the Prime Minister's own advisory committee on science and technology. British Telecom appealed to the Government to help it do so. It said:
    "All we want is some kind of horizon from the Government, so we are not planning against total uncertainty."
    The French, the Japanese and the United States are doing it. The Germans are doing it like mad. Even the Labour party is now proposing that we should do it. I am told that the Labour party will suggest that this should be the centrepiece of its new industrial strategy. I am delighted that the Labour party is at last joining me in the two-year campaign to invest in the new industrial infrastructure that our nation will need.
    The Government of course, have said that we should not do it. [Interruption.] Conservative Members will have time to make their statements shortly. Mr. Alastair Macdonald, reporting to the Department of Trade and Industry earlier this year, said that the Government should play no part in this and that we should leave it to the market. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Government should find the £15 billion or £20 billion to

    351
    make all that investment, but they have a major role to play in stimulating private investment, in creating the interface standards that will allow it to work, in deciding how it will be laid down in Britain and in pump-priming the development.
    Any belief that we can simply leave it to a free market and see it develop is nonsense. Under the Government, Britain will not get a modern, extensive, nationwide fibre-optic network. Therefore, it will lose the opportunity to use a British invention which would revolutionise society and provide new opportunities for self-employment and enterprise, for education in the home, for self-health care, for home shopping and for entertainment. The Government are turning their back on all those opportunities.
    Is it not ironic that at the same time as the Government are turning their back on helping such systems to come into being, we launched, in January, a satellite television network capable of reaching into every home? What a tragedy that in Britain the telecommunications revolution will be used to give new opportunities to the powerful to shape our minds and to provide soap operas instead of new possibilities for our citizens to shape their destinies for themselves.
    Behind all that we must accept that Britain's trade in new technologies has been seriously hampered not only by the United States Export Administration Act, but by the dead hand of the Co-ordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls. COCOM is a secret committee, it is not treaty-based and it seeks now to police the export of high technologies between the countries of the West and the Soviet Union. It has completely failed in that task. In many ways the Americans have sought to take unilateral action outside COCOM, which has nearly always resulted in giving American industries and firms —especially large firms—trading advantages over their British or European rivals. Frankly, COCOM's day has passed. The new developments in East-West relations mean that COCOM must and should be reformed. We should insist that COCOM is brought out into the open, that it is properly established on a treaty base and that it is worked on the basis that all the nations who are party to it will act multilaterally within COCOM instead of using their industrial muscle outside it.
    So, here is the situation that Britain faces today. We are the only European nation whose inventiveness is falling behind. We are the only European nation in which the number of scientists and engineers in research and development is dropping. We are piling up a bigger and bigger deficit in the information technology trades. We are losing our share of even our domestic market. We are the only advanced nation to be investing less than we were 10 years ago in non-defence research and development. We are losing many of our best brains abroad. We are suffering from a massive and growing skill gap in information technology that probably covers 30,000 jobs today and will cover 100,000 jobs by about 1993. Fewer people are studying for computer degrees than previously and we have far fewer people in our universities than our competitors. We have a Government who know nothing and could not care less about information technology and about the creation of the new industrial base that Britain will need to badly for its prosperity in the future.
    Of course, those conclusions are not new. They are all identified in the recent report of the Select committee on Trade and Industry. The Government have responded to
    352
    them all in their response published in March of this year. I have yet to read a bleaker and more complacent document than that response.
    What Britain needs urgently is a strategy for the new technologies, which will invest in research and development, which will invest in a remissible training tax to encourage firms to carry out their own training, which will invest properly in higher and further education, which will invest in a new technology infrastructure, especially in a fibre-optic cable network for Britain, and which will invest in the world-beating products that the country still invents in sufficient numbers.
    The Government, of course, know nothing about the meaning of investment. They will leave it to the market. They will stand by and see this nation, whose prosperity and future now lies in building a high-wage, high-skill, high-investment, high-technology economy and industry, become instead a low-wage, low-skill, low-investment, low-technology offshore assembly plant for others.
    Of all the indictments that can be laid against the Government, their failure to invest in the future is the greatest and the one for which we will pay the greatest price. That is why I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members, who see for Britain a better future and who believe that the Government have a role to play in building that future, will vote for the motion.
    4.28 pm
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Newton): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'notes the success of the Government's policies in creating a climate in which industry has achieved record levels of output, productivity and investment; welcomes the continuing increase in investment by United Kingdom companies in civil research and development; endorses the Government's policy of supporting collaborative research and development both in the United Kingdom and in Europe; approves the measures being taken by the Government to make education and training more responsive to the needs of industry and commerce; and welcomes the success of the United Kingdom in attracting advanced technology inward investment as a further indication of the strength of the United Kingdom economy.'.
    Perhaps I might begin by observing—using a word that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) used once or twice in his speech—that there is something ironic in the fact that he should move his motion in such terms in a week that has seen the announcement of three massive inward investment projects by companies which are world names in information technology, in vehicles and in vehicle components—Fujitsu, Toyota and Bosch. The total of their investments is about 12 billion. The Opposition are well aware that there are many other investments quite apart from those projects. I mention those major examples of recent inward investment projects because, to put it mildly, they hardly suggest that some of the world's most successful industrial countries and companies share the essentially gloomy view that the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to put before the House.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Newton: I shall happily give way, because if the debate had been initiated by the official Opposition we would have heard an even more mindlessly gloomy set of propositions.
    Mr. Banks: There is an alternative Opposition Front Bench operating today and we and the Democrats are in complete conjunction in our views on this matter. Why is it that the only thing that the Minister can do is to claim great credit for the fact that foreign investors, especially from Japan, are coming to this country? Where is British investment? The Japanese are coming here in order to get a foothold in Europe for 1992 because they know that Britain is the most deregulated country in the whole of Europe. That means that it will be easy for them. They are using us as a doormat, and it is about time that the Minister started to say that.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Think about the bridge on the River Kwai.
    Mr. Newton: I shall think at least as much about the remarks attributed to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who spoke in, I think, the north-east yesterday. He effectively suggested that the north-east was becoming colonised by the Japanese because they are investing there. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman goes back to his constituents in the Ford plant at Dagenham and suggests that that is an American colony. Some of the major contributors to the British economy over many years have been foreign investors, overseas firms, whose contribution we immensely value. They have contributed a great deal to the British economy, and I do not know why it should be suggested that we should now turn our backs on them.
    Britain and its employment and production would be the losers if we were to adopt the attitude suggested by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). He can come back at me if he wants to, but he should bear in mind that much of this investment would come to Europe anyway. The key point is that within Europe it is coming to Britain. If the hon. Gentleman would prefer it to go to France, Italy, Belgium or Germany, let him say so. If not, let him welcome it here.
    Mr. Tony Banks: It is coming to Britain because we are a pushover. They know that our conditions of employment and employment rights are so deregulated that they can take advantage. The Government just lay down a doormat for investors from the rest of the world. The Minister spoke about Ford. There is a threat hanging over the future of Dagenham and the investment there. I went to buy a Ford car from Dagenham Motors because I thought that, as I live in the area, that was the appropriate thing to do. I asked whether the Fiesta that I bought was made at the Dagenham plant, which is right behind the showroom. I was told that it was assembled in Spain. What state are we coming to when we buy Ford cars in this country and then find that they are assembled in Spain and exported to Britain? That is palpable nonsense. Where is the investment in British industry, technology and skills? That is what we want to hear about.
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman and I can agree on at least one matter, which is that 10 years ago there was not the remotest likelihood that any of these firms would have come to Britain. He describes the change from his own particular, rather curious, perspective. I described the change as one in which firms see this country as a good place in which to do business and as a good base for operations which, in one industry after another, are
    354
    becoming increasingly international, for reasons which have nothing to do with the factors that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has mentioned.
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong to say that there was no inward investment 10 years ago. There was a lot of inward investment in all parts of the country, but the difference between this Government and the previous Labour Government is that the latter had a regional policy and tried to get investment in areas of high unemployment and to get industry where it was vital. Unfortunately, at that time a whole series of firms which operated in this country but whose decisions were made in Detroit and elsewhere were closing down.
    Mr. Newton: Why?
    Mr. Heller: The Minister needs to know a little about economics, but I am not making a speech. I could explain to him in very simple terms the nature of the rotten system that he upholds, which has booms and slumps. If he does not understand that, he does not understand the ABC of economics.
    I was the Minister of State for Industry for a period when we were getting that inward investment. It was precisely when inward investment began to taper off that we saw the end of the regional policy.
    Mr. Newton: I am conscious of the previous unhappy experience of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller). He should perhaps bear in mind two things. First, two of those same companies to which he has referred and to which I have not referred—I suppose that he had in mind, in particular, Ford and General Motors —have both in recent months, quite apart from the three large investments in the past week that I have already mentioned, made significant decisions to invest further in this country, Ford with its engine plant in Wales, and General Motors with some futher investment not very far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise something else. Although it is for Bosch, for example, to say, rather than for me to tell the House, precisely what factors influenced its decision to come here, bearing in mind that it is a German company, I gather from my contacts with the company that two considerations that attracted it were the low rate of corporation tax and the good state of British industrial relations. That is why I say that 10 years ago there would not have been the remotest possibility, however much regional assistance had been offered to them, of those companies coming here.
    A third point that I mention while I am seeking to deal with the hon. Member for Walton is the significance of Toyota's having decided to come here on a massive scale with no regional assistance at all, because it has not gone to such an area. That is a feature of some significance.
    Mr. Timothy Wood: I would like to join my right hon. Friend in welcoming the inward investment that has taken place, but it is not only inward investment that we are seeing. In my own constituency in the past four or five years we have had both announcements of further investments and actual investment by, for example, Glaxo with £500,000 to be spent in Stevenage in the next four years and 2,000 people involved in research and development. Another 500 people are involved in research and development in Marconi Instruments with a new

    355
    factory development. Further development is going on in International Computers Ltd., part of the Standard Telephones and Cables group, in Stevenage. All this new investment is being made so that this country can be more prosperous.
    Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood). He makes very well the point that, although there is a particular drama about so many large inward investment projects being announced in the past week, it is against the background of a widespread increase in investment of all kinds across virtually the whole of the British economy, both by companies overseas and by those business men here who have greater confidence in the country's economy than they have had at any time for a generation.
    Mr. Skinner: That line of argument about inward investment would stand up much better if the Government had not been in office for 10 years. When they took office we had a marginal surplus on our manufactured trade; we are now down to a deficit on manufactured trade of about £20 billion and a balance of payments deficit of about £15 billion. According to the Chancellor, despite all the claims about inward investment, it is likely to get worse in the next financial year. If this inward investment is so good, beautiful and wonderful, when will the balance of payments return to a surplus?
    Mr. Tony Banks: Where is the miracle?
    Mr. Newton: If, for example, Fujitsu makes chips here rather than elsewhere, there will be an export and import substitution effect. The same is manifestly true of Bosch, Toyota and all the other projects that I mentioned. At the same time, they will contribute in various ways, both direct and indirect, to the further strengthening of the competitiveness of the British economy, and are part and parcel of the range of policies with which we seek to meet the needs to which reference has been made.
    Mr. Banks: When will we move back into a surplus?
    Mr. Newton: No doubt other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, and I wish to make some progress.
    One matter on which both Social and Liberal Democrats and Labour Members sitting below the Gangway happily agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends is the importance of investment for this country's future prosperity.
    It is striking that, although during the 1960s and 1970s the United Kingdom was near the bottom of the league by almost any standard of the substantial measurement of investment, since 1980 total fixed investment has grown faster in the United Kingdom than in any other country in the European Community. Manufacturing investment alone—I know how keen Opposition Members are on manufacturers—is estimated to have increased by no less than 9·5 per cent. between 1987 and 1988. All the indicators point to continued buoyant investment this year.
    Mr. Doug Henderson: I am not trying to be obstructive, but, if that is the case, why is manufacturing investment now only back to its 1979 level?
    Mr. Newton: I shall point to a fact that emerged in the course of my statement on Toyota, which I made to the
    356
    House yesterday, when I was challenged about the degree of import penetration of the British motor car industry. I made the point then, and I make no apology for repeating it, that for most of the period since the Government took office there has not been a particularly satisfactory level of import penetration. It has been between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent.—but that was about the level which it had reached in 1979. Between 1974 and 1979, the level of import penetration doubled. It will take a long time to overcome the effects of such decline, its consequences for investment during that period, and the decisions that were then made.
    Equally, investment in industrial research and development is increasing in an encouraging way, with an increase of about 26·5 per cent. in real terms—more than a quarter—between 1983 and 1987. It should be firmly registered throughout the House that it is against that background of a strong sustained increase in investment by industry that the right hon. Member for Yeovil has brought the motion before the House this afternoon.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that investment as a proportion of GDP—which is the proper way to measure net investment—is no higher than it was in 1979? The right hon. Gentleman accused me of being gloomy. Is he not gloomy about the fact that today our deficit in information technology is running at £2·9 billion a year and growing? Does he not find that a gloomy picture? Or does he think that it is wonderful?
    Mr. Newton: I shall be coming to some of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about information technology, for I have no desire to dismiss them. I ask him to acknowledge, however, that after more than 20 years in which the economy suffered not only from its failure to invest as much as we would like but from growth in consumption outpacing, consistently and almost relentlessly, that of investment, there has been a dramatic turnaround in the past five or six years. The growth of investment has often exceeded that of consumption by as much as 100 per cent. That remarkable trend has addressed a long-term weakness of the British economy, and has helped to build up its strength for the future.
    The right hon. Gentleman talked a good deal about the information technology and electronics sector. Although he considers that sector particularly important, and it helped him to make his case—or attempt to do so—I ask him not to ignore other aspects of high technology, especially aerospace and chemicals, which present a different picture.
    No one should imagine that the labels "information technology" and "electronics" mean that those are the only high-tech industries with which the country needs to be concerned. In aerospace, for example, the United Kingdom's capital investment in 1986 was £220 million, up from £133 million in 1983. In chemicals, capital investment in 1987 was running at an annual rate of £1·4 billion, up from some £900 million four years earlier. Investment in aerospace research and development between 1983 and 1987 has consistently remained at a high level, while in the chemical sector R and D investment increased from £735 million in 1983 to £1·3 billion in 1987—a massive increase of 47 per cent. in real terms. In both those high-tech sectors, moreover, the country is running a trade surplus of over £2 billion.
    Mr. Cryer rose—
    Mr. Newton: I will give way once more, but then I must get on.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that the British aerospace industry has been so consistently under-funded that we have not been able, in conjunction with Airbus Industrie, to provide a range of planes to satisfy British Airways—which is now almost entirely dependent on Boeing, with its highly variable quality of production? Does he also accept that the only small to medium-sized plane, the British Aerospace 146, depends not on Rolls-Royce engines but on Avco Lycoming engines imported from the United States? Is that not a sign of our lack of investment in technologies that will need developing if we are to match Boeing and Avco Lycoming?
    Mr. Newton: It is also significant that a considerable number of American aircraft in operation around the world use Rolls-Royce engines. Given the size of this country and of what might be called its domestic market, its achievements in industry are considerable and make a major contribution to our balance of payments.
    For understandable reasons, the right hon. Gentleman chose to focus particularly on a different high-tech industry, IT and electronics. In his intervention a few moments ago he implied—indeed, he virtually made his view explicit—that it was self-evident that the United Kingdom should expect to have the manufacturing capability to meet all its high technology needs. He points to the trade deficit in the IT and electronics sector, arguing that it demonstrates a need to channel further investment into it. I noted that he did not refer directly to the point that nearly all the major countries of the European Community and the United States also have IT deficits, and therefore have not gone down the self-sufficiency path that the right hon. Gentleman implied.
    Our country has a long history of involvement in research and, as many right hon. and hon. Members said, it has been the home of many great discoveries. It certainly has outstanding strengths in particular areas of scientific research and industrial technology, including many under the umbrella of information technology and electronics. When it comes to instrumentation control systems, for example, and to electronic capital goods such as radar, we had a 1987 trade surplus of more than £700 million. No country is, or is likely to be, a world leader in each and every area of high technology. It is an increasingly global market in which each successive generation of technology demands ever-increasing sums to be spent on research and development investment.
    The United Kingdom—no more than the United States, Germany or Japan—will not be able to become a major force in every area of high technology. Therefore, in common with other developed countries, we have rightly, in my view—tended to specialise in those sectors in which British firms have a world lead or the prospect of maintaining a strong position in an increasingly competitive global market.
    Interestingly, it emerged from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that information technology is used to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of industry and commerce, and that that is true whether the IT equipment concerned is manufactured in the United Kingdom or is imported. In his remarks the right hon. Gentleman adverted—almost as an aside—to the undoubted growth in the IT and electronics trade deficit, and to the fact that
    358
    that deficit was associated with probably the fastest growing market in the world. That is itself an extremely encouraging trend. It is at least as important—it will be possible to argue that it is even more important—to ensure that IT is effectively applied in our manufacturing and service industries as it is that we ourselves should be a massive manufacturer of microchips or whatever. In revealing that the United Kingdom is one of the world's fastest growing markets for IT and electronics products, the right hon. Gentleman indicated one of our country's growing strengths and not weaknesses, as he sought to imply.
    Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the proper utilisation of information technology is vital. One thinks, for example, of the way that it has been used to make the textile industry up-market and more competitive. However, the fact remains that Britain is woefully under-equipped to make use of the capital goods that it is buying in to support that deficit. The Institute of Administration and Management's report of 10 July 1988 commented that unsophisticated users of information technology are six times more likely to suffer poor financial results. It went on to comment that that is exactly what we have in Britain today—due to inadequate training levels, an insufficient number of graduates, and in particular a deficit of 6,000 programmers and analysts. The underlying problem is that the Government refuse to invest in education so that we are unable to utilise the maximum capacity of even that IT that we are buying in.
    Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman, understandably, rapidly shifts his ground from concentrating solely on our production capacity in relation to IT and electronics. Now that I have made the point that applications of that technology are increasing, which is encouraging, the right hon. Gentleman turns to what he calls the skills gap. I shall refer to that issue later. However, I hope that I have carried the right hon. Gentleman with me in recognising that at least as important as the sheer scale of the production of any particular types of IT or electronics products in this country is the extent to which we make use of those products, from wherever they may come, in developing industry's competitiveness and efficiency.
    Capital investment in IT increased by 44 per cent. in real terms between 1982 and 1986, and it is also a leading sector of investment in terms of research and development, with investment in 1987 of nearly £2 billion compared with slightly less than £1·5 billion in 1983. Clearly it would not be sensible to demand of United Kingdom firms that they invest in areas where they cannot compete effectively internationally. It would not be right, as the right hon. Gentleman claimed it would, for the Government to seek to determine where and how United Kingdom firms should or should not invest. That approach of picking winners was tried in the past. More often than not it ended up as the quickest way of picking losers and of sending a good deal of money down the drain. There is no substitute for firms having a knowledge and understanding of the market place determining their own production and investment strategies.
    There will inevitably be areas of IT and of other industries where foreign firms have a competitive advantage and where United Kingdom companies will choose to buy from abroad rather than manufacture in this

    359
    country. That is an inevitable consequence of increased specialisation in the IT and electronics sector and of the need for every country to concentrate on comparative strengths. That is one reason why we welcome the overseas investment to which I referred earlier, which has been an outstanding aspect of this country's success story in recent months and years.
    I emphasise the contribution made to this country by firms with which we are already familiar. IBM, for example—and it would be just as possible to talk about Hampshire being colonised by IBM as about the north-east being colonised by Fujitsu—with more than 18,000 employees, is the largest employer, producer and exporter in the United Kingdom's IT industry. In 1988 it exported goods and services worth more than £2 billion, running a positive balance of trade and making it one of the country's largest exporters.
    It is encouraging that other world leaders such as Digital Equipment, Hewlett-Packard, Rank Xerox and Datalogic all chose the United Kingdom for their European headquarters. Their decisions are not just coincidental but are positive statements by business leaders of confidence in this country and in its role as a key player in information technology. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage, it is far from the case that our indigenous IT firms are not investing. My hon. Friend referred to ICL, which has spent about £20 million on its United Kingdom manufacturing ability in the past two years, while Research Machines, one of our smaller but growing computer manufacturers, made more than £5 million of capital investment over the same period.
    The Government have also created a climate that ensures that firms are much better placed to invest in research and development. Manufacturing profitability in 1987 was the best since 1969, and industry increased its own funding of research and development by about 30 per cent. in real terms over the four years between 1983 and 1987. Apart from that growth in industry's own expenditure on research and development, the Department of Trade and Industry spent more than £500 million on science and technology in 1988–89, and it will spend a slightly larger sum in 1989–90.
    I am not sure from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks whether he welcomes this, but the Government have shifted their balance of policies and moved away from what is known as near-market support for research and development to direct support to longer-term ventures more distant from the market. We are putting much greater emphasis on longer-term collaborative programmes of research between companies, and encouraging co-operation between companies and higher education institutions. Many new schemes to promote pre-competitive collaborative research have been launched in the past year. For example, some 11 programmes have been announced and several more will soon be launched on Link, with which the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar. Proposals for such projects are being generated at a healthy rate.
    I was particularly pleased that the right hon. Gentleman clearly recognised the importance of international collaboration, especially with the aproach of the single European market. We are supporting the Eureka framework which goes beyond the European Community and is a pan-European programme to encourage industrially led projects with the European Community and other European partners; and, of course, we are
    360
    supporting many European Community research and development programmes which are complementary to our own.
    Everyone in the Department is actively encouraging United Kingdm organisations to take part in community research industrial research and development programmes. Within the framework of those programmes, United Kingdom organisations are taking part in between 50 arid 80 per cent. of the projects, depending on the individual programmes, and have received between 18 and 20 per cent. of the total funding. That is not often sufficiently appreciated when people look at some of the figures to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
    I wanted to make one or two further points about investment, but in view of the time, partly because I have given way several times, I shall move on to the other shortage on which the right hon. Gentleman focused particular attention—the need for training in various skills at various levels. Certainly the time when training could be regarded as a one-off spell between general education and work and when additional training was considered neccessary only when new machinery was installed is long gone. It is encouraging that so many employers in Britain consider training to be a continuous process that is essential if they are to keep up with their competitors at home and abroad. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that that shift towards ensuring that training is more widely accepted as an essential part of a firm's investment and development is being reinforced.
    Clearly, not least because of the large increase in the use and application of information technology and electronics, there has been a need to increase the supply of skilled manpower. The surge in demand for IT skills that has accompanied the surge in the market for the processes and products has undoubtedly led to a shortage of qualified manpower. We have sought to respond to that in a variety of positive and constructive ways, although it is manifestly not a problem that can be overcome in weeks or months.
    By 1990 the engineering and technology programme will have provided 5,000 extra places at undergraduate and postgraduate level, 80 per cent. of which are in IT-related subjects. That programme and the earlier information technology in higher education initiative have significantly increased the places available for postgraduate information technology training. This year, the funding to help polytechnics and colleges to develop their capacity for applied research has been increased by more than 50 per cent. The high technology national training initiative of the Training Agency provides high-level vocational training courses, the majority of which are in computing sciences and engineering, with an IT component. Currently, some 3,000 students benefit from that programme. Computing and IT is a compulsory element in all youth training scheme programmes.
    Those are just some of a wide-ranging set of programmes directed at the very problem to which the right hon. Gentleman drew attention. Trainees on employment training will also be able to undertake training on information technology as part of their individual action plans. We are continuing to monitor closely the evolving pattern of demand and supply for information technology professionals through regular surveys carried out by the Institute of Manpower Studies on behalf of a number of Government Departments and agencies.

    361
    Finally, I should mention something which the right hon. Gentleman did not include in his speech—the range of measures that are under way to improve links between business and education, not least the wide-ranging plans by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment for the development of training and enterprise councils.
    In addition to the need for improvement in the amount and nature of training available in certain places at certain times which is currently being addressed, too many of those programmes were not sufficiently shaped by direct and clear knowledge of the needs and requirements of businesses and business men. The move towards training and enterprise councils to ensure that training is more closely related to the needs that underlie this debate will, in the medium and long term, prove one of the most important and productive changes which the Government has sought to implement.
    For reasons that are clear to the House and, I hope, accepted, I have taken a little more time than I had intended. I accept that much remains to be done to overcome the full effects of a longer and unhappy period of decline in many parts of British industry, especially during the 1960s and 1970s. Against the background of recent investment decisions by British firms and those abroad, the change in the past 10 years should be considered genuinely encouraging by hon. Members on both sides of the House. More than at any time in a generation, Britain is investing in the future. We are investing in capital, in skills and in a way which will continue to improve the output, the competitiveness and the trading position of the British economy. While I accept that there is still more to be done, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept, as he did at the outset of his speech, that an immense amount has already been achieved.
    5.7 pm
    Mr. Doug Henderson: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) on his choice of subject for our debate. I also congratulate him and his party on the wording of the motion, as far as it goes. I was also pleased that he is so eager to endorse the Labour party's next economic programme in advance of its publication. I look forward to his further endorsement when the programme is published.
    In the 1989–90 Red Book, which I understand is more than just another document, the Government claimed:
    "As a result of sound financial policies coupled with supply side reforms, progress has been made during the 1980s".
    I shall return to supply side changes but first I shall address the question of economic progress. In any test of economic progress, it would be reasonable to look at the indices of manufactured output, manufacturing investment, trade, employment, growth and even inflation.
    Can what has happened in our economy in the past 10 years be called progress when manufacturing output returned to 1978 levels only in 1987 and manufacturing investment has still not yet returned to 1979 levels? In 1979, we had a surplus of £3 billion on our trade in manufactures, but we now have a deficit of £20 billion. That is reflected in the figures of key industries in our economy. For example, most households spend a large proportion of their income in the car industry, but there is
    362
    now a £6 billion gap in trade. In textiles and clothing there is a £3 billion gap in trade and in electronics there is a growing gap, as we have already heard, of nearly £4 billion. That is also reflected in our share of world trade, which has fallen by 11 per cent. over the same period.
    Can it be called progress when we have lost 2 million jobs in manufacturing industry over 10 years? Notwithstanding the improvements in employment in the past couple of years, which we all welcome, unemployment is still 35 per cent. higher than in 1979, even if we take into account the Government's new method of calculation. Can it be called progress when the north-south divide is greater than it has been at any time in the past 20 years? Can it be called progress when inflation on all indices has all but returned to the 1978–79 level? I remind the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster of the comments of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the 1987 general election when he said that inflation was the judge and jury of the Government's economic policy. I wonder whether the Chancellor is still saying that. I wonder whether the Minister is saying that when inflation is increasing rapidly. It is now double the average in the EEC and is moving relentlessly upwards.
    That depressing picture is the real monument of 10 years of Thatcherism. It has bequeathed to this generation and the generation of the 1990s a lower capacity to make things that we need to export and an inability to compete in the modern high-tech industries. We are now a ravenous pool of consumerism for the products of other countries. What will happen when the bubble bursts? Will not deflation be forced on us again? Will not living standards begin to fall and, with a time lag, unemployment again start to rise? All that will have been called progress during a time when we have had the benefit of £78 billion in North sea oil revenues.
    Some people may argue that inward investment is a sign of good times. I am not saying that it is not welcome in some circumstances. However, an over-reliance on inward investment is surely an indictment of our industries' inability to invest in our future. I am not opposed to inward investment. As a Member for the north-east of England I realise the importance of Japanese investment to the north-east economy. However, we must recognise why the Japanese are here. They are not here because of any supply side miracle in the British economy. The senior management in Japanese companies will say why they are here. They want to be inside protectionism that they think might occur in Europe after 1992 and if they locate in a country in which English is spoken, they do not need to retrain their middle management in other languages. That is the real reason why Britain is attracting Japanese investment. I think that the Minister knows that that is so.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Gentleman is making disparaging remarks about inward investment. Did he listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) when he intervened strongly during the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's statement yesterday to point out the enormous benefit that Japanese investment has conferred on his constituency?
    Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. We are not opposed to all inward investment. We want a balance of investment in this country and a greater investment by our indigenous

    363
    companies. One reason why companies will not invest in the north is that companies currently located in the south cannot persuade their managements to go north. To companies from Japan, Korea or elsewhere the 300 miles between Newcastle and London and the 400 miles between Glasgow and London are immaterial.
    We cannot rely exclusively on Japanese investment for major projects in the regions. If we do accept investment, it must not be on just any terms. We must remind ourselves that Japanese investment in the United Kingdom is for the benefit of Japan, not Britain. We risk becoming an adjunct of the Japanese economy, with all that that entails. We need our own economy, our own product development and our own components industry. We must develop using our own inventiveness, our own new industries and our own research and development. We need our own educational and training investment and we need our own industrial infrastructure. Without that, we will become nothing more than a low-wage, low-skill, branch-plant economy.
    Some people have said that we are becoming a screwdriver economy and hon. Members know the danger involved in that. In prosperous times it might be all very well but in difficult times there is nothing for the screwdriver to screw. That means a reduction in output and an increase in unemployment.
    Mr. Newton: I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman can make those comments about Japanese companies such as Fujitsu, Toyota and Nissan but not about IBM, Ford, NEC or any of the other major foreign investments that have been here for some time. Nobody in Dagenham talks about a screwdriver economy. Nobody talks about such an economy in Hampshire or various other places in which IBM is working. Nobody who has seen Nissan at work in the north-east talks about a screwdriver economy. Why should it be assumed that that applies to all new investment?
    Mr. Henderson: I know that the right hon. Gentleman makes regular journeys to the north-east, but I hope that in future he will take a little more cognisance of what he is told. He will know that the people in the north-east remember the nature of the investment that came from the American economy in the 1940s and 1950s. Companies such as Caterpillar are no longer there. Caterpillar was a screwdriver company and when things became difficult internationally it pulled out. Many companies, including Massey Ferguson and Chrysler, have pulled out in that way. That is the real danger. We need a balance of investment. I am not saying that we should exclude all foreign investment.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument with care. He said that we need a balance of investment. I am not suggesting that he believes that we should exclude foreign investment but is he suggesting that, for the Labour party, with the announcement this week, the balance has gone too far in the wrong direction?
    Mr. Henderson: I am not saying that the balance has gone off the end. However, if in the future the only investment in parts of Scotland, the north-east and north-west is foreign investment, the economy will become so dependent on inward investment that when we are hit by an international recession those areas will be as badly
    364
    hit as they have been in the past. Some areas, such as Wearside near my constituency, are extraordinarily dependent on inward investment. They will be the first to be hit if there is a world recession, and everyone connected with the investment knows that.
    Mr. Bob Clay: Is my hon. Friend aware that a report commissioned by the Department of the Environment from the distinguished accountants, Peat Marwick McLintock, on the housing action trust in Sunderland said that there was no evidence of the Nissan plant having any effect on employment on the estates of Downhill, Hylton Castle, Red House and Town End Farm? The Nissan plant, which already employs 2,000 people and is adjacent to those estates across the A19, has had no effect on those estates, which have high unemployment. Is not part of the problem that because investment is not indigenous, it is highly selective where it employs?
    Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He knows that the problem arises in such areas as a result of skill shortages and the lack of proper training programmes over the past 10 or 15 years.
    Mr. John Redwood: If the Nissan plant is only a screwdriver plant, why do people need skills to work in it?
    Mr. Henderson: I have been grateful for other interventions, but that remark is offensive. It is offensive to say that people who work on an assembly line have no skill. The hon. Gentleman should spend 39 hours on the Nissan production line and then make that remark.
    Why is our economy in the shape that it is? I shall refer to comments made by people who know more about the subject than the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). Dr. Andrew Sentence, who is head of the CBI's trends and policies group, stated last July in the CBI news:
    "High interest rates are a burden on business and are unwelcome at any time. However, they also affect companies, particularly manufacturers, through their impact on the value of the currency."
    I met the chairman of a company called AWD, which is in the vehicle industry. The Minister is familiar with it and I hope that he will agree that it is a go-ahead company which has considerable prospects. It rescued Bedford Vans, but its chairman is saying that the company will not make the impact that he wants on the market until the exchange rate is industry-based. I recently met a director of Courtaulds in charge of its spinning division in Lancashire shortly before he announced the closure of spinning plants. He made it clear that the problem was not internal productivity but the exchange rate. He said that as long as it was geared to the City and not to the needs of industry, the company could not compete in the world market.
    Economists once thought that if demand policies are appropriate the economy will be successfully steered, but history has reminded us that that is not the case. I agree with a speech that the Minister made earlier this year, in which he acknowledged that demand and supply side initiatives are essential. However, it is clear that the Government's policies on the demand side have been pro-City, pro-rich, pro-export of capital and anti-industry, anti balanced economic development and anti the interests of ordinary people.
    I observe no supply side miracle. Our failure to improve the supply side is at the core of the problems facing us as

    365
    we build up to 1992. The basic error made by the Government over the past 10 years is that they believed that if they bashed the unions, trimmed the power of workers and gave employers more punch, supply side problems would be solved. That is what happened to British Leyland, but could any hon. Member say that as a result it is a strong, independent company going from success to success? Surely the truth is different, as everyone in the industry knows. It failed to take necessary design, capital re-equipping and marketing measures. I am as pleased as any hon. Member that it is hanging on manfully, perhaps in hock to Honda, but everyone in the industry knows that the basic problem was not limited to labour. That lesson is typical of much that has happened to much of manufacturing industry.
    We should now know that the supply side cannot be changed without investing in the future, yet we still spend less on research and development than the Germans, Japanese or Americans. As the right hon. Member for Yeovil said, if the military aspect is extracted from research and development expenditure, the problem is more severe. Is it any surprise that we are ever more dependent on Japanese-designed cars, electronics and engineering products? The Government cannot dodge their responsibilities, as the Financial Times said when attributing blame for the problem in an editorial on 14 March.
    There will be no supply side miracle while training is so woefully inadequate. Our number of trainees has dropped from 23,000 in 1979 to 8,300 in 1988. Two thirds of British workers have no workplace qualifications, compared with one in five in Germany. Cuts of over £230 million were made in the 1989–90 training budget in real terms. Even in the service industries, about which the Department of Trade and Industry is for ever crowing, 14,500 young French people obtained qualifications in retailing compared to only 1,650 in Britain. Is it any wonder that the Engineering Employers Federation has forecast a deficit in mechanical engineering products in 1989, for the first time this century?
    Is not the fundamental policy error of the Government that, unlike our counterparts in the Federal Republic of Germany, they are completely and ideologically hostile to collective and community action? We cannot make improvements in research and development, training, education and infrastructure unless we make a public expenditure commitment. Public expenditure should be accountable. The test should be the value of the service or product that it provides. However, I acknowledge that that has not always been the case. Crucially, public expenditure should be used to stimulate and complement private sector investment and initiative.
    The Government know the perils ahead. They know that a further hike in interest rates will not only hit mortgages and further hamper industrial investment but will further exacerbate the trade gap. They know that the pound is likely to collapse when confidence departs and the hot money leaves our shores. They must know that 1992 is a further threat to our economy. If they are honest, they will admit that we still have severe supply side inadequacies.
    Regrettably—I believe that the country holds this view —it is too late to change the Government's view. Some
    366
    Conservative Members share the view of Labour Members that intervention is necessary and that we must invest to protect our future. Perhaps we will hear more about that from Wales in the coming week. I urge Conservative Members to join us in supporting the motion.
    5.28 pm
    Mr. Richard Page: The title of the debate is fully in keeping with the slogan approach of the Social and Liberal Democratic party. It is long on good intentions and rather short on practicalities. I was privileged to represent Workington in the late 1970s and remember the workings of the Lib-Lab pact. I remember that almost any investment for the future was cut and cut again, so perhaps the House will understand my scepticism about the words of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about investing in the future. I have a thought going through my mind that if he ever got near the levers of control the results might fall a little short of his words.
    I am grateful that the House has the opportunity to discuss this most important matter, but I am disappointed in the number of hon. Members who are present to listen. Although I include hon. Members of my own party in that comment, we are more in evidence than hon. Members of other parties. We have some good spenders in this House, but we are a little short of earners. As a nation, we must earn money before we start spending it. This is a debate in which we decide how to earn money so that we can spend it on the social programmes the nation requires.
    I want to talk about future investment in reducing our balance of payments deficit. In the short term, the Government's policy—which I support—is to have high interest rates which will bring down inflation and reduce demand. I am concerned that high interest rates will, in turn, reduce investment as well as demand. Even if that does not happen, I am equally worried about whether our manufacturing industry will be of a size and capacity to take advantage of the demand when interest rate falls. Will it be in a position to supply the goods that our people require when interest rates come down? I worry that that will not be the case. If I am right, we shall lurch backwards and forwards in a way reminiscent of the stop-go policies of the 1950s and 1960s, only this time we shall use the balance of payments as the crisis indicator.
    I assume that it is desirable to bridge the balance of payments gap and to bring our balance of payments into equality; thus we should define the objectives to be achieved. It is a sad fact—every hon. Member who has spoken so far has made the point—that for some reason our manufacturing industries are poor in investing in three areas—training, equipment and research—when compared with industries in other countries. We can deal with the problem of the balance of payments deficit as a large cake, by taking slices out of it and dealing with each slice at a time. I am glad that manufacturing investment is now up to its 1979 level, but it is still low compared with the other G7 countries and we have to bear in mind the significant point that our investment is still some 50 per cent. lower than Japan's as a percentage of gross national product. However, I do not decry the increase in investment that has taken place, as so many Opposition Members have. It is a significant improvement and long may it continue. But we should have some idea to what

    367
    percentage of GNP should be reached in manufacturing investment if we are to work towards reducing the balance of payments deficit.
    We must also have some idea what percentage of inward investment is desirable each year and work towards it. I have to smile when I see the disagreements between the two wings of the Labour party over internal investment. I welcome Toyota's investment in the north. It is a tribute to the changing attitudes and atmosphere that the Government have created that the Japanese are looking to this country for investment. I also admire the work done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales in creating the infrastructure in Wales to attract companies to the Principality. I am not saying that the Government should pick winners, because the Government could not pick a winner if we paid them, but the Government can provide the infrastructure to make this country attractive to foreign companies for investment. I am told that during the last two years, the improvement in the balance of payments which will be created by those companies that have gone into south Wales in that period would mean a change of £10 billion to £15 billion to the balance of payments, if it were to be extrapolated over the whole country. That contribution should not be lightly brushed aside.
    I know that some people are rather worried about internal investment and inflows of funds. I must point out to them that the most chauvinist nation of the lot in the European Community—France—has now, for the first time, revised its policy on internal investment and is going out of its way to attract more companies to invest in France, whereas before it was trying to keep them out.
    Much has been said about training and the fact that for some reason our manufacturing industries have been poor in that respect. The recent initiatives of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in putting £3 billion into training and bringing in manufacturing industry, which will contribute about £15 billion, will go a long way to bridge the skill gap. It is a funny quirk of human nature that although we have probably the most generous student grant system in the industrialised world, we have the lowest percentage of people going on into further education. That reflects a failure of the motivation of some of our schoolteachers. Britain desperately needs a trained work force to maintain its position in the industrialised world.
    Again, we have a low percentage of GNP spent on research. Other hon. Members have already made the comment about the percentage given by the Government to defence. I would like the Government to look at defence as a separate item and see whether it is necessary for them to increase the percentage that goes into the civil side. Although our defence industries make a contribution to the balance of payments, one cannot eat tanks or grow rockets. That part of the economy should not be supported to the detriment of the civil side. The civil side should be evaluated on its own and should not be squeezed out in favour of the military.
    I was generalising when I spoke about investment because certain sectors of society and industry have done exceedingly well. For example, the huge investment put into aero engines has produced results. Other hon. Members have mentioned our pharmaceutical and chemical companies. There is no doubt that money invested comes out in the fulness of time in profit, jobs and products. I am afraid to say, however, that as a general
    368
    rule, the lack of skills and the lack of investment in research in our manufacturing industry has led our manufacturers to retreat into niche marketing. Niche marketing is profitable in the short term, but I remind industry, as I remind the House, that niches are a little like castles in 13th century Europe, in that they are soon overrun. We must consider the wider context.
    I am reminded of the story, which I am told is true, of the ambassador to Washington at the time of the introduction of television. He was asked to do a Christmas broadcast which would be recorded in advance. The television crew arrived, the ambassador gave the broadcast and when he thought that it was all over the interviewer said, "What would you like for Christmas?" The ambassador replied, "Crystallised fruit." Come Christmas day, the ambassador watched the broadcast. All was going well until, at the end, the camera flashed to the French ambassador. When he was asked what he would like for Christmas, he said, "I would like to see an end to nuclear arms." The interviewer turned to the Australian ambassador who said, "I would like an end to the Korean war." He turned to the Indian ambassador who said, "I would like an end to world hunger." Hon. Members can guess the rest of the story. There is nothing wrong with crystallised fruit in a domestic context, but it does not have much impact on the wider world.
    We must look to the targets presented within the European Community, the Pacific rim, the USSR, America and the rest of the industrialised world. We must see what we must do to expand our productive capacity and to build on our present success to achieve equality in our balance of payments. We must then target our objectives and, with Government support for the infrastructure—and the Government should not try to pick winners—we should go for it.
    5.39 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am pleased that we have this opportunity to debate such an important subject today and that my party initiated it. One of our concerns in the past 10 years has been the weakening of Britain's competitive position. We must be able to pay our way in the world, and our failure to keep up with modern technology is beginning to come home to roost with a vengeance.
    I am a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. Last year our major report considered Britain's position on information technology. We discovered that there was a remarkable paucity of information about the state of that industry. It was difficult to find out exactly what was going on. Therefore, much of our report was dedicated to asking the Government to play a role in ensuring that more information is available so that Britain can ensure greater participation in the development of that technology and, much more importantly, in its application and use.
    Many of us have personal experience of modern equipment. If it did the things that the salesmen said that it would, we would be pleased with the service, but more often than not, it fails to live up to the expectations raised about it. That is basically because we are lagging behind in using that technology effectively and in developing its application.
    That presents an interesting contrast with the attitude of our major competitors. When looking for information

    369
    on this, the Committee visited the United States and Japan. It is fair to say that what we saw in Japan scared us because the Japanese are channelling long-term investment into this area on a scale that leaves us gasping and the Americans terrified. If the Americans are terrified, there is no room for complacency in Europe or in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Americans are so concerned that they have tried to copy some aspects of the Japanese approach in bringing companies together in research and development consortia to try to advance the technology and its application.
    Our report also referred to the Government's role in advancing technology through their own procurement policy. However, that view was categorically rejected by the Government, who do not see it as a function of government. That is interesting, because it was explained that a significant component of the success in this area of Japan and the United States was brought about by their Governments' conscious use of their procurement powers to bring on technology. Although the British Government are facing severe competition from highly powerful and successful Japanese and American markets, the one thing that the Government have decided that they must not do is to follow their example. I cannot imagine a more stupid response to a serious situation.
    The Select Committee looked at silicon valley, where there has been a wonderful upsurge of innovation and ideas in new product and new systems developments, but when one got to the bottom of it, much of the money came from the United States' defence budget. Although applications ultimately spin off into the commercial market, without being underpinned by defence spending, many of the ideas, products and companies, would simply not exist.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has already referred to the lack of research and development funding in areas apart from defence, although we do not have a defence budget that is in any way comparable to that of the United States. We must address that issue and ensure that there is some push from underneath as well as some pull from the market. One area on which my party and the Government agree is that the market must be the determinant, but the market alone will not ensure that British companies succeed in developing the new technology.
    We must look for opportunities in new markets. There is no doubt that a single European market is an opportunity for greater co-operation and for developing a bigger market. From that market there is the potential to develop markets in the Third world and in the Eastern bloc. We should not lose sight of that because if the economic reforms in the Eastern block are successful, as all hon. Members hope that they will be, those countries will need the technology which we have but which they are a long way from being able to produce for themselves.
    I make a specific plea—I hope that the Minister will address this point—for the British Government to press for a review of COCOM. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry called for that last week and our call was reinforced by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The relevant extract of that Committee's report states:
    "The Trade and Industry Committee criticised the unwieldy nature of the system"—
    that is COCOM—
    370
    "commenting on the likely extent of trade opportunities lost. We share its view, and are sympathetic to its recommendations including 'an immediate and radical reduction in the scope of the Cocom list'."
    I stress that COCOM needs to be able to expand as fast as technology changes. Too often we are in the ludicrous position of British companies being prevented from exporting technology which is already becoming obsolescent but which, because COCOM has not caught up with it, is still on the restricted list. In consequence, we lose market opportunities and eastern bloc countries lose the opportunity to develop their economic performance.
    So that there is no misunderstanding, I make it clear that we fully understand the need for COCOM. We are not suggesting that it could or should be swept away because, of course, we must maintain our guard on defence and security. However, as we—the Select Committee on Trade and Industry—said and as the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has said, COCOM does not apply simply to defence. It is becoming a significant and substantial restraint on trade. I hope that the Government will agree that that is something that the West, collectively, could usefully address.
    Although I welcome the Labour party's support for our motion, the hon. Member for Newcastle Upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who spoke from the Labour Front Bench, tried to suggest that the Labour party was somehow ahead on this matter and that it would address itself shortly to a great and presumably revamped "white heat of technology" initiative. Unfortunately, the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's speech suggested that what was being put forward was some kind of "fortress Britain", which would be narrow and introspective. He failed to grasp the fundamental point that, if we are to be competitive in the market place, we must be in the market place and not protected from it. We agree that the market must be allowed to operate and that our companies must be able to respond to it. "Fortress Britain" may be a superficial populism, but ultimately it would destroy our industrial base by hiding it from the real world.
    We believe that the Government have a role to play in ensuring that we have a level playing field and reciprocal arrangements with our non-European competitors, such as the United States and especially Japan, and in ensuring that the single market within the European Community operates evenly and fairly for all of us.
    Mr. Kennedy: Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the Labour party's support for our motion, but does he agree that there is a fundamental contradiction in the Labour party supporting a motion that is substantially addressed to information technology issues which, by definition, technically cannot know any national boundaries because information technology is all about the international free flow of information, while at the same time alluding to pulling up the drawbridge around the British economy —which, as my right hon. Friend rightly says, would spell short-term disaster for our country?
    Mr. Bruce: Yes, it would, but it also seems incompatible with membership of a single-market European Community. The Labour party does not seem fully to have come to terms with that yet.
    We must ask how we can update, compete and keep up to date with new technology and how we can ensure that the new technology that we have will be fully and properly utilised. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry

    371
    concluded that we are a long way from taking full advantage of the capabilities of the technology and using it as effectively as we might.
    We saw one or two examples of both success and failure. The most often quoted example of success is American Airlines, which introduced its own computerised hooking system, involving all the American airlines, and found subsequently that that system actually made far more money than running the airline did—so much so, that the president of the company, when asked whether he would sell the airline or the system, said, "I will keep the system; the airline can go."
    On the other side of that experience is the Bank of America, which managed to lose $2 billion as a result of failing to introduce a modern and effective information system. When we met officials of the bank, it had got rid of software experts and was trying to see whether it could correct the situation by employing hardware experts. I suspect that the latest reports are not all that promising. This area is very important to the United Kingdom. I think it is generally accepted that our financial services industry is strong, advanced and innovative and, therefore, has substantial potential. It is not perfect—there is no room for complacency—but it is one of our strengths. Indeed, it has been a traditional source of satisfaction to British Governments of all colours that, whatever the state of our balance of trade, our balance of payments in terms of invisibles was always in surplus. But there are some worrying signs that that surplus is reducing.
    With the advent of 1993—almost a second, albeit international, big bang—there is some concern that British financial institutions may see the single market as something against which they have to protect themselves, instead of an opportunity that they have to exploit. I hope that the Government accept that they have a responsibility to try to ensure that when we get agreement on the single market it will be agreement that gives British financial expertise full access to that market. The Government must ensure that access is not restricted by barriers erected by other countries that want to protect themselves from our success. They must ensure that we can continue to develop the application of technology in the financial services area, to our own and the European Community's advantage.
    Let me put this debate in perspective by saying that the subject is central to the current state of the British economy. The Government are perpetuating the myth that, in the 10 years since they came to power, we have had an economic miracle. There have been changes, and some of them have been beneficial. I am not arguing that they have all been bad, but I say very forcefully that it remains the case that in the Government's first two years a third of our manufacturing capacity was swept away. The Government's defence is that the firms that were lost were weak and were, by definition, unable to withstand the blizzard, and that the result is a leaner, fitter economy.
    The trouble is that it is a smaller economy in terms of its ability to enable us to pay our way in the world. We are not paying our way in the world, and the current balance of payments deficit is a direct result of that policy. The position is getting worse, and is likely to get worse still, unless we can create the goods that the world wants to buy, with sufficient added value to enable us to maintain our standard of living. The signs are not good, and the Government's position is extremely vulnerable—and rightly so.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would concede that when this massive fallout in British industry took place, one of the principal factors involved was that British industry was very weak financially. After a long period of high taxation, it simply did not have the cash resources to tide it over. I should be interested to know what the hon. Gentleman can tell us about his party's views on corporate taxes. Does he feel that those taxes are at the right level now? Does he not concede that this Government have already brought them down to a level that puts them among the lowest in the world? Does he think that there would be more investment in research and development, in training and in capital items if this trend towards lower corporate taxes were continued?
    Mr. Bruce: I shall be very happy to enter that debate if the hon. Gentleman can persuade the Government to give us time for it on another occasion. Let me ask him specifically why the Government have not been prepared to introduce tax relief for money invested in long-term research. That is a positive proposal that they could have taken up, but, so far, in 10 years, they have not done so. Radical changes of that kind could usefully be introduced. They might be positive and helpful. That is a direct answer to an irrelevant intervention.
    There seems to be a myth that we are moving into a post-industrial era, that we have created a post-industrial society. Looking at our post-industrial society right now, one can define it as meaning short-term profit and long-term bankruptcy. This country cannot sustain 55 million people unless we make goods and provide services that can be sold in the world. At present, we cannot do that. That is the dilemma that we are in.
    The consequences of this policy fall very unevenly within the United Kingdom. I do not intend to make a regional policy speech; I am simply pointing out that Scotland, Wales and the regions of England, which had predominantly manufacturing economies, have suffered disproportionately as a direct result of this change. It is not good enough for the Government to proclaim massive investment in shopping centres as some kind of substitute. Indeed, I think that the building of massive shopping malls on what once were the sites of great industries is actually a symbol of the monumental misjudgment of this Government. Those shopping malls are selling goods manufactured outside the United Kingdom, goods that we do not have the resources to buy. We must find ways of ensuring that at least some of those sites go back into manufacturing. We must ensure that our manufacturing capacity, our manufacturing base, is enlarged. But the Government have no answer to that problem. Indeed, the decline continues.
    This is one of the things that they might have made a virtue of. Over this period we have faced progressive and successive privatisation. The Government learn slowly. Initially, and fundamentally, privatisation was simply a means of getting their hands on finance quickly in order to buy votes with the taxpayers' money. One cannot dispute that in that policy they have been successful, but they have suffered because, in the process, they—the free-market Government—have actually privatised monopolies. They have privatised inefficient monopolies, centralised monopolies, inflexible monopolies, and the ones that were privatised earliest have failed to take full advantage of the

    373
    potential for technological advance and market development because they have been protected from the market by the strength of their monopoly.
    British Telecommunications may have been profitable, but it has been profitable because technology has been moving fast enough to reap the profits from the customers. But its speed of innovation has been much lower than the speed of innovation in telecommunications systems in other parts of the world. That is greatly to Britain's disadvantage.
    We argued at that time that it was a great pity that the Government did not establish, for example, Scottish Telecommunications, which could have been autonomous, and might have developed its own technology relevant to the Scottish economy and the more sparsely distributed population of Scotland. It might have developed something with export potential. It might have been possible to develop new products and new services. Incidentally, the same goes for Scottish gas or Scottish steel. Of course, in the case of electricity that is already the situation of Scotland, but it could be done in England as well.
    Mr. Page: Is not the hon. Gentleman completely misleading the House? When the industry was under nationalised control it was a crying shame that investment was not being put into it. The country simply could not afford it. Privatisation resulted in the investment of £2 billion, enabling British Telecom to make huge advances. In the past, the system was being held back by nationalisation.
    Mr. Bruce: It was being held back by the Government's public sector borrowing requirement, which, in any case, we never supported. I have always regarded that as the most spurious argument of all. Right now, the Government have a huge surplus, and there are nationalised industries that could make use of it. Indeed, so could the education system. But the Government will not release that surplus, even though the investment would be non-inflationary, would create jobs, and would underpin the wealth of the country in the future.
    Mr. Ashdown: My hon. Friend's last point is at the centre of the argument about the Government's irresponsibility in the matter. We can have a theological argument about whether privatisation or nationalisation is good, and a practical argument about whether it is good for British Telecom. But there can be no doubt that no firm in Britain would not distinguish between capital and revenue. What an act of irresponsibility it was to get the money from the privatisation of BT and others and then to spend it paying off this year's bills, instead of reinvesting it in the future.
    Mr. Bruce: It was worse in the early years. Tax cuts were used to buy goods which were made outside the country, and that aggravated the problem. That is the crux of the matter, particularly now that the Government have some resources. We must plough those resources into investment—the Government's responsibility is investment research and development and training—and the private sector must be given a climate in which it will invest
    374
    in product development, innovation and new technology. Unless we can do that and add substantial value within the United Kingdom, we will face disaster.
    In 10 years, people will realise that, far from an economic miracle, we had a reckless Government who used simplistic assumptions that took a once great manufacturing nation to the brink of bankruptcy and were financed only because they had the windfall bonus of North sea oil, which is now evaporating. We are heading for an awful lot of trouble. Unless this kind of motion is not only passed but acted upon, unlike our European competitors, post-1993 Britain will feel a nasty, cold draught.
    6.1 pm
    Mr. Robert Hayward: The motion is split into two parts. The first half is critical of the Government, and the second half puts forward a series of suggestions. It is unfortunate that the speech of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was not also split into two parts. He spoke for 38 minutes, and he criticised the Government for 38 minutes. He made not one positive suggestion, with the exception that we should do away with COCOM. He had to withdraw that comment, and the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) clarified it in terms of reforming COCOM.
    The right hon. Member for Yeovil used the word "past". He also mentioned in passing the levels of investment. It was one of the thinnest, if not the shallowest, speeches I have ever heard from an hon. Member in opening a debate. He was wrong on gallium arsenide, transputers, and fibre-optic cables in terms of their use by Mercury and BT in docklands, and so on. He could not even get right the constituency of the Minister who replied to his Adjournment debate some years ago. When I challenged him on the brain drain, he had to revert to passing bets, which is a rather childish way of providing information to the House. It was a travesty of a speech, which took 38 minutes of what should have been an important debate.
    Much more interesting was the contribution by the hon. Member for Gordon. He made a series of positive suggestions. I agree with several of his suggestions about the long-term requirement to turn round the economy, and the need for investment in various sectors. However, I disagree with one or two points. Obviously, one is his assessment of the long-term future of the economy. Given that the motion refers to education, I was interested also to examine the capital investment which took place in education from 1973–79. During much of that period, the Government were supported by the hon. Gentleman's party. Between 1973–74 and 1978–79, the level of capital investment in education, particularly in schools, fell by 63 per cent. We are now paying, in terms of the shortages of systems analysts, computer programmers, engineers and the like, for long-term under-investment, particularly by a reduction of 63 per cent. in investment in schools over less than five years.
    I wholeheartedly concur with a comment in the Social and Liberal Democrats News of 7 April this year. It states:
    "his utterances on this topic only give weight to growing disenchantment with his leadership."
    In terms of the requirements that we face for the future —not for the past, as the right hon. Member for Yeovil said—it is significant that there was no suggestion of a long-term SLD policy. I should have thought that we

    375
    could have heard of one during the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I presume that we will hear about one when we debate another motion.
    Several of my colleagues have referred to inward investment and the internal investment that is now being undertaken by companies within this country. I am pleased to note that the level of investment as a share of GDP is now higher than it has been for the past quarter of a century. I agree with those hon. Members who said that investment is still not high enough, particularly in respect of a commitment to civil and research development. On that point I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne. North (Mr. Henderson). He referred to inward investment by Toyota, Fujitsu, and Boch. In terms of the competitive nature and the achievements of major companies in this country nowadays, it is significant that, on the same day that Toyota announced its investment in Derby, GPA announced that it would purchase Rolls-Royce engines for every 757 that it included in its order. It is significant also that, in this day and age, an order of £1·5 billion—that is, in round terms—for the British aerospace industry can be hidden on back pages because of other levels of investment.
    We should not deny the successes. Equally, we continue to face challenges. For example, the concentration on information technology and telecommunications, upon which much of the debate has focused, is highlighted by the decline in our share of telecommunications exports. About 25 to 30 years ago, we exported about 25 per cent. of all telecommunications equipment to other industrialised and non-industrialised countries. That figure has fallen year in and year out for about a quarter of a century. Our share of telecommunications exports is now down to about 5 per cent.
    GPT, in the form of system X, is showing substantial progress in its capacity to compete. The problem is that, while it is trying to develop that product, the world's major competitors among telecommunications manufacturers such as AT and T, Northern Telecom, Ericsson's, Siemens and the like are moving on to the next phase of switchgear, and the investment required by GPT to develop that next phase is not available. Therefore, it is actively looking—whether willingly or not—to tie up with Siemens or some other company. We must recognise that problem in long-term industrial developments in this country. It requires not only investment but a changed attitude by management to training.
    For far too long, British management has been unwilling to commit any money to training anybody over 21. The supposition is that once they are over 21, they are trained; they will learn on the shop floor, office, drawing room or whatever, and that is it. British management must commit far more money to investment in training. It must be willing to take individuals off the shop floor year in, year out, and upgrade their expertise. The vast majority of foremen in German and French industry are graduates. They are required not only to turn over the line and ensure that it continues to produce, but to solve problems on manufacturing lines on a day-to-day basis.
    British management should adopt a similar attitude. If it does not, it will fail to survive, despite some of the successes that I have identified. For example, it must improve its links with universities. We have some of the best universities in the world. One of the few points on which I agree with the right hon. Member for Yeovil is that
    376
    although they produce excellent ideas, those ideas are not taken up by British industry but go to other countries to be developed.
    Mr. Kennedy: I agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Why does he think that happens?
    Mr. Hayward: Because of the attitude of British management before and after the last war that British industry had captive markets. After that, the attitude was that the state would support industry. I do not think that anyone would accept either of those attitudes as correct. They are not the attitudes adopted by German companies comparable to GEC, such as Siemens and Nixdorf, or by Japanese companies such as NEC and the like. Those companies invest heavily in universities. They fund substantial sections of university courses in a way that British companies have never done. Therefore, there is not a natural feed from the major educational establishments.
    It is interesting to note in my part of the country that Hewlett-Packards is investing in Bristol where it is close to a major concentration of higher education. It believes that if it puts money in, it will get expertise out. That is the attitude that other British companies should adopt.
    I am conscious of the time; therefore, I shall abbreviate my comments. I want to address to the Government one comment not made by other hon. Members. We need to change the attitudes of all aspects of British society, including the Government. Over the next 10 years the Government should be more nimble on their feet. They should look towards the possibility of reducing the burdens of government. We have too many layers of government. Why not do away with counties? They cost money. Why not do away with a number of London boroughs by merging some of them? The burdens of government put an imposition on industry. It is a cost that we could well do without. The Government should not only ask other people to respond but should also be much more nimble than they have been in previous years.
    6.12 pm
    Mr. John Redwood: I suppose that the speech by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (M r. Ashdown) was never going to be a highlight of the parliamentary year or even of the parliamentary week, but it was not even a sidelight because it was so dim and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) said, so lacking in substance. Perhaps the SLD members knew what was coming because only five of them stayed for the duration of the speech—a sure reflection that they had been tipped off about the quality of the debate on this major Opposition day.
    Listening to the new "chips with everything" SLD lack of policy, I thought of a comment in the Evening Standard attributed to the right hon. Member for Yeovil:
    "Mine's a selective memory. I find it's continually getting rid of things, a bit like a computer when the ram is full."
    As I listened to his speech, I thought that the single K ram of the right hon. Gentleman was obviously well overloaded. The chemistry was poor, confusing a substance with a type of computer, the fibre-optics were short on fact, and the statistics were lamentable.
    The House was told that investment as a percentage of GDP was static. Yet this country has just been through several years of dramatic growth in investment. As we have already heard, investment is at a record level for the

    377
    1980s. Investment is well above the low level under Labour and under the famous Lib-Lab pact of which we used to hear so much. The House does not hear much now about the successes of the Lib-Lab pact. We have new record levels of investment overall and very high levels of investment in the private sector.
    Then the House was told that the country was weak in information technology. We had highly selective examples from someone who does not seem to understand the width and breadth of the industry that is established in this country. The right hon. Gentleman should visit silicon glen or the Thames valley to see the range and depth of the businesses that have been set up by individual entrepreneurs, local businesses and national companies. We have had a large influx of investors from all over the world, aware that this is the country in which information technology is flourishing in many branches.
    Next we had the incorrect research and development expenditure figures. Hon. Members might have thought that in a speech centred on research and development, particularly Government R and D, the right hon. Gentleman would get the figures right. If we take neutral and fair comparisons in the OECD figures, we find that they show clearly that, in Government research and development expenditure, this country is above the levels of the United States, Germany and Japan in total. If the right hon. Gentleman insists on taking the percentage of GDP spent on civil R and D, again the story is that this country is above the levels of America and Japan.
    The deficit in the 1970s and 1980s compared with the best countries abroad was in the private sector. The reason was the profit collapse engineered by the economic policies pursued by the Labour and Labour-Liberal Governments of the 1970s. The Conservative Government's economic policies have rebuilt and are rebuilding profitability. As profits have risen, so has investment in R and D. I am sure that the trend will continue while profits continue to prosper. I welcome the growing strength of R and D in the private sector which should add weight to the high level of GDP in public expenditure terms compared with our overseas competitors.
    The right hon. Member for Yeovil made a narrow speech based on many errors. I do not think that it was the kind of speech that will bring back Mr. Meadowcroft with his splinter Liberals. I cannot even see it bringing back the Isle of Wight Liberals who do not like trading under the new banner. It might not even keep happy the hon. Members for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) who now sit on the part Bench that is normally reserved for the SDP and who, I am told, are getting rather nervous about defence policies and some other aspects of policy. In the battle of the minnows, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is in a different class; his performance is much better than that of the right hon. Member for Yeovil. If only we had heard the policies of the SLD, we would have known about the pro-inflation policies that the party would like to pursue. We would have heard about high rates, extra local government, an extra level of regional government and the local income tax—all anti-enterprise policies that would cost the people dear, but, fortunately, will never happen.
    378
    Turning to the positive side, I welcome the way in which industry is investing in the country and is beginning to develop in the flexible manufacturing areas new technologies and a new emphasis on quality, on product development and on better management-employee relationships. I think that that will be followed with much wider employee shareholding and employee participation in profit-sharing schemes and the like. The new high-tech and high value added economy requires greater co-operation, based on a shared belief in profitability, investment, incentives and the like. All those are happening as a result of the policies pursued by the Government.
    There is an area where industry and the Government can achieve more through investment which will help the enterprise revolution and the improvement in the domestic economy—the way that property is used in development. The House has already heard criticism by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) who does not like to see old industrial sites replaced by new commercial development. I do, if the result is a new factory, built to modern standards with high quality equipment, as it often is, or better shopping facilities, where people can enjoy the fruits of their prosperity and buy the goods and products that they wish to have. I see nothing wrong with a process of renewal from which we can draw encouragement as it progresses.
    Many industrial companies see the advantage of redeveloping sites by building new high technology factories to meet the right requirements for emission controls and the recycling of heat and power; they are providing good working conditions for employees and are responsive to the new product design of the new economy.
    Those things can flow from well-chosen property developments, which can provide the wherewithal and which can develop the new economy. The forest of tower cranes around many cities is evidence that that process of renewal is now under way. Some companies could do more, and I hope that they will turn their attention to it.
    The Government sector, too, could do more. In that area the PSA—for which the DTI is not directly responsible—could do a great deal more to release land and buildings and to encourage the process of renewal. That would not necessarily involve any cost to the public sector, because of the surplus in that estate. The total estate is mind-boggling in size—some 10 million sq m. I would estimate that at least 5 per cent. of that—or getting on for 5 million sq ft—is surplus to requirements and could be disposed of. That would release land and property for redevelopment which could further power the enterprise economy. In addition, there are about 100,000 acres of surplus land in the civil estate where the Government could make further efforts to ensure that it is put on the market and released for enterprise redevelopment.
    The Government, when deploying their departmental staff—in the DTI and other Departments—could recognise that rentals, for example, in docklands are £25 per sq ft, yet in Westminster and the west end they are £50 per sq ft. For the price of a short tube or water bus journey, people could be better accommodated at half the rental cost and the process of renewal could be developed, because many central London office premises occupied by Government Departments would be suitable for refurbishment, redevelopment and redeployment as the new economy gets under way.

    379
    Generally, the economy is performing well and the process of investment is gathering momentum. That process will continue if enterprise policies are pursued fully and if the wider opportunities afforded by a general common market in the run-up to 1992 are grasped and the principles of liberal trading firmly bulwarked in those proposals.
    I have heard nothing from the Opposition that implies that there needs to be a great change of Government strategy towards investment. All that has ever been said about investment by the Government has turned out to be true—if business is given its head, if profitability is rebuilt, and if enterprise is supported, investment will follow through. It is high time that the property and the estate of the Government sector were brought up to the same modern standards as the rest of the economy. In so doing, surplus capacity could be released that would make money for the Government and would further the enterprise revolution.
    6.22 pm
    Sir Anthony Meyer: I congratulate the Social Democrats on their choice of subject for the debate, on the wording of their motion, much of which I agree with, on the performance of their leader—in which he appears to have lost interest himself—and, above all, on the brilliance of their timing.
    The Government have a good story to tell and, if there is a good story to tell, nobody tells it better than my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Certainly, in real terms the Government have managed to maintain the value of investment. Of course, that is nowhere near enough. We have only to glance around us to see how lamentably inadequate is the investment now taking place, or planned for the near future, in our roads, railways, city centres, hospitals, education, health and our whole built environment. Those of us who are members of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs are aware of the depressing contrast between the preparations being made on the French side of the Channel tunnel for communications to the tunnel, not necessarily passing through Paris, and the timid preparations that are being made on the British side.
    What is more, the Government appear to make things worse by dragging their feet in all too many of the collaborative enterprises in Europe. I thought that the Prime Minister in that famous Bruges speech made the point that Europe should concentrate on doing the things that we could do better together than alone. However, the Government do not appear to be living up to even the good bits of the Bruges speech. Our record in the European Space Agency, for example, is lamentable. We are being left out. I listened with some joy the other night to Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who described Britons arriving at the railway station just after the train had gone, grumbling loudly that they did not mean to catch the train anyway, changing their minds, dashing down the line, humping a suitcase in each hand, blessing their lucky stars that the train had stopped at a signal, clambering on board and then complaining that all the seats in the dining car were full.
    Of course, the timing of the debate serves to focus attention on the experiment, in quite a different approach to those things, in Wales, where a by-election is taking place. The investment in the environment in Wales, the
    380
    improvement of communications, the encouragement of research and development and the allocation of enough taxpayers' money for infrastructure improvement—so that they attract much larger sums of private investment—have been part of the approach ever since Lord Crickhowell very wisely did a U-turn in 1979 over the preservation of the Welsh Development Agency. It had been marked down for instant destruction after the 1979 election, but Lord Crickhowell did a U-turn and it was allowed to run on. Admittedly, it had to adapt itself radically in the process. That has been to the huge benefit of the people of Wales and to the unconcealed envy of hon. Members from neighbouring English areas.
    Under Nicholas Edwards, as he then was, Wales enjoyed an unfair share of investment projects and major developments, such as the gigantic Cardiff bay project, which will make Cardiff one of the most attractive cities in western Europe.
    The present Secretary of State for Wales has taken the process of using public money to create beautiful infrastructure, which sparks off huge private investment, a giant step further. The difference is that he boasts of doing things which his predecessor coyly admitted doing. The difference is more important than a mere difference of phraseology. It is important in the climate that has resulted in Wales, where we have local authorities of all political complexions, trade unions and employers working together in close partnership, which would be labelled in other parts of the country—and by some of my hon. Friends—as "corporatism" and consequently derided. I prefer to call it the human face of capitalism —a capitalism which works well and is in tune with the Welsh temperament. At all events, it brings in the bacon.
    A report in The Sunday Times on 16 April 1989 said:
    "Tomorrow Walker will announce that Bosch plans to build a £100 million motor electrics plant promising 1,200 new jobs at Miskin near Cardiff"—
    surprisingly—
    "right on the border of the Vale of Glamorgan constituency."
    It went on:
    "Bosch will be the latest, and one of the biggest, examples of foreign undertakings in Wales … Wales has enjoyed a string of new investments since he took office after the last election … Beginning with the location of a Trustee Savings Bank office in Newport at the end of 1987, bringing 2,000 new jobs, it continued with the huge investment at Ford (£726m)" —
    the biggest engine plant in Europe—
    "expansion of a string of Japanese factories in north and south Wales, and the arrival or expansion of merchant banks in Cardiff."
    There has not only been new manufacturing industry but financial services, too. The report says that the Secretary of State
    "has also increased the budget of the Wales Tourist Board to encourage more visitors to the valleys, while urban renewal is going ahead in black-spots like Abertillery, Tonypandy, Crumlin and Tredegar."
    That all adds up to quite a programme.
    It was reported that the Secretary of State asked:
    "Where else in Britain is so much action taking place to improve the economy?"
    I can answer that question from my experience, because in my constituency there are such developments. Some of them are more modest and some are a bit controversial, such as the development of a magnificent Victorian castle to provide a home for the National Portrait Gallery. That is not just a great artistic enterprise, but is serving as an attraction for discerning investors and employers who

    381
    fancy setting up high-grade technological industry or provision for financial services in the area. It makes an extremely attractive complex. Public money has gone into that, but sometimes the taxpayer or the ratepayer receives large dividends in terms of good jobs.
    There is altogether a new spirit in Wales, a new readiness to stop squabbling, which is our favourite hobby when there is nothing better to do. Now there is something better to do, and Wales under Walker is getting it done. I suspect that before long the results will be visible.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I thank the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) for a delightful speech. I have returned this afternoon from visiting Barry in the Vale of Glamorgan constituency. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the need for an enlightened and constructive public contribution and for co-operation between the public sector and private investors in the infrastructure and communications. He sounded almost as convincing as our excellent candidate, Frank Leavers, at the by-election press conference this morning.
    We hear that not many Cabinet Ministers will traipse through the Vale of Glamorgan. They are rather thin on the ground and that is because of the current differences between the Secretary of State for Wales and the other members of the Cabinet on economic policy. At least the Secretary of State for Wales has a friend in the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West. It was interesting to note the long faces and dry expressions of the Minister and some Conservative Back Benchers as the hon. Gentleman delivered his enlightened speech. I cannot share his optimism about what will happen on 4 May. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the Welsh love Walker, but I suspect that people in the Vale of Glamorgan will think that they are voting about Maggie.
    Mr. Redwood: Many of us supported our hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) in what he said about combined public and private investment. Did the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) go to the Vale of Glamorgan to try to bring off a last-minute alliance with the SDP?
    Mr. Kennedy: That was certainly not my purpose. I am not a business man, but I can recognise bad investments when I see them.
    The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) spoke about my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of our party. My right hon. Friend was absent for a short time during the speech of the hon. Member for Wokingham. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was scarcely present for the debate after he finished his speech. We make no complaint about that because we accept that ministerial duties have taken him elsewhere. [Interruption.] I am grateful for the fact that the Chancellor of the Duchy is conducting the debate rather than the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs. The hon. Member for Wokingham was slightly wide of the mark in his criticisms.
    My right hon. Friend blinded the hon. Member for Wokingham with science. That is self-evident. We read
    382
    and hear a great deal about the hon. Member for Wokingham. He is said to be the great white hope, the next intellectual guru, shortly heading for the Front Bench where the Minister is lounging nonchalantly with his feet on the Table. If that is the level of attack that we can expect from Conservative Members who are to be moved in the direction of the Treasury and the Dispatch Box, there is considerable hope for the Opposition.
    The hon. Member for Wokingham used such revealing phrases as "things are getting much better because investment is gathering momentum." That is lawyerspeak for the fact that under the Government investment has been in a hell of a mess for a long time. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) spoke about skill training and education. As both hon. Members went to some lengths to cast doubt on the figures that we have put forward, it is worth rehearsing the figures again. In his speech my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil spoke about investment in science and technology research and development as an estimated ratio of non-defence-related research and development. We have not heard that adequately rebutted in speeches by Conservative Back Benchers any more than we have heard an adequate Government response to last year's report by the Select Committee on which my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) served.
    When one compares Britain with its international competitors one gets confirmation of what we have known for a long time—that in many fields Britain lags woefully behind Japan and the emerging Pacific rim nations in the economic co-operation that is developing there and in the European Community. That is not about to change as a result of anything that we heard from the Minister who had nothing new to offer. However, the matter goes further than that. It is in the universities that much research and development have their seedcorn. I should like to deal with the attention that Britain gives to that.
    A study of metalworking in Germany and Britain compared the qualifications of German skilled workers and people in the British work force. The results were quite horrendous. In 1985, 55,000 West Germans were trained and received craft qualifications in mechanical engineering. In Britain the figure was 10,000, which means that more than five times more people qualified in the West German economy. In terms of academic qualifications, Britain now rates 17th out of the top 20 OECD countries in the participation rate of 16-year-olds in full-time education. In Japan 95 per cent. of students stay on beyond the age of 16, but in Britain only 32 per cent. do so. No wonder our economy is having international difficulties.
    In debates on education we have heard that in higher education we continue to send a far smaller proportion of our 18-year-olds into the tertiary sector and on to university than is the case in the United States, Japan, the Netherlands, France, Italy and West Germany. The list goes on.
    Mr. Richard Page: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we have a more generous support system for our students in further education than any country in the industrialised world?
    Mr. Kennedy: That is about to change too—if it is the case. I hardly think that that is a major Back-Bench argument in favour of Government policy. That is about

    383
    to change in the tertiary sector, and our revamped training schemes could hardly be said to be generous or productive in achieving their stated objectives for young people. The Government and Conservative Members should look again at the legacy that they are leaving this country.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does my hon. Friend accept that in the Secretary of State's Green Paper on student finance the international comparisons showed that European countries that provide the highest level of support for students with taxpayers' money also have the highest participation rate by post school leaving age students? Therefore, there appears to be a direct international correlation between investment by Government in students staying on at school and their attainment. If the Government go along the road that they are going along, we are likely to see a reduction in opportunity rather than an increase.
    Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His pertinent point illustrates the sentiment expressed by the leader of our party when he spoke about our need to move from low quality industrial assembly to a much higher quality industrial product. In reply to the hon. Member for Kingswood, may I say that that requires far more positive encouragement of the role of university departments. While he was right to speak of attitudinal problems in Britain since the second world war, any country that is serious about developing skills, technology and a resource base would not allow some university departments to go to the wall, as ours have, or be substantially reduced in their efforts and ability because of the squeeze on education expenditure of the past 10 years.
    The Government's general approach in this debate is similar to their approach in many other matters. They speak of how things are picking up or taking off or are so much better and they always use as their base line 1981 or 1982. They want us to forget the first two and a half years of their administration when we had savage deflationary policies of a type with which the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West would be most uncomfortable and in which he would find little to commend. Not the least of the deflationary measures was the 1981 Budget, the consequences of which we have been living with ever since.
    When Conservative Members say how much things are improving, I can only say that if one hammers any industrial base low enough, when it begins to recover from its contraction any level of growth will show up per capita far more than it would if a more adequate manufacturing, resource and technology base had been maintained. It is for ever an indictment of the Government that they manifestly failed to achieve that in their earlier days in office, so their present success is tempered by the damage done as the result of their general economic approach.
    It has been extremely useful that the Social and Liberal Democrats have raised these issues this afternoon, touching on not just many of the broad economic arguments on trade imbalance and so on but, in particular, those "forefront" technologies where, as an island and, historically, a trading nation but also as a nation of declining fossil fuels and one more closely linked to the European Community—a trend that will continue beyond 1992—Britain must find a new competitive industrial role for itself internationally. Much of that will rest on the younger generation and on the technology that will dominate their lives to an even greater extent than at
    384
    present and soon the research and development, employment and industrial productive opportunities that such technology gives rise to.
    Although I welcome the fact that the Labour party will vote for our motion this evening—
    Mr. Hayward: Some of them.
    Mr. Kennedy: Some of them will, yes, and I welcome that. But although the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) the only Labour Member who spoke in the debate, welcomed the fact that we seem to have something in common in our attitude towards the Government, a lot more modernisation of attitude is required of the Labour party towards these issues before it can claim with any credibility to occupy the political ground, the terra firma, occupied by our party when we argue for the importance of new technology, the greater emphasis that must be given to research and development and the excellent result that we anticipate because of that in the Vale of Glamorgan.
    6.44 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): Before we go any further, we must remind ourselves that this is an Opposition day, its eighth allotted day, although, looking round the Chamber during the debate, in what I was going to describe as the ebb and flow of debate and now think that "gentle gurgle" would be a better description, I noticed that, on my counting anyway, for most of the time there were present one Member from the official Opposition Labour party and two members of the SLD. There was also one Member from the SDP.
    Mr. Don Dixon: I have sat here since half-past four this afternoon—[Interruption.]—and I have been bored to bloody tears most of the time. I have also done a bit of counting. At one time there were only four Conservative Members, and one of them was a parliamentary private secretary. Had there been a vote earlier, the Labour party would have won it, because we had more hon. Members than the rest put together.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon). I did say that it was an Opposition day. It is not unreasonable for us to expect the Opposition to pay more attention to it and take it more seriously. It was worth making that observation so that we could get the importance of the debate fully in context.
    In the early stages of the debate the argument revolved around the state of the economy. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) spent some time describing an economy that I was quite unable to recognise. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) followed on the same lines. I was much more attracted to, and identified more readily with, the description given by my hon Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who was acknowledged by Opposition Members to be one of the intellectuals and rising stars on the Government Benches.
    My hon. Friend was able accurately to describe the development of the economy over the past few years in a way that seems to have escaped Opposition Members. It is a source of continuing sadness and regret that every time we have a debate here, Opposition Members seem to want to describe our economy in such a way that it would not

    385
    attract any investment from abroad or inspire any confidence from members of our own society. The truth is that Opposition Members are in a state of confusion, not to say schizophrenia, about this. What I should like to know is whether all Opposition Members, particularly in the Labour party, agree with the early-day motion, in the name of three of their hon. Friends, welcoming the arrival of the Toyota car assembly plant in Derbyshire which, it says, will create many genuine, new and meaningful jobs for the people who live in the county and help re-establish it as a centre of industrial development. Some speeches by Opposition Members did not give that impression. I hope that at some point we will have an indication of what Opposition Members think about this influx of investment which fully reflects the confidence of the Germans and the Japanese in our economy—a confidence that Opposition Members may not share.
    Mr. James Wallace: I am grateful to the Minister for paying regard to the sedentary comment that I made earlier about the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) being regarded as one of the intellects of the Conservative party. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wokingham will put on record his own sedentary response that he was "the only one".
    If the Government are as keen to attract investment as the Minister says, is that helped or hindered by the present high interest rates?
    Mr. Forth: The present level of interest rates does not seem to make a material difference either to internally generating investment, which is at a record level, or to the level of inward investment by companies from other countries.
    We have had to make interest rate adjustments to deal with inflation, about which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said many times that he is unhappy and with which he is dealing. Nevertheless it has neither impeded nor hampered the rate of investment, domestic or from other countries, and the development of the economy.
    The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said that, without an alteration in the exchange rate—he did not specify either direction or level—many industrialists would be increasingly unable to do business. That seems to be at odds with the experience of the German and Japanese economies which have both—against a very strongly appreciating currency—performed superbly well in exports over many years. If a business is successful, and has a good product which it produces to a high quality, it will export, even over a strong exchange rate parity. The exchange rate bolt hole is no longer available to those who want to take refuge there.
    I shall deal with one or two of the points made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil, who, in his lengthy contribution, dealt substantially with information technology. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) pointed out in his trenchant way that he felt that the expertise of the right hon. Member for Yeovil was—let me say—questionable. I use that word because I am in one of my more polite moods.
    The right hon. Member for Yeovil was quite wrong in two or three respects. He talked about gallium arsenide —with which I know the House is familiar. About two
    386
    years ago the Department of Trade and Industry announced the availability of about £25 million for collaborative projects with industry, under the heading of gallium arsenide. It is a matter of great regret to the DTI, but it is true, that that money has not been taken up in full by industry. There have been regrettably few projects. The companies in the private sector—the experts who know what they are talking about—did not see fit to take up what the Government offered. Time and again we see that pattern reflected, and time and again the matter is ducked by Opposition Members. If the Government offer support, but the private sector—the wealth creators, profit makers and experts—do not see fit to take it up, there is not much more that the Government can do.
    Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman is obviously referring to the Plessey experience. However, did not the Government's committee on advanced materials recommend a programme of not £25 million, but about £300 million to help the development of gallium arsenide? When the Government finally moved, did they not do so too little, too late? When Plessey tried to use that money to get back into the market, it discovered that it had been taken away from abroad. Plessey has had to withdraw substantially from developing an invention that could have been ours to produce, instead of ours to buy in from others' production.
    Mr. Forth: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's analysis. I have given him the facts. If a product is as good as he claims this one is, the window of opportunity will be greater than he has suggested.
    The right hon. Member for Yeovil expressed a galactic view on fibre-optics. He came to the House waving something which was halfway between a wand and a panacea—I am not sure which is the most appropriate. He suggested that a universal network of fibre-optics, reaching into every home, so that we could shop electronically on broad band frequencies, would be the saving of the country. However, the right hon. Gentleman failed—as Opposition Members always do—to spell out in detail why that should be done, where there was a demand for it and, much more important, who would pay for it.
    In the glib way that we have come to expect from the right hon. Member for Yeovil, he referred to pump-priming, but he did not say which pump was to be primed, to what extent or by whose money. I suspect that, inevitably, it will be taxpayers' money. Those who know what they are doing and have the resources to do it—principally British Telecom and Mercury Communications—have already started to develop such technology and are installing it where they think it appropriate.
    It would take 15 years to achieve that which the right hon. Member for Yeovil seemed to suggest could be done in the twinkling of an eye. This is one of those fraudulent proposals which sounds good if it is said quickly, and even better if nobody is told what it will cost, and purports to produce some magical transformation in the economy. However, that will not happen.
    Mr. Ashdown: In his disparaging remarks, the hon. Gentleman criticises the Government. They have done exactly that which needs to be done within the confines of Northern Ireland, but not for the whole nation. They have taken the lead in saying what should be established and what the interfaces should be, and showing industry how

    387
    it could play a part in the investment. If that is good enough for Northern Ireland, why is it not good enough for the whole of Great Britain?
    Mr. Forth: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier. He is talking about interfaces—whatever that means in this context—and about giving guidance. We are always giving guidance—we give it frequently. However, we shall not endorse the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, or the bandwagon on to which Members of the official Opposition have climbed, to produce an unspecified, all-singing, all-dancing network at an unspecified cost.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the Under-Secretary aware that British Telecom wishes to introduce fibre-optics, but, under the terms of privatisation, is unable to do so? It seeks changes to its constitution to allow it to do that. It also seeks Government funding, which most countries recognise is necessary if fibre-optics—an important new technology—is to be introduced.
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman, no doubt unintentionally, misleads the House. About 550,000 km of fibre-optics have already been installed. Therefore, he can hardly claim that we are preventing British Telecom from doing so. Discussions are continuing on the best way forward and the nature of the relationship between British Telecom and the Government. It is unfair to suggest that we are blocking the sensible and correct advancement of fibre-optics in a way that can be supported by proven consumer demand. We do not support a pie in the sky approach.
    The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was the only member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry —or, certainly, one of the few—to participate in the debate. I was slightly surprised that more members of the Select Committee did not attend. I thought they might take the opportunity to expand their thoughts on the matter. The hon. Member for Gordon did so very well.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To be fair to the members of the Select Committee, they are on a visit to Edinburgh and Manchester investigating the impact of the single market on the financial services. I have broken my visit to participate today.
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman's priorities are absolutely right. I am not surprised to hear that his colleagues are fact finding. Some of the hon. Gentleman's points were important and it is important for the House to understand the nature of the difference of views between the Select Committee and the Government. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, there is a genuine difference of view.
    The Select Committee was looking for what the Department sees as a more interventionist approach than the Department of Trade and Industry is prepared to support. In particular, proposals were made about the role of an information technology Minister, the pull-through concept on information technology and Government procurement.
    The Government have taken quite the opposite view. They have stressed over and over again that individual Departments and sections in the Government should be given greater autonomy and freedom to make their own decisions and are, therefore, able to enter a competitive market and buy what they think best for their needs. This old-fashioned idea of the gargantuan dinosaur of
    388
    Government, directing the sector by procurement policies, is, I regret, typical of Select Committee members but not modern Government policy. There is no point in disguising the fact that there is a difference of emphasis and the Department has a different view from that of the Select Committee.
    The hon. Member for Gordon also made a crucial reference to the use of information technology. He made a good case for American Airlines. However, he missed the fact that that involves the area of use. I invite the hon. Gentleman to study again the Government's White Paper which replied to the Select Committee's report. We emphasised that we wished to get the use of information technology on a proper basis and were prepared to help and assist in its understanding and best use. That is not the same as trying to pretend that, in this country, we can compete in every sector of the industry, which is a point that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy made earlier. We shall continue to make the distinction between encouraging proper and effective use of IT throughout the industrial sector and pretending that we can compete with every economy in the world.
    As my right hon. Friend said, it is worth emphasising that, while there is no doubt that we have a deficit in certain areas of information technology, we share that with most other developed countries in the OECD. Most countries in western Europe and the EEC have such a deficit, although Japan has not. None of us has managed to beat the problem. I am not saying that this is necessary or excusable, but we have all found it very difficult to deal with and have yet to come up with a complete solution.
    This has been a useful debate, although, regrettably, rather thinly attended at times. We have heard some thoughtful contributions, mostly from Conservative Members and we shall certainly consider them when we study today's speeches.
    In view of what has been said, I strongly urge hon. Members to support the amendment.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 67, Noes 197.

    Division No. 166]

    [7 pm

    AYES

    Allen, Graham

    Grocott, Bruce

    Alton, David

    Haynes, Frank

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Henderson, Doug

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Beith, A. J.

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Bell, Stuart

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Boateng, Paul

    Kennedy, Charles

    Buckley, George J.

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Leighton, Ron

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Livsey, Richard

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Clay, Bob

    Maclennan, Robert

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Madden, Max

    Cohen, Harry

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Cryer, Bob

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Dixon, Don

    Mullin, Chris

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Parry, Robert

    Eastham, Ken

    Patchett, Terry

    Fearn, Ronald

    Pike, Peter L.

    Flannery, Martin

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Richardson, Jo

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Ruddock, Joan

    389

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wilson, Brian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Worthington, Tony

    Spearing, Nigel

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Mr. James Wallace and

    Wall, Pat

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce.

    Wareing, Robert N.

    NOES

    Alexander, Richard

    Dover, Den

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Allason, Rupert

    Durant, Tony

    Amess, David

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Amos, Alan

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Evennett, David

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Fallon, Michael

    Ashby, David

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Batiste, Spencer

    Forman, Nigel

    Bellingham, Henry

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Forth, Eric

    Benyon, W.

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    French, Douglas

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Gale, Roger

    Boswell, Tim

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Bottomley, Peter

    Gill, Christopher

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Bowis, John

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Gow, Ian

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Brazier, Julian

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bright, Graham

    Gregory, Conal

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Ground, Patrick

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Hague, William

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Burns, Simon

    Hannam, John

    Butcher, John

    Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

    Butler, Chris

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Butterfill, John

    Harris, David

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hayward, Robert

    Carrington, Matthew

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hind, Kenneth

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Chope, Christopher

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

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

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Irvine, Michael

    Cormack, Patrick

    Jack, Michael

    Couchman, James

    Jackson, Robert

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Janman, Tim

    Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

    Jessel, Toby

    Day, Stephen

    Kilfedder, James

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    390

    Knapman, Roger

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Knowles, Michael

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Redwood, John

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Riddick, Graham

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lightbown, David

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lilley, Peter

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lord, Michael

    Speed, Keith

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Speller, Tony

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Stern, Michael

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Maclean, David

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Mans, Keith

    Summerson, Hugo

    Marlow, Tony

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Thorne, Neil

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mellor, David

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Tracey, Richard

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Trippier, David

    Mills, Iain

    Trotter, Neville

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Moate, Roger

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Watts, John

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Wheeler, John

    Mudd, David

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Needham, Richard

    Wilkinson, John

    Neubert, Michael

    Wilshire, David

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Norris, Steve

    Wood, Timothy

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Page, Richard

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Paice, James

    Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Mr. Tom Sackville.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House notes the success of the Government's policies in creating a climate in which industry has achieved record levels of output, productivity and investment; welcomes the continuing increase in investment by United Kingdom companies in civil research and development; endorses the Government's policy of supporting collaborative research and development both in the United Kingdom and in Europe; approves the measures being taken by the Government to make education and training more responsive to the needs of industry and commerce; and welcomes the success of the United Kingdom in attracting advanced technology inward investment as a further indication of the strength of the United Kingdom economy.

Care in the Community
7.13 pm
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government's lack of policy and action on community care; believes that projected demographic changes call for a long-term strategy to cover the many types of care that an elderly population will require; further believes that the proposals contained in the White Paper, Working for Patients, will diminish the effectiveness of family practitioner services and the future provision of community care; and calls for the necessary funding to be made available to allow the health and care services to expand and develop in a way which will contribute to freedom from ill-health and freedom to live life to its full potential through providing packages of care that recognise the needs of the client, the family and informal carers within the community.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Fearn: For many years, we have heard a great deal of Government rhetoric about care in the community, but we have not seen any Government action to make that concept a reality. The Wagner report, the Firth report and the Griffiths report were all virtually ignored for no other reason but that their recommendations did not fit Government ideology. Another reason for delay is the realisation by Ministers that community care, which they adopted as a means of reducing hospital and community service costs, will not relieve pressure on the public purse.
Uncertainty about future organisation and finances means that planning for community care services has come to a standstill. It is now extremely urgent that decisions are taken. Confusion over areas of responsibility, accountability and funding, which has worked to the detriment of those in need, cannot be allowed to continue. The Government must respond.
I do not hold out much hope that the Cabinet working group chaired by the Prime Minister will come forth with proposals that will meet the requirements that the majority of those involved in community care believe are needed. A proper system of care in the community requires a commitment to provide adequate funding—a commitment of a kind for which the Prime Minister is not renowned. Also, the recently published abysmal results of a year's work by top officials conducting the National Health Service review do not inspire confidence in the Government's ability to produce workable and acceptable solutions.
How such a supposedly widespread review and reform of the Health Service can be completely void of any reference to community care, particularly when the proposed reforms would have a direct and disturbing effect on community services—as was pointed out in our recent booklet, "Dead On Arrival"—is beyond me. It transpires that "Working for Patients" has little to do with patients and more to do with costs. I hope that the members of the Cabinet working group on community care will not make the same mistake. When they consider the proposals, I hope that they will keep uppermost in their minds several basic concepts.
Among them is the necessity to put people first, recognising the rights of carers and their clients as individuals to exercise a degree of choice and control. Others are the right of the individual to live life to the full and the provision of support, including financial support,
392
to carers and their clients so that those clients may live within the community as long as they wish, while recognising the rights and needs of their families and of other informal carers.
There must also be created a genuine partnership between clients, carers, the state, and the voluntary and private sectors. Finally, there must be provided a network of services giving carers and the individual client a pack age of support best suited to his or her needs.
Government inaction is not the only cause for concern, because continual pressures on and incentives to health authority managers to close down mental health facilities have had awful consequences. Thousands of mentally ill people are discharged from hospital without alternative care arrangements being made for them. The past 10 years have seen the loss of 40,000 beds. Some of those people have been made homeless and are wandering the streets, while others find themselves under the jurisdiction of the courts and prison services. Many others are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation without any support from the medical or social arms of the public services.
The neglect of the mentally ill is an appalling indictment for a country that claims to be civilised and increasingly prosperous. At what cost is our new-found affluence? Any community care legislation should embody Griffiths's statement:
"No person should be discharged without a clear package of care being devised and without being the responsibility of a named care worker."
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does my hon. Friend accept that in the inner cities—which are meant to be the focus of Government policy, investment and attention—there is increasing pressure on right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House because of the large number of patients discharged from long-stay mental hospitals into what is allegedly care in the community?
Mr. David Steel: It is not only in the inner cities that that happens.
Mr. Hughes: My right hon. Friend says that it happens not only in the inner cities, but in general that is where former long-stay mental patients are being discharged into the community in enormous numbers. It is a community in which no care is provided upon their arrival, and in which acute problems of mental illness and sickness afflict not only the patients themselves but their families and the immediate community, with no prospect of any help being provided.
Mr. Fearn: That occurs not only in the inner cities but in every town and city and in rural areas. The Schizophrenia Fellowship's drop-out centre in Southport is overflowing, and the staff have no idea where to send people who have nowhere to stay at night.
We must accept that individual clients and carers have some right to chose the care that suits them. It may be that short-term or long-term residential care is required. Therefore, it should always remain an option and should be available through private, voluntary and public provision.
Community care debates often place emphasis on the elderly. We are an aging nation. We are also a nation that is not coping with the present needs of elderly people. How can we expect to cope in future unless those in authority recognise the problems and plan for them? Today, single

393
elderly people and couples who can no longer fend for themselves, and some who are incontinent, unable to feed themselves or in need of non-urgent medical attention, receive very little support in the community because the social services are short of staff and resources due to Government cuts.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Government cuts, and in his opening remarks he criticised the Government for failing to provide adequate resources. Will he cast his mind back to a document he wrote last July in which he called for annual increases of 2 per cent. in spending on the National Health Service and compare that with the Government's record of a 4·5 per cent. increase in real terms?
Mr. Fearn: I not only stand by my suggestion for a 2 per cent. increase in real terms, but stress that community care has received very little assistance. Health authorities are reluctant to take on elderly people in case they find themselves in a Catch-22 situation. Some hospitals will admit patients, but as soon as an assessment establishes that there is no medical need or that hospital treatment has been completed, the patient is discharged, regardless of the home situation and without continuity of care. The financial squeeze on health authorities has resulted in a reduction in the number of places in nursing homes they are willing to finance. The rigorous conditions of DSS regulations mean that one must impoverish oneself before any fees can be paid, and the recent ceiling on fees paid by the DSS, which makes no allowance for the wide variation in property prices, has made the availability of residential and nursing home care a matter of privilege, particularly in the south-east.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I represent an area where there are many residential nursing homes. Only recently I have received letters from the proprietors of those homes desperate about the increase in fees, and letters from residents desperate about the lack of an increase in their allowances. Those homes are becoming unable to continue to retain DSS claimants and they are being forced to make a choice between breaking even and continuing to care for those patients.
Mr. Fearn: My hon. Friend is quite right. In his constituency of Truro and certainly in other areas, nursing home proprietors fear that sooner or later the crunch will come and they will have to decide whether to discharge the people in their care. I know from their organisation that that is not what they want and that they will resist it for as long as possible.
Mr. Michael Jack: If things are so bad, why do so many organisations wish to start nursing homes and rest homes?
Mr. Alex Carlile: It is the get-rich-quick syndrome.
Mr. Fearn: I do not believe that it is the get-rich-quick syndrome, as my hon. and learned Friend suggested, because I believe that there is a great deal of care in the nursing homes and associations. Such institutions require help. Voluntary organisations are also finding it extremely difficult to operate within the DSS ceilings, and in some cases that leads to desperate situations.
Mr. Carlile: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although there are some splendid private nursing homes, by and large the best quality nursing home care is provided by local authorities which can provide the most flexible nursing home services? Does he agree that the way in which private nursing homes are changing hands for massive sums of money suggests that an element of the get-rich-quick syndrome is at work?
Mr. Fearn: I certainly agree with my hon. and learned Friend's first point about local authority nursing homes. I have visited many homes throughout the country and they are run extremely well.
If we cannot look after our elderly people now, what of the future as the number of people over 75 and over 85 increases substantially, as does their rate of dependency? The Royal College of Nursing estimates that an extra 10,000 places in residential nursing homes would need to be created every year for the foreseeable future to cope with those demographic changes. That figure is calculated from an assumption that only 4 per cent. of the elderly population will require such care. That percentage is below that for other developed countries. Currently, between 21 and 22 per cent. of people over 75 suffer from various forms of dementia and require 24-hour nursing care. If that rate continues—there is no reason to suppose that it will not—there will be 80,000 to 100,000 more dependent people by the year 2000. Who will plan for their care?
In a society which is increasingly mobile and transient, in which moving to another part of the country to retire is becoming the norm, it should not be left to local government or health authorities. It is, and will be, a national problem. A Ministry for community care which has strong links with local bodies should be responsible for overall strategy planning and development of care for the elderly.
In the past few years there has been a programme of closures of hospitals for the mentally handicapped, and the resettlement of mentally handicapped persons into community-based services. The care of those people often requires high levels of staffing and specially trained staff. As those skills are not always readily available in the community, some transfers have been unsuccessful. There will always be a hard core of people in every category who require special, specific and highly skilled care. We must ensure that, whatever the arrangements for community care, they are flexible enough to maintain the quality of life of those people.
Much of the debate on community care is concerned with cost, but it is a sector that may never be truly costed simply because of its very nature and the different levels of care and support required and provided. It is also clear, as Griffiths states, that most people do not consider that an effective system of care in the community can be conducted on the cheap. Whichever way community services are organised, there is already an apparent need for more social service staff and an increase in training. If local government is to be the lead agency, which I very much doubt, given the Prime Minister's fear of allocating too much to local authorities, an intensive training and retraining programme may be necessary. If community care is to be truly effective, it must be given the resources to match its needs.
The availability and quality of care services should bear no relation to the individual's ability to pay. The proposals that I hope the Government will introduce very soon will

395
be scrutinised very thoroughly to ensure that there is not a two-tier system of community care, as is the case in the NHS review.
It is evident that many people who are in need of care would not be receiving attention if it were not for the informal carers. The majority of carers are women. There are more married women staying at home in Britain today to look after elderly relatives than there are staying at home to look after children. Not all those in need of care are elderly and there are many informal carers looking after people who are mentally ill, mentally handicapped or disabled.
The stress of the continual dependence is often made more difficult by the added financial pressures. Many of the informal carers are elderly and some have already spent years bringing up a family. Thousands are now at breaking point. As a society we are in danger of creating more difficulties and increasing the number who may become dependent unless we begin to look after our carers.
The act of caring must be a positive choice, for that immediately relieves some of the tension and stress. In all areas we must provide more day centres, day and night sitting services, short and long-term respite care, transport and other support services. Above all, it is time we recognised the value to the community that is provided by informal carers. To relieve some of the burden and widen the area from which carers may be drawn, the Social and Liberal Democrats would like to see the Government introduce a carers benefit.
Community care is a complex issue and there are many subjects I have not covered, including the plight of the disabled. Some of their difficulties and some of the problems facing the elderly could be relieved by the full implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. I call upon the Government to implement that Act in full. Also, without further delay, they should bring their proposals for community care to the Floor of the House so that they can be debated and acted upon. A year ago Sir Roy Griffiths said:
"doing nothing is not an option."
Since then the problems have increased and the longer the Government delay, the more desolation, distress and degradation will be suffered by those in need of our services.
Primary care is not altogether a distinct and separate subject from community care. After all, the general practitioner is situated within the community and is responsible for the quality of health care available to the community. The proposals contained in the White Paper and associated documents will be damaging to the quality of primary care services. I am not talking about self-governing hospitals of general practice budgets. I believe that those are non-starters and that they will have little take-up. The damage will be done by the central plank of the proposals, which is the introduction of competition in the belief that it will lead to improvements overnight. To achieve competition, doctors' pay is to be increasingly linked to the number of patients on their list. To sustain income, doctors will compete with each other for patients with supposedly improved services and publicity. Yet it is strikingly obvious that an increase in the number of patients will result in less time being spent with the individual. Time is needed to discover the underlying cause of disease.
396
The practice of preventive medicine and heath promotion at individual patient level requires time for consultation and discussion. There will be no time to visit schools, factories or other sectors of the community to spread the health promotion message. The increase in list size will make home visits increasingly scarce and, once again, those most in need, such as the elderly, will suffer most. Doctors in rural areas and in some inner cities will find it impossible to increase their list size. That will make practice work untenable or, at least, unattractive. Patients will face a reduction in services and in some areas the loss of any general practice medical service. That is a heavy price to pay merely to satisfy the Prime Minister and the supporters of the free market philosophy.
The Government have acknowledged the problem in Scotland and introduced separate proposals to safeguard rural practices. Perhaps the Minister will use this opportunity to explain to those who live in sparsely populated areas in England and Wales how their services will be protected. He does not seem to think that the problem ever warranted a mention in his recent letter to most hon. Members, which was dated 14 April and which I received today. Dr. Farrow, the chairman of the rural practices committee of the general medical services committee, has described the proposals as a "devious blow" which will
"probably result in the rape of the rural practice."
That quotation can be found in the British Medical Journal which quoted his speech at the British Medical Association council on 1 March.
The proposals contained in "Promoting Better Health" and "Working for Patients" are unacceptable and, in their present form, will diminish services rather than develop them. The future of rural communities and services is at risk. The Minister must address those concerns positively.
Our anxieties about the quality and range of services are further exacerbated by other Government proposals. The set requirement to spend 20 hours in the surgery at first seems innocuous. However, it will cut down the amount of time that some doctors can spend visiting their patients and in the community. In rural areas, the distance between split-site surgeries, the travelling time required to visit patients and patients' transport difficulties are real problems that the Government have failed to address.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: There is a particular concern about the hours requirement for doctors who also work in hospitals. The main district hospital in my area is located in the middle of my constituency and many of the doctors are involved in hospital work. They are faced with either withdrawing their services from the hospital or being penalised for not meeting the hours they are required to serve in the surgery. That is an immediate and real dilemma. Perhaps the Minister will be able to respond to it.
Mr. Fearn: That is a good point, and I hope that the Minister will respond.
Also unworkable and damaging are the terms that apply to the proposals on prevention and immunisation. Leaving aside the issue whether those should be the subject of incentive payments, the Government have set targets that are ideally correct but unrealistic in practice for many doctors. Parents are often unwilling to have their children immunised and, in inner-city areas where the population is

397
transient, none of the screening or immunisation targets is ever likely to be met. Many doctors will stop providing the service altogether rather than experience the hassle.
Each practice has a very different mix of patients and problems and each health care provider should, working to certain standards, have the flexibility to provide the service best suited to the area. The rigid guidelines that the Government are attempting to impose will be harmful to the development of good practice.
Medical audit and peer group review is welcome in theory, but unless it is accompanied by the necessary level of funding and support it will be a non-starter. Unless doctors have the staff and computer back-up required, they will become medical bureaucrats and accountants, tied to their desks shuffling endless bits of paper while their waiting rooms overflow. Will the Minister tell us how the figure of £250,000 for medical audit announced in the White Paper was arrived at? Will it be reviewed in the light of representations that have been made about its inadequacy?
The Government's proposals take no account of the need to increase preventive medicine and ignore the costs of smoking, bad diet, alcohol abuse and poor housing. They do nothing for those most in need of help—those with disabilities or handicaps, the elderly, the frail, the deprived, the isolated and the homeless.
The Government's failure to respond to the Griffiths report and their proposals in "Promoting Better Health" and "Working for Patients" highlight Ministers' complete lack of understanding and ignorance about health, personal social services and the needs of the people who use, and want to continue to use, primary care and community care services.
The next decade will see greater demands placed on medical and community services from an increasingly elderly population and by diseases such as AIDS. This year could have been the year in which the Government met the challenge and laid out their plans for the future. Instead there is silence on community care and cuts in primary care.
While the Government play political games with our health care services, millions of people will remain trapped in their homes in poverty, deprivation, illness and hardship. The Government neither see them or care for them. It will be left to a future Government to release them, and I hope that that will be sooner rather than later.
7.40 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'expresses full support for the Government's policy of community care and for the proposals set out in the White Paper, Working for Patients; commends the Government's record on the funding and development of primary health care and community care; and believes that the White Paper, together with the Government's earlier White Paper, Promoting Better Health, will help family doctors to develop the services which they provide for their patients, strengthen the provision of primary care in general and complement the development of policies for community care, improve the quality of care for all patients, and ensure that all those concerned with delivering health care make the best use of resources available to them.'.
The debate, which I was glad to see on the Order Paper, should have provided the hon. Member for Southport
398
(Mr. Fearn), given his background in local government, with an opportunity to make a thoughtful speech about the problems of community care. I am sorry that he did not take the opportunity to do so, but instead resorted to a melange of lowest-common-denominator party politics. He seemed to be reading large chunks of a British Medical Association brief. I do not expect high standards from Opposition Members, but is a Social and Liberal Democratic party health policy to be written by the BMA and parroted by its spokesman in the House without recognition of the opinions of people who are concerned about a consumerist Health Service and want it to have consistency of standards? We did not have an especially distinguished performance from the Social Democratic party yesterday, but at least there was admission of concepts such as internal markets, which are necessary for a developing Health Service.
The hon. Member for Southport appeared to be nothing more than a mouthpiece for a trade union, which I always thought was the traditional role of the Labour party.
Mr. Robert Maclennan rose—
Mr. Mellor: I shall give way in a moment.
I can at least say that I listened to all the speech of the hon. Member for Southport, which is more than can be said for the leader of the SLD, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). The right hon. Gentleman disappeared about two thirds of the way through his hon. Friend's speech. I do not know whether that was caused by the quality of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but no doubt we shall be told.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Cheap.
Mr. Mellor: Hon. Members who say that they represent a different sort of politics shout and jeer as though the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has been giving them lessons. It is perfectly legitimate to inquire—it is much more edifying than the words that tripped from the lips of the hon. Member for Southport—why the leader of the SLD felt compelled to leave halfway through his hon. Friend's speech.
Mr. Carlile rose—
Mr. Mellor: I shall give way in a moment.
There were some interesting deficiencies in the remarks of the hon. Member for Southport on community care. He spoke of it as though it was exclusively the preserve of other people. It is interesting that, as we run up to county council elections, not a word or sentence was wasted on the community care policies of the various Liberal county councils. It may be that when it comes to putting these great ideas into practice there is not much about which those who have held office for the SLD can boast.
I shall enjoy showing how the hon. Member for Southport was wrong about cuts. It was interesting to hear his remarks about cuts in primary care, because expenditure on it has increased by 50 per cent. in real terms.
Mr. Carlile: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mellor: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) knows that I am halfway

399
through a point. If he contains himself a little longer I shall give way, but if he wants me to carry on and prevent other hon. Members speaking I shall happily do so because that is the only effect of sedentary observations. If he allows me to go on, I shall give way in my own good time and allow him to make a substantive speech.
If hon. Members want a sensible debate, they should start sensibly. I cannot allow talk of cuts in primary health care when expenditure on it has increased 50 per cent. in real terms over the past 10 years. The number of GPs has increased 20 per cent.; the number of dentists has increased by almost 20 per cent.; the number of GP support staff has increased by 50 per cent.; and the number of practice nurses has almost doubled.
Expenditure on community care has increased sharply in real terms. There is much room for sensible discussion on the issue, which fitfully appeared in the speech of the hon. Member for Southport. The Government are working hard to consider the implications of the Griffiths report. It is not a matter for sneering, second-rate, lowest-common-denominator politics. The quality of care that we should be offering an increasingly aging population and who is best placed to provide it are serious issues.
There were one or two refreshing aspects in the speech made by the hon. Member for Southport. He acknowledged that, in considering the proper provider market, we should not, as do the official Opposition, consider only local authorities. We must consider the role of health authorities and the private and voluntary sectors. Interestingly, in the Janus-faced way in which the SLD deal with these matters, the hon. Gentleman's remarks seemed to stimulate a lively debate among his right hon. and hon. Friends. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery appeared unable to agree about the quality of private nursing homes. The crucial factual background that provides the basis for sensible debate was again lacking.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) would have us believe that private nursing is all doom and gloom. When we took office in 1979, the amount of social security paid to elderly people in private residential nursing homes was £10 million. By one of those massive cuts inflicted on the nation by this Government, we expect the amount paid this year to be £1 billion. That not only shows the Government's contribution to the care of the elderly but raises some difficult questions about the proper gatekeeper role.
The hon. Member for Southport—I could not help feeling that a good speech was trying to get out—raised a matter about which we are all concerned: what we do in the community through integrated care services to prevent elderly people from going into long-term residential care. I do not often meet elderly people whose ambition is to go into long-term residential care; most of them wish to avoid it for as long as possible. It is sad that "it-says-here-BMA rhetoric", lowest-common-denominator politics and inaccurate party charges disfigured what could have been an interesting debate about an issue that will not go away and, sooner or later, will have to be considered in depth.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister has rather let his bile run away with him. He accused my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) of parroting the views of the British Medical Association. Why has he felt reduced to writing to Conservative Back Benchers, asking
400
them to ask members of the Conservative party throughout the country to write to their local media to parrot his views? Is it acceptable to parrot the views of the Minister, but not those of doctors who care for patients?
Mr. Mellor: I do not think that we should have a one-sided debate and I believe that there will come a time when people think about these matters a little more rationally. The cynical exploitation of patients by the BMA's tendentious leaflet will seem shocking to people other than the Government. Each of us must determine what role we play in these debates. It is sad and regrettable that hon. Gentlemen from the Social and Liberal Democratic party seem to think that their policy on primary health care can be devised for them by the BMA. I would have thought that they would want to stand up for the patients and not just articulate the opinions of doctors.
Mr. Tom Clarke rose—
Mr. Mellor: I shall not give way yet. Many of the doctors' opinions are based not on fact, but on tendentious assertions.
Mr. Clarke: May I gently remind the Minister that this debate is about community care? So that we are not unfair to him at a later stage, I ask him firmly to use this opportunity to give us the Government's views on the Griffiths report.
Mr. Mellor: I will not use this opportunity to give the Government's view on the Griffiths report. If the hon. Gentleman penetrates further into the motion, he will see that it deals with primary care as well as community care. The hon. Member for Southport said specifically that he was now turning to primary care, and I did him the service of turning to primary care a little earlier in my speech than he did in his.
I shall now turn to community care. The Griffiths report raises interesting issues. It raises the issue of how we deliver community care to an increasingly significant number of people requiring it. It requires difficult decisions to be made about the manner in which the provision is delivered, by whom it is delivered and whether distinctions are made between those who provide the services and those who provide the resources, as well as the framework in which the service is resourced and the quality tests that are put in place. To those of us who have to consider such matters seriously for implementation, they are difficult matters. For those outside, it can become merely a party game. Until the Government announce their decision, people ask where the decision is and jibe about why it has not come forward. The moment the decision comes forward, people shout the odds about what a terrible decision it is and ask why such a rushed hotch-potch has been inflicted on the public.
Mr. Maclennan rose—
Mr. Mellor: I shall give way in a minute. I am giving way too often and I do not want to be long.
We intend to bring forward our response to the Griffiths report as soon as the various Ministers have considered it. The hon. Member for Southport was at least accurate in saying that a committee was considering the response. We want to bring forward our response to the report as soon as our deliberations are complete.
I find it disappointing that the hon. Member for Southport, who was an experienced local councillor, could

401
fall so readily for the idea that everything is suffering some sort of blight while awaiting the Griffiths report. Local authorities do not generally wait for the Government to make the decision. They generally—and rightly—assert that they have the powers to carry on doing the job. As we make clear, there is plenty of scope for the further development of community care. The more some local authorities project good community care, the more they can make us forget some of the glaring examples of the inner-London boroughs, which bring the idea of local authority social service departments into disrepute.
The hon. Member for Southport said that there were no resources. He could not be wider of the mark. Between the financial year 1980–81 and the financial year 1988–89, expenditure on personal social services increased by 25 per cent. in real terms. Local authorities propose to spend £3·3 billion in 1988–89 on personal social services. We hear some feeble excuses for inaction, but £3·3 billion is a formidable sum if properly deployed.
It is interesting that, although the hon. Member for Southport spoke for almost half an hour, there was not a word of commendation for any step in community care taken by councils controlled by the Liberals, SLD or whatever we are meant to call them. That silence speaks volumes for the record of achievement that the voters will have the opportunity to consider. I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful to the Minister. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House what specific criticisms he is implying against Liberal-controlled or Liberal-led councils?
Mr. Mellor: I was simply pointing out that if it was as easy to transform the situation as is suggested—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman should not bandy charges around without carefully considering the opening speech. I can respond only to the debate to which I have been invited to reply. I would sooner have replied to a more substantial debate than the one on which we seem to have embarked.
Mr. Maclennan: The Minister is trying to treat the points made by my hon. Friends as peculiar party points, yet in the space of 15 minutes, he has not given us any idea of the Government's policy in this area. If we draw attention to the vacuity of the Government's case after 10 years of office and the formidable criticisms made of it by the doctors, we are not alone. The Minister should, at least in this debate, answer the trenchant criticisms of the Financial Times which, last week, devoted its second leader to drawing attention to the fact that the Government had nothing to say on community care.
Mr. Mellor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has recovered his vigour after his difficult period of leadership. I have already made it clear that in relation to community care, which is primarily a local authority responsibility, the increase in resourcing has been formidable. From the centre, a host of initiatives have been taken by the Government to improve quality and training. We have now embarked on a thorough look at the manner in which community care is delivered, which the Griffiths report stimulated and on which the Government will give their opinion in due course. It is a sign of the significance of this
402
issue that the Government are taking time for consideration. The Opposition are trying to have it both ways. They criticise the fact that no decision has been reached, just as they will criticise the decision, whatever it is, when it is reached.
I shall now deal with the area in which we have direct responsibility for primary care through the National Health Service. These have been years of conspicuous achievement, and I gave the hon. Member for Southport the figures. Never has there been greater expansion in primary care than under this Government. Never has more been achieved in broadening the base of the NHS and extending out into a range of necessary preventive services than in the 1980s. That was impossible in the years in which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) held ministerial office because of the slashing cuts that were made then in NHS provision, as is well known.
When we look at community care, we see a great increase in services throughout, which has been made possible by the increased economic strength of this country. Expenditure on health services for elderly people rose between 1980 and 1987 by 29 per cent., although the growth in the elderly population over that period was only 6.7 per cent. The number of elderly people treated by district nurses increased by 14 per cent., the number of meals on wheels by 11 per cent., the number of day centre places by 16 per cent. and the number of home helps by 28 per cent. This has been a time of growth. We now need to consider the manner in which those services are delivered, their efficiency and quality. I do not resent listening to the contributions of others on this important topic. We shall be glad if, having got rid of all the necessary party politics, we can settle down to have a debate that assists with the difficult issues of coming to terms with the Griffiths future.
It is clear that those who have been innovative in community care, as have several local authorities, can continue with that. We believe that the future of community care lies with the creation of, in effect, a level playing field which would allow all the various agencies to play their part and which would allow the voluntary and private sectors to play an increasing role.
All those decisions will soon be heard by the House when the Government announce their response to the Griffiths report—
Mr. Thurnham: My hon. and learned Friend has mentioned increased provision in the public sector. Does he agree that one difference between the Conservative and Labour parties is the much greater value that we place on the contribution made by voluntary groups? Is he aware of the excellent work done by the Crossroads care attendance scheme in over 130 areas? Will he provide Crossroads with support in other areas, including Bolton?
Mr. Mellor: What my hon. Friend has said about the voluntary sector is entirely right. As he well knows, we have made considerable use of our ability to grant-aid voluntary organisations, both larger ones with a traditional role such as the Red Cross, and smaller ones, such as Crossroads, that have recently come on the scene. It is clear that we now have a much more comprehensive approach to community care than was possible before. We can look forward to shaping with some confidence the framework within which that can be set in the future.

403
I trust that the House will have no difficulty in rejecting the motion and I urge it, in due course, to vote for the Government amendment.
8 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) and his colleagues on choosing the vital subject of community care for this debate. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his comprehensive and informed speech, which clearly was not matched by the Minister's response.
If the Minister's comments are the extent of the Government's thinking on the Griffiths report and on community care, the rumours that we have been hearing about a statement being made fairly soon do not appear to be well based. The Minister gave the impression that he had hardly read the Griffiths report. He certainly gave the impression that he does not understand the immense problems of community care.
When the Minister says that the Opposition criticise the Government for not responding to Griffiths, he is right; and when he says again that we may criticise the Government for their response when it comes, he is right again, because we have that right. What we cannot accept is that the Government will do nothing, if only because Sir Roy Griffiths himself said that to do nothing is simply not an option. Indeed, why should we do nothing?
The Government appear to take the view that when, after his intensive examination of the problems, Sir Roy suggested that there was a lead role for local government, he was inviting the Government to produce their prejudices because they do not accept that local government should have a major role. The Government ignore the problems that have been identified and which invite an immediate response.
We are led to believe that in this area, as in others, we should depend on market forces. Indeed, the Minister used the phrase, "the internal market". However, if market forces had been so productive and so appealing, there would not be 30,000 former psychiatric patients on the streets of New York, which has exactly that system, with all their problems unresolved.
The Minister and some of his hon. Friends who intervened referred to resources. I stress that we are entitled to complain bitterly about the unplanned growth in private residential homes, which has been unrelated to any real assessment. It is not as though we said, as a society, on the basis of consultation, that that was the best thing to do. It is not as though Lady Wagner, whose report has also been ignored, suggested that that was the best thing to do; we have drifted towards it. No responsible Government can invest that amount of resources in private accommodation unchecked—the accommodation is not in any sense adequately inspected—and nobody should pretend that that this is the way towards making a major contribution to community care in the 1980s, and as we approach the 1990s.
Strangely, the Minister devoted most of his speech almost exclusively to the subject of primary care. I say "strangely" because all the evidence suggests that the Government's proposals for the National Health Service in their review will add to the problems rather than taking away from them. I am sorry that the Scottish Office is not represented on the Government Front Bench, but I make the point that our experience of the response of general
404
practitioners to the review is typical of the United Kingdom as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) is hoping to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to raise this point.
Although the Minister was switched from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to his present role because some people perceived that he had an ability to communicate, he might have to do his job a little better when he has examined a letter that was sent to the Secretary of State for Scotland by the Ayrshire and Arran local medical committee, which states:
"The general practitioners of Ayrshire and Arran held a meeting last night, Monday 17 April 1989.
115 doctors attended and 115 voted against the new contract which was circulated last week."
That letter can hardly be taken as a sign that we should have any confidence in the Government's proposals for the Health Service, especially when we consider their bankrupt approach to community care.
The hon. Member for Southport was generous enough to refer to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. That Act gained its Royal Assent in July 1986 and has been mentioned in almost all of our debates on this subject. We always plead for its implementation, as do the voluntary and professional bodies that have briefed hon. Members in preparation for the debate. Indeed, they are entitled to do so, because many people recognise that section 7, which, as yet, has not been implemented, contains many of the concepts of Sir Roy Griffiths's approach to the dreadful problem of people being discharged from hospital into community care that does not exist. We want to see the Act implemented.
We find it incredible that the Government's circular, issued in February this year, entitled "Discharge of Patients from Hospital"—the Department of Health has also published a document entitled "Discharge of Patients from Hospital"—states:
"Social Services Departments will expect Health Authorities to liaise with them about the wide range of duties, including those under … the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which fall to social services and to follow the arrangements which apply locally for carrying them out."
Given that the Government are already advertising that Act, as MENCAP has pointed out, it is not unreasonable that we should ask them to provide the resources to implement it and to produce a plain person's guide for individuals and for organisations such as the Schizophrenia Fellowship which, like the rest of us, wants to see a strategy for hospital discharge and assessment of long-stay patients before they leave hospital and enter the community so that their needs will be met.
I am sure, too, that the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped would urge on the Government the need, in Scotland, for the kind of joint planning arrangements that have existed for many years in England and Wales, and which we persuaded a reluctant Government to include in the National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1986, shortly after the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act was passed.
All this represents cost-effectiveness in terms of crisis avoidance. The Minister did not address himself to that, though it is a worry for hundreds of thousands of patients and their families, carers and communities. The revolving

405
door syndrome, to which organisations such as MIND have constantly referred, is, of course, unacceptable. We hear, too, that the Salvation Army estimates that up to three quarters of its hostels' male inmates may be suffering from mental illnesses. We know also that many mentally handicapped and mentally ill persons find themselves in prison simply because the courts have nowhere else to send them.
Last Thursday I raised the question with the Home Secretary, and, in reply, he said that he was consulting the Secretary of State for Health. I had expected, and it would have been reasonable for the hon. Member for Southport to expect, the Government to tell us precisely what they are doing to reduce this scandal. What we are seeing, in the name of so-called community care, is a hospital rundown and a pace of community care provision that simply do not match. Closing hospitals or hospital wards, and throwing people into the community—in many cases, on to the streets—into hostels, and so on, is not community care in any meaningful sense. We know that for every psychiatric nurse working in the community there are about 25 working in hospitals. So there is a curious emphasis on the reverse. There is a need to recognise the problems where they exist within the community, not necessarily within hospitals exclusively.
The Minister failed to mention—although, in fairness, I have to say that the hon. Member for Southport did mention—the very vexed problem of the immense weight upon carers in this community—people who are saving the Treasury millions of pounds every year. In fairness, I must also point out that, curiously, these people are omitted from Sir Roy Griffiths' report. In terms of these problems, we as a House must recognise the tremendous worth of carers in every part of the United Kingdom. In many cases those people are doing a supportive job that ought to be seen as the role of Parliament itself.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who would have very much liked to be here for the debate, is very keen that we should urge on the Minister the need for a coherent approach to benefits for disabled people. We are told that the Government are considering these matters, and we are entitled to ask when we can expect a response. Our concern is about poverty, homelessness and neglect. The Spastics Society issued a document—to most hon. Members, I think—in preparation for this debate. It introduced us to very interesting case studies.
A document that is to be published soon refers, for example, to the case of June Morris. I know that we shall never forget that our debates and discussions about these matters are about people, about individuals, about the need for a collective response from society. The document says:
"June Morris is 34 and has lived in a local authority-owned bungalow for three and a half years, having moved there from her parents' home.
She has to wait for a home help to come each week, who stays for an hour. She's waiting to hear whether a laundry service could be made available. Having asked for an emergency phone she's awaiting the outcome. The combination of cerebral palsy and arthritis now warrants the use of a wheelchair. However, the kitchen and bathroom are not suitably adapted. The kitchen was looked at in January and again in August, but still nothing has been done …
406
June doesn't believe community care exists—`There isn't any. It should mean that there is someone to turn to when you need help. I had no social worker for a year.'"
There is not one hon. Member who could not relate similar cases, similar circumstances, all of them unacceptable in this society.
Of course we want to see more respite care; of course we want to see more assessments; of course we want to see more crisis avoidance in the carers' situation. But we cannot have these things unless there is proper resourcing, as well as proper recognition of services that have to be provided. The Association of Directors of Social Services has complained—rightly, I think—about the problems of training. It has reminded us of the vacancies in social work in London boroughs—15 per cent., with a turnover of 28 per cent. Happily, the situation is improving, but we have to do far more to recognise that these problems exist and to make sure that there is proper provision.
The Government are particularly mean-minded—especially in view of the dreadful problems of child abuse and the information that is now available to us—about the recommendation of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work on the need for an extra year's training. I hope that, on reflection, the Government will give serious thought to that recommendation, which, in the meantime, has been set aside.
Consumers ought to have a say in these matters. I believe that, were they to give us their views—for example, on housing investment—they would demonstrate that they consider our present commitment to be inadequate. Indeed, as consumers they would, in many cases, relate homelessness to drug or alcohol abuse or related problems. I believe, too, that they would join the Opposition in regretting bitterly the inadequacy of arranging for older children leaving care to go into the community. The Government's social security changes help these matters not one whit. If the Minister of State speaks for the Government when the Children Bill comes before the House, he will have an opportunity to correct what amounts to a scandal, and I hope that he will take that opportunity.
The community charge—the poll tax—is, of course, a perverse incentive in terms of our objectives. Even if they qualify for a rebate, many people in my constituency have to find £60 to £80 annually out of their very meagre pocket money. I do not regard that as being helpful to our objectives.
I want to ask the Minister to consider the many representations that have been made to the Government about land sales. Is money going back to the mental health services? There is very little evidence that it is. Some of the conditions that have been identified are absolutely unacceptable. The recent health advisory service reports on our psychiatric hospitals refer to gross overcrowding and to dirty, shabby, badly repaired, unsuitable, drab, depressing hospitals smelling of urine. The list continues. In many cases the hospitals are dilapidated, and institutional life means that there is no opportunity for people to live in dignity.
Despite the Minister's somewhat weak defence, the Audit Commission, even prior to Griffiths—and Griffiths accepted its view—described community care as being "in disarray". That is entirely unacceptable, but how could it be otherwise when, we are told, the Department of Health is responsible for promoting care in the community, the

407
Department of the Environment rate-caps local authorities that increase their expenditure on community care, and the Department of Social Security guides people towards a form of semi-institutional care in residential homes and, at the same time, administers the new Social Security Act, which has resulted in substantial loss of benefit for many former patients?
These matters are tremendously important, and there is a growing public awareness of them. The evidence suggests that most community care is provided by a member of a family, a whole family, or close friends. Community care should not be considered a marginal policy to be dismissed as being for a marginal group. It should involve mutuality—the responsibility of people to each other, which creates the fabric of a society of which it is worth being part. Whatever other disagreements we may have with Sir Roy Griffiths—there are many—he was right to say that the status quo is simply not an option.
8.20 pm
Mr. Timothy Raison: I agree with the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) that this is an important subject. I was glad when, at the end of his speech, he talked about the responsibility of all of us for each other. I did not agree with his remark to the effect that carers were doing Parliament's job. It is a great error to examine such matters in terms of statutory provision. It is Parliament's job to pass statutes. However, the hon. Gentleman redeemed himself in his closing remarks. It is important to remember that the statutory services and voluntary services should never take more than part of the responsibility. The major part must still lie with all of us—ordinary people—to care for our own families, relatives and friends.
The Government's amendment asks hon. Members to express full support for the Government's policy on community care. I have in mind an amendment to the amendment. I will vote for the Government to express full support for their record, which is quite good, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister demonstrated. I cannot say that I fully support the Government's policy, because I do not know what it is. It is in a state of limbo. The reason for the debate is that hon. Members are anxiously awaiting the Government's policy. It will be even easier to support it when we know what it is.
It is understandable that the Government have had to take some time over the matter. It is obviously complicated. At the same time, we cannot deny or duck the fact that we face serious problems arising from delay. I beg my hon. and learned Friend to end the delay as rapidly as possible. Delay is affecting morale and recruitment.
My county of Buckinghamshire has a good record in the way in which it is trying to tackle community care. It has been keen to progress and it has been doing some good work. I have seen good local authority/county council provision of residential homes of one sort or another for people who come out of long-stay hospitals. A few days ago, I saw an excellent provision which had been set up by the health authority, working in conjunction with the Shaftesbury Society, providing a mixture of residential care and day care for the handicapped. We are doing good things in our county.
However, there is a blockage at present. That has quite a bit to do with difficulties in spending the necessary capital if the crucial transfer of individuals from long-term
408
hospitals to other forms of residential care is effectively to take place. We must have decisions. About 95 people in a hospital for the mentally handicapped in my constituency have been identified as suitable for moving out of the hospital into some other form of care. At the moment, nothing can be done because the resources are not available; they must be unlocked. It was put to me that we need some kind of bridging loan to enable the transfer from the hospital institutional care to the appropriate alternative form of residential care. I hope that the Government will rapidly face that issue.
I am not sure whether we have corrected the anomalies that have existed because of the different sources of funding. I understand why we have had such sources—income support, Health Service funding, and so on. The Government have recently been trying to produce a more rational and coherent pattern, but it is important to make sure that we have a better system for dovetailing different sources of funding. I can only repeat a point which was made earlier: areas such as mine with high housing costs have particular difficulties in the provision of residential care when the scales are set on a national basis.
To be honest, my hon. and learned Friend's speech lacked an assessment of the present situation. We all accept the principle of moving people out of big mental hospitals when appropriate. We know that the Government have been genuinely trying to back that policy. However, we need to know what is happening. How many people have come out of such hospitals? How much additional care is being provided for those who still need residential care? The matter is complicated. We arc not arguing that everbody should go from a hospital into another form of residential care, but some people need to do so. Happily, others can go back to their own homes, and that is the ideal solution. The public are entitled to more information.
It is equally important not to be dogmatic. In its good report, the Audit Commission said that community care is
"not about imposing a community solution as the only option, in the way that institutional care has been the only option for many people in the past."
We still need some long-stay hospital provisions. We certainly need a good deal of residential provision. We also need the truest form of community care—more support for people who are able to live at home. The crucial point—hon. Members have been a little chary of facing up to it —is the problem of where we should allocate responsiblity for seeing that things actually happen. The Government are finding that point difficult to resolve. There are good arguments for the different points of view. Griffiths was justified to refer to
"a feeling that community care is a poor relation; everybody's distant relative but nobody's baby."
The job is to assign the baby.
We must accept that co-operation, good will, and even adequate resources are not enough. They are all necessary, but we must define who is responsible for looking after the people about whom we are talking. Whatever scheme we adopt must bring together or allow to operate effectively the medical, personal and social services side and the cash or social security side. That is a truism. Griffiths was right to state that the crucial need was to pick out one point of reference to make sure that each individual has what he or she needs. That means at the ground floor level—at the level of the community carer, the care manager, or

409
whatever we like to call him or her. That is necessary. There must be a responsible organisation to whom that carer may report and for whom he or she would work.
Griffiths was right to say that local authority personal social services departments are best equipped to do the job. Of course the health aspect is important. Nobody—certainly not Griffiths—says that there is not an important health job. Nobody is saying that the social services can do the whole health job. They cannot. Clearly, GPs and community nurses will still be important in future for discovering needs. Social services departments are best placed to do the all-round job of finding out and then making sure that needs are dealt with by a suitable body.
I should have thought that that is in line with the enabling role which the Government nowadays regard as appropriate to local government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment wrote a pamphlet about that enabling role. Even if there are doubts about piling more and more on to local authorities, it is appropriate that local government should have a co-ordinating role or the job of allocating accountability.
The Royal College of Nursing has argued that we should have a newly designed service, brought about by merging district health authorities, family practitioner committees and the personal social services, all of which, in the view of the college, should be funded by the health side. That is worth considering. No doubt the Government have done so, but I am a little chary of setting up a big new organisation of that kind.
The same doubt would apply to the proposals put forward by the Association of Directors of Social Services, which wants a national community care development agency. If we want to get on with the job, rather than devising grandiose mechanisms, it would be better to keep the social services departments that are in being. They might need more backing and resources to carry out the role, but I would prefer that instinctively to a new mechanism.
Griffiths also talked about the need for a Minister of State with responsibility for community care. One has to recognise that under our constitution Ministers of State cannot have ultimate responsibility; that has to lie with the Secretary of State. However, there is a great deal to be said for a Minister of State working under the Secretary of State to provide a focus. If I may draw an analogy from my experience, I was Minister for Overseas Development; I was not Minister of Overseas Development. I think that few people recognise the distinction. The Foreign Secretary is by statute Minister of Overseas Development. I was Minister for Overseas Development under him and I had to get on with the job. That parallel is perhaps reasonable, although the ultimate responsibility has to lie with the Secretary of State, who is the crucial person when it comes to the scramble for funds in the public expenditure round.
We have had to wait too long. It is urgent to have a decision. I know that the Government are thinking hard about the matter and I understand their difficulties. Unless there are compelling reasons, Griffiths provides the best formula. I look forward to hearing soon from the Front Bench what the Government propose.
8.31 pm
Mr. William McKelvey: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) who has given us the opportunity to debate what many people regard as an important issue. I was disappointed at the lacklustre and somewhat arrogant approach of the Minister.
I support strongly the comments of the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). If it were up to me, which of course it is not, he would be moved to the Front Bench and I would dispatch the present incumbent back to the Foreign Office where he was doing an excellent job. His attitude towards the Palestinians was much more understandable and correct.
It is not a mistake that the White Paper, which is euphemistically called "Working for Patients", omits any reference to community care and care for the elderly. That does not mean that the Government are not aware of the inadequacies and the disorganisation of community care. I think that they are fully aware of the position. That is why the then Secretary of State for Health, who is now Secretary of State for Employment, appointed Sir Roy Griffiths to make recommendations on care in the community. Most people would agree that the impetus for the report was not concern for the elderly but, rather, concern about money.
There were serious criticisms of the Government's community care policy by the Audit Commission, which was alarmed that much of the £6 billion spent annually on the mentally handicapped was being wasted and was not being spent properly. Sir Roy Griffiths was not appointed to create a model for adequate community care with no cost spared; indeed, quite the reverse was the case. His remit was
"To improve the use of funds as a contribution to more effective community care."
Hon. Members should note that no further resources were brought into the equation. We should underline that.
The Griffiths report was published in the spring of 1988, yet still there is no response to its recommendations other than the answer that we get on every occasion when we raise the question—that the Government are looking at the matter. We have had nothing apart from vague representations from the Minister that something is likely to happen in the near future. That is all we have been told.
Why have the Government remained silent for so long on a report which was excellently prepared, although there is much in it with which I disagree? The suggestions in the report worry the Government. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury outlined some of them. The hardest nut to crack and the worst thing for the Government to swallow is the suggestion by Sir Roy Griffiths and his team that they should give local authorities a leading role as providers of care, assessors and co-ordinators. The Minister indicated clearly that he has no faith in any local authority carrying out those duties.
There has been reference in the debate to the suggestion in the report for a Minister of State for community care, with appropriate departmental support. That proposal is not popular with the Government. If such a post were established, people who are hungry for the financial aid needed to carry out their programmes would have someone to target for funds, and the Government would be seen as attempting to put all those pleas to one side. It is not surprising that the Government are not enamoured

411
of the report. That is supposition on my part, because to date they have not said whether they are enamoured or otherwise. While they are considering the report, hundreds of thousands of people in a very distressed state, out on the streets and elsewhere, need the care that we want to see established.
I disagree fundamentally with some of the Griffiths recommendations. For instance, young unemployed people should not be press-ganged through the youth training scheme or any other scheme into home-help-type jobs, as suggested by Griffiths, simply as a means of getting community care on the cheap. That is not the way that we should go about it.
Neither do I wish to see a two-tier system for the elderly, with tax incentives to encourage private health care, as suggested in the report. My party and the people whom I represent do not think that residential care should be means-tested. We do not want to return to a system with deserving and non-deserving poor. All the people should he treated equally and their needs should be met. There should be greater choice and greater independence for all who require care in the community. That can happen only if the right amount of cash is injected and if it is directed at the right targets. The aim of moving more care into the community and away from residential institutions is laudable, but only where real support and care are available. An aim set for Sir Roy was to reverse the financial incentives operating in favour of residential care.
Residential care is the biggest growth industry in Ayrshire, where there are nearly 10 times as many homes as there were four years ago. There has been an incredible increase in the number of homes. I have visited many of them, and have talked to the people who manage them. The vast majority are run very well. I have no objections to the way in which they are run. The people who live in them are happy, but many of them would be happier if they had been allowed to remain in their own homes, which they cannot do.
The Government must recognise that there must be proper finance available for looking after elderly relatives at home. The carer's benefit should be paid for looking after that person and should not be included as income when establishing a person's level of income support. After all, when one considers how small that benefit is, when compared with the cost of keeping a person in a residential home, there is no reason why the Government should not make that a benefit which is unrelated to income.
The Griffiths report may not be completely to everyone's liking, but it is important because it provides a basis for developing the policies for care in the community which are long overdue. They should have been in place before we witnessed the large-scale closures of hospitals and large-scale openings of residential and nursing homes. We are trying to close the door after the horse has bolted.
I urge the Government to make their responses to the Griffiths report known as quickly as possible, or at least to initiate a whole day's debate on community care for the elderly, the mentally handicapped and all those whom we genuinely wish to assist. I shall cite one case that will clarify my misgivings about the Government's intentions for community care and, for instance, the community care grant.
Yesterday it was reported that more than 40 per cent. of the money made available for community care grants in the Scottish districts is being returned because the money
412
has not been taken up. That is not because people are not trying to get the money, but because the guidelines are so tightly defined—there is no discretion at local level—and the money has not been properly used.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), raised with the Minister the case of his constituent who was in a mental hospital for 10 years and was being released into the community. The district council gave the woman a house and an application was made for a community grant of £500 to assist. She was refused that grant because her income was 4p over income support due to her invalidity benefit. That woman really could have benefited from being allowed to live in the community and having a proper start in a new life. However, because of the barriers presented by that extra 4p, she was refused a grant. She may end up back in hospital because she will be unable to cope. There should not be such a rigid attitude towards people who are trying desperately to come back into the community. We should not have such tight legislation which stops a person taking his or her rightful place in the community and being given back much of the dignity that he or she has lost.
8.42 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am pleased to contribute to the debate. While the NHS review and the new GPs' contract may have been the focus of much professional attention during the last couple of months, a more consistent interest has been expressed over a number of years about the current and future structure of care in the community.
That interest is entirely predictable, given, first, the demographic changes at each end of the spectrum, which eventually will mean that there are fewer people to look after more people; secondly, rising public expectation; and, thirdly, changing family patterns, with implications for carers and the public services. I mean by that the breakdown of marriages. While it might be fairly expected by many that they would look after one mother-in-law, looking after two or three, if they enter into a second or third marriage, might be stretching it a bit. That is a flippant way of saying that obvious lines of responsibility within changing family patterns may be weakened. I believe that we must consider that.
We must also accept that there is a growing involvement of the private and voluntary sector. It has already been said that expenditure in the private and voluntary sector is now approaching £1 billion, which is a considerable sum. It was most unfortunate that the Opposition made a quite unwarranted slur on the motives of people who run the private and residential homes, which I believe will not go unnoticed by them.
The Audit Commission argued that community care is about
"changing the balance of services and finding the most suitable placement for people from a wide variety of options. It is not about imposing a community solution as the only option in the way that institutional care has been the only option for many people in the past."
It is important to stress that definition of community care, which makes it an option within a spectrum. While Governments may always have regarded it as such, until the last two or three years it has been regarded in health and social services circles as a policy leading inexorably away from institutional care of any kind.

413
Clearly, community care should provide a range of care services through which people may move, both in and out, and including as one of its parts in-patient care, whether short-term, respite or crisis care.
As services are at present organised, community care requires very close and effective co-operation between a number of agencies—health authorities, local authorities, housing agencies, social services, social security, the voluntary and private sectors and, of course, relatives and carers. To quote the Audit Commission again, it must
"cover prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, health maintenance and social supportive networks."
The necessary co-operation between a range of agencies with different power bases, and such a complex range of care to provide, sets a task whose complexity is awesome, although, of course, many achieve it. Indeed, if Governments had set about making community care provision as difficult, as time-wasting, as bureaucratic and as committee-bound as they could, they could hardly have done worse than the present system against which providers have to battle. Especially with reference to joint financing, I was most interested to note the simple pride with which the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) announced yesterday that he had devised the system.
Within that complicated structure, the Government's achievements have been good. For example, the need for mentally handicapped children to live in long-stay hospitals has been virtually eliminated. The adult hospital resident population of mentally handicapped people has been reduced by more than one third. It is difficult to assess the Government's record by public spending measures, precisely because the responsibility for funding is spread between a number of agencies. However, I believe that we can all accept the evidence of the National Audit Office, which found a significant increase in spending on the elderly, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped between 1977 and 1985. None of us should forget that the debate is taking place within the context of a record spending on the National Health Service of £26 billion and a social services budget of £3·3 billion. We are not talking about a service which is being starved of funds.
Since 1979, much more money has been put into joint finance. That has increased by about 60 per cent. and, more significantly, its take-up has increased from 52 per cent. to nearly 99 per cent. That has been encouraged by interesting new conditions, such as the dowry system, which unblocked Health Service funds for use in the community by the simple expedient of transferring the funds with the patient into the community.
There are some excellent examples of good and innovative work, which demonstrate that quite highly dependent people can be cared for in the community. That is the message emerging from 28 pilot schemes set up by the Department of Health and Social Security in 1983, which were funded by an additional joint funding budget. I mention in particular the Kent community care scheme for frail elderly people, which links devolved budgetary management with the design of individual care packages. In my county, which is Conservative-controlled, we have excellent schemes. For instance, the Lawns in Great Yarmouth, which was formerly a residential home for the elderly run by social services, now provides an interesting, acceptable and popular range of care and help for elderly
414
people. In the Norwich health district we have community care groups with proper appraisal, and West Norfolk and Wisbech health authorities have well-developed day care and drop-in centres linked to private residential care.
The picture of the last 10 years of community care under the Government shows steady progress, although it has been a little unevenly distributed. We have seen increased spending and some solid evaluation of what does and does not work. That is important. The Government face a daunting task in framing their response to Griffiths. Whatever structure is devised, the problems that I have mentioned will remain. There is the complexity of the mechanisms which involve many agencies and at least three Departments of State. There has been steadily increasing expenditure on the private and residential sectors, mainly for the elderly, which many of us welcome, and in which standards of care are monitored, thanks to the statutory agencies. However, it must be accepted that criteria for admission, and therefore for financial support, are not monitored. This is becoming a bottomless purse.
The Government also need to consider a number of models for the provision of community care. Some hon. Members have mentioned the local authority model. There are elements that can be commended to Ministers in the response to Griffiths by the Association of Directors of Social Services. The response mentions a mixed economy for care and service provision, a good national framework for regulation of monitoring, which everybody welcomes, and strengthened local accountability by care managers.
There is also the health authority model, in which existing community health services might be grouped together and subsume local authority services that are being nationally funded. There is the possible client group model, where we might transfer responsibility for the mentally handicapped to social services and responsibility for the mentally ill and some elderly people to the health authorities. Then, of course, there is the model of an entirely new agency which might plan and buy in care from local authorities, health authorities, voluntary organisations and the private sector.
In preparing their response to Griffiths the Government will want to consider the not inconsiderable amount of change planned for the National Health Service, especially in primary care. It might be difficult at present to give the National Health Service something else to worry about, although many of the worries expressed in yesterday's debate are entirely unfounded. I do not wish to see any more delay in the Government's response to the Griffiths report because some planning decisions are being held up pending that response. Given the complexity of the task and its importance to patients, which can only increase, I hope that the Government will take the time that they need to produce the right and most effective response, because I suspect that the ramifications will be with us long after the White Paper has been absorbed into professional practice.
8.52 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I propose to speak about general practitioner services, but before I turn to the merits of the case I should like to speak about the way in which the Minister of State, Department of Health approached the question of how general practitioner services should be run in future. I think he knows that I have a considerable regard for his political and forensic

415
and especially his legislative abilities. However, in his approach to general practitioners he has given the impression of coating himself with testy arrogance as a biscuit with bitter chocolate. That has caused great offence, not only to general practitioners but also to members of the public interested in the National Health Service.
It seems that the Minister is not too keen on listening to reasonable argument in the debate, but I know that he is always prepared to listen to opera. I shall draw a brief operatic analogy. General practitioners look upon the Government's blandishments in relation to general medical services rather like Bluebeard's bride at the entrance to his castle. I do not allege that the Minister is Bluebeard——that is his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. The Minister is merely the doorkeeper. General practitioners believe—in my view, rightly—that every time they, like Bluebead's bride, pick up one of the gilded offerings inside the castle, they find beneath it the curse that the Government are bringing upon the National Health Service.
I remember the bad old days of general practice. I am the son of a general practitioner who practised in an industrial Lancashire town. He is retired now and is a very old gentleman, but he had experience in private medicine, albeit not in this country, experience in hospitals and many years' experience in general practice. At one time he, like many other GPs, was single-handedly stemming the tide rather like King Canute. All over the town where we lived one could see queues of sometimes 30 or 40 patients outside each poorly maintained surgery, especially on Monday mornings. My father was a single-handed practitioner and on his half day off we had to escape from the house in which he had his surgery. He had to arrange that half day with another doctor, and if we stayed at home he would have no rest. As a result of the pressure he faced, I was sent by him to a good school with a foundation that provided for the sons of dead general practitioners to be educated for nothing. Many people were educated by way of the medical foundation in Epsom college.
In the mid-1960s and early 1970s, times changed, very much for the better. Nowadays, in most if not all parts of this country, we have group practices with much better facilities and offering a good service to patients. That happened in my father's practice. Those group practices are also able to contribute to the community. For example, the Department of Social Security depends upon general practitioners for its medical boards. How many GPs will still be able to do that work after they are compelled to work 20 hours a week in their surgeries?
Since childhood, and especially since I became a Member of the House, I have had an opportunity to observe a rather different sort of general practice, the rural medical practice. In preparing the new GP contract and in planning whatever strategy they have for general medical services in England and Wales—interestingly, there is a difference in Scotland—the Government have chosen to ignore almost completely the special needs of rural areas and rural medical practice.
Rural practices in my constituency, in other parts of rural Wales and probably elsewhere in the United Kingdom are, on the whole, well organised and provide a high standard of service. If a patient has an accident in my constituency the chances are that he is 30 miles from the nearest major casualty hospital. He goes either to his GP
416
or to one of the little local hospitals where the GP carries out the casualty work and performs small operations and stitches up people. If he lives in a rural area such as mine, the chances are that he will be able to go to a branch surgery not in a far distant town but in a nearby village. The chances are that when he telephones the doctor's surgery and asks for an appointment and outlines any difficulties in getting to the surgery the doctor, assessing the needs of the patient, will take the entirely reasonable decision that the patient should not come to the surgery but that the doctor should visit the patient.
That is the special nature of rural medical services as they have developed and, on the whole, they are good, very good. I pay tribute where it is due to the Government for allowing those services to develop in a way that is beneficial to the community. But I ask the Minister why the Government have now decided to pull the rug from under good rural practitioner services. I shall refer to some specific matters which are evidence that the Government want to do just that.
As a direct result of the changes proposed to the GP contract, there is absolutely no doubt that doctors will be unable to visit their patients as often as they have in the past. A very good general practitioner whom I know well told me recently—and this was confirmed by other doctors at the meeting—that sometimes in a morning he can visit only three or four patients because of the distances involved. My recollection of my childhood in a busy town is that my father used sometimes to visit six or seven patients in one street. It is quite different in rural areas. If rural doctors are forced to spend 20 hours in their surgeries, they will spend some of that time twiddling their thumbs, looking for something to do, when they could be out visiting their patients. That cannot be in the public interest.
What is more, our community hospitals in places such as Welshpool, Llanidloes, Machynlleth and Newtown depend upon the GPs not sitting in their surgeries but going to the hospital to carry out the hospital services. This they will be unable to do if they are forced to sit in their surgeries for as long as 20 hours a week.
The Government have set targets for vaccination and cervical smear rates. In order even to maintain their income—the doctors in Montgomeryshire are not suggesting that their incomes are too low and should be substantially increased—doctors are to meet certain targets if the new contract comes into being. But these targets are wholly unrealistic in rural areas. The 90 per cent. vaccination target is impossible to achieve. Whooping cough vaccination, included as it is in the compulsory criteria for payments, will set ethical dilemmas which will affect all doctors, for not all are as convinced as perhaps the Minister is about the value of that vaccination.
One of my local practices campaigned especially hard on the need for cervical smears by writing and speaking to patients when they come into the surgery; but it still fell short of the target of 80 per cent. which the Government seek to set for cervical smears. Because it is unrealistic to try to reach those targets in rural areas, some doctors will decide that the targets will never be achieved, that as a result they will not be paid for the work they do and that they may just as well withdraw the service and leave it to somebody else to provide cervical cytology. That cannot be in the interests of women in rural areas.

417
I urge the Minister, who I know is listening to these points, to consider them seriously, for they are all real problems put to me by real doctors.
Another problem relates to minor surgical operations. In Scotland the principle has been recognised that in rural areas, provided the doctor does five procedures in a month, he will be paid for those procedures. But under the contract which is sought to be imposed in England and Wales, on rural as well as on urban doctors—and it is only the rural doctors who can do large-ish numbers pro rata of surgical procedures—they are told that they will be paid for minor surgical procedures only if they do five in a session.
I can tell the Minister what will happen. A patient will go to see Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones will explain that he would like to do his surgical procedure but will be paid for it only if he does five in a session. He tells the patient that he will collect five and then the patient can come back and have his surgical procedure carried out. So Mr. Evans visiting Dr. Jones may have to wait a month before his surgical procedure is done.
What happens now is that Mr. Evans, a patient who may live 15 miles from his doctor's surgery, will go to the surgery and will have the minor procedure done on a one-off basis by appointment. That is serving the consumer. That is fulfilling the aspiration that the Government rightly have for the medical profession.
Mr. Richard Livsey: The 20-hour rule for GPs will prevent doctors in rural practice from carrying out the procedures that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has mentioned. This will restrict their opportunity to carry out minor surgical procedures. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will agree.
Mr Carlile: Yes, I agree with that. It reinforces the point that I was making.
I wrote to the Secretary of State in detail on 30 March setting out my misgivings about the GP contract for rural services, and I await his reply to those specific questions with great interest. I will mention two now. The Government's proposals mean that there will be far fewer part-time general practitioners. This is very much against the interests of women, in particular, for there are many women doctors who are perforce rather than by choice part-time practitioners. Some live in my constituency. The payment arrangements—effectively, the removal of the basic practice allowance—mean that practices will be disinclined to employ women part-timers in the future. As it is, it is very difficult in some areas for women to find a woman practitioner to go to—and many wish to, for very good reasons.
I ask the Minister to consider this and to try to ensure that the part-timer, particularly the woman doctor, providing excellent service can continue working in general practice.
The last point I wish to draw to the Minister's attention is that of reimbursement to GPs for ancillary staff and for premises. One of the great developments that I saw as I grew up in a doctor's household was the improved ancillary facilities provided by successive Governments and the chance given by those Governments to doctors to have better surgeries. It happened in our family practice
418
and in many others that I know well. This sort of provision gave a great impetus to good-quality general practitioner services.
The new arrangements suggest, however, that those reimbursements to GPs for ancillary staff and for rents are liable to be cost-limited and reduced. As a result, general practitioners will seriously reconsider any increase in their staff numbers. Some of my local GPs now employ practice nurses who can provide in some cases a rather more intimate service in minor matters than can the busy GP in his surgery. Practice nurses are a very important part of medical practice in rural areas. But doctors will have to reconsider employing them.
In addition, I am aware of at least one £500,000 surgery rebuilding scheme—not in my constituency but in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey)—that the practice is now considering abandoning as it cannot rely on the reimbursement initially promised to service its great undertaking. The practice consists of doctors who are, in mid-Wales terms, in a medium-sized town. If they do not develop their new medical centre, because of changes in the contract and in the arrangements for payment for GPs, it could be another 20 years before the town's services are improved. That would be a matter for regret.
I ask the Minister, therefore, to go back to his Department and have another look at rural GP services. In particular, we should bear in mind the fact that there is no logical case for saying there should be one thing for rural services in Scotland and something quite different for Wales and rural England. As the proposed contract stands, those rural services will suffer and, I am afraid, it will be the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who will be blamed.
9.9 pm
Sir Geoffrey Pattie: There was discussion earlier in the debate about the Griffiths report, about which I shall make some brief remarks. Sir Roy Griffiths, as the Prime Minister's health care adviser, has impeccable credentials. The problem has been that he has not come up with a convenient set of recommendations. It appears that the Government have taken longer to prepare their response than the Committee took to prepare the report in the first place.
Chapter 7 of the Griffiths report, paragraph 5, states:
"There is a need for central government to make an early clear statement of the objectives and values underlining its community care policies, clarifying its view of the role of the public sector."
The delay in responding to the report is profoundly unsatisfactory.
We could ask, "Does a delay matter?" It would not matter if there were no problem. We might then ask, "Is there a problem?" Everyone is agreed that certain aspects of the community care policy command widespread support, particularly the concept that health care can best be provided within the community—especially if that means that we can get away from the use of large mental hospitals which, all too often, are a legacy of the last century. It has always been recognised that a problem would arise if a mismatch occurred between the closure of mental hospitals and failure to provide adequate care for patients in the community. Unless community care is adequately in place before patients leave mental hospitals, adequate bridging finance must be made available. My

419
right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who made an excellent and cogent speech, used the term "bridging finance", which is the key to the current problem.
It is obvious from the evidence before our eyes that such a mismatch has occurred. Many people have been decanted out of mental hospitals and are now part of the so-called cardboard cities, which are an affront to any society that claims to be civilised. Market research on this need not he involved. Within a few hundred yards' walking distance—never mind driving distance—of the Palace of Westminster, one is likely to encounter such people. I am not suggesting that all those one encounters on these walks are former mental patients, but it is estimated that half of them are.
Some people like the life on the road; others have run away from home to try to find fame and fortune. However, if the usual estimate of 8,000 or 9,000 are sleeping rough in London tonight, about half that figure will be former mental patients. Therefore, a large number of people are clearly incapable of sustaining themselves in society without adequate support.
It is clear that voluntary groups are incapable of filling the gap. They carry out admirable work but cannot be expected to shoulder the entire load. Obviously, the Minister will hardly reveal the Government's response to the Griffiths report today, but it would be nice if he gave some sign of when that might come—other than the usual "soon"—or "in the spring". Sir Roy Griffiths reported on 12 February 1988, which was a long time ago. It would be constructive, and certainly helpful to me, if the Minister were prepared to recognise that the problem exists, and that people are living in such conditions, who are on the streets due to the inadequacy of the present system.
I imagine that, privately, the Minister must be unhappy about this aspect of what is otherwise an impressive health care system. Many of my hon. Friends have made reference in the debate to the large sums of extra money and additional facilities that have been provided. That is satisfactory and I support it. However, in this one matter, the evidence is there to be seen by all of us who are prepared, as it were, not to drive past on the other side. It shows that many of our fellow citizens face extreme difficulties tonight because the present policy is not working. What will the Government do about that?
9.17 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I hold no particular brief for the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Fearn) but, having listened to his opening speech, I feel that he deserved a more comprehensive response than he received from the Minister. Frankly, the Minister's response consisted of a series of insults and cheap jibes. Several Conservative Members have made serious points in the debate. I am sorry to have to make these remarks when the Minister has left the Chamber, but I was disappointed that he was not prepared to address the issues which have been raised by hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber.
The Minister's response to the opening speech made it clear that the Government do not have a policy on community care. In the brief time that I have tonight, I shall address myself to some of the implications of the Government's non-policy on this serious and worrying subject. If anyone needs convincing of the fact that the
420
Government's ideological blinkers have so often overridden any element of human concern, they need only look at community care. By allowing the policy on community care to be determined by the free movement of market forces, they have set back proper community care by decades.
It is important to consider in detail the consequences of a market-based policy of community care, because, if the Government have a community care policy, it is based on the movement of market forces. I shall pinpoint one or two matters relating to the private sector care of the elderly which worry my constituents, many hon. Members and me.
I listened to the observations of Conservative Members talking about the amount of money which has been put into community care by the Government. Huge amounts of public money are being mis-spent in the name of community care. There are people in institutions on income support who do not need to be there and would be far better cared for outside them, in their own communities, with proper community care.
The Minister mentioned the figure of £1 billion being spent on income support in the current financial year. That is the figure that was given by the Association of Directors of Social Services for the previous financial year. I suspect that it is a conservative estimate and that, if one attempted to find out what the figures were at local level, one would find that the DSS does not keep records of the amount of money paid in income support to private residential care. Therefore, we are talking about a guesstimate.
A year ago the Public Accounts Committee said that up to a quarter of income support claimants in residential care could have remained in their own homes if they had the proper community services and support. At least £250 million per annum is being spent on residential, institutional care for people who do not need it. That is the result of a free market policy in community care.
There is also a huge hidden cost to the public purse at local authority level. Problems arise time and again in local authorities' policing of private residential homes. The hidden cost is in the homes that have to be closed and the court cases which, according to the social work press, are happening virtually every week. There are disputes over deregistration and qualifications and conditions on registration. All that is costing public money.
In allowing such a free market policy to rule community care, the Government have developed enormous regional differences in the investment of public money. David Lane, the director of social services in my local authority, Wakefield, compared the amounts paid out in the south coast belt—Devon, Dorset, Hampshire and east and west Sussex—where the population is around 4·5 million and there are 26,000 beds in the private sector, with west and south Yorkshire, where the population is 3·25 million and there are fewer than 4,000 beds. Assuming that 50 per cent. of private beds are paid for through income support—a reasonable assumption—at an average cost of about £8,000 per annum, he calculated that the average authority in the south coast belt would have an annual income of £11·5 million per annum, while in west and south Yorkshire the amount would be £2·2 million. That is an enormous redistribution of public funding from the poorer areas to those with substantial resources.
We have also seen a huge distortion in the type of support services available to the elderly. It saddens me to say this. I entered social work, working with the elderly,

421
back in 1968, at a time when we were proud to boast that we were reducing institutional care and building small homes rather than huge, isolated institutions. Now we see the resurrection of care in such large institutions as society's central response to the needs of the dependent elderly.
I disagree profoundly with that policy. It is not in the interests of elderly people. The only people to gain from it have been the estate agents. It has given new life to rundown Victorian mansions, dilapidated country houses and struggling seaside bed-and-breakfast boarding houses and hotels, which are being used to care for people who, in many cases, have been shunted miles away from where they come from.
The larger the institution, moreover, the bigger the profits. I have asked parliamentary questions about the numbers of beds in such institutions, but I have not received answers because the figures are not kept. I can see with my own eyes, however, that large institutions are being used increasingly for the care of the elderly. They are once more being used as they were in the 1940s and 1950s and at the time of the Poor Laws.
Care Weekly, a social work journal which I read every week, reported on 7 April that Lodge Care plc, one of the increasing number of private companies involved in residential care, was selling off 12 of its 25 homes. The managing director, Graham Elliott, said that
"it was the smaller homes which were least profitable and had to be disposed of".
I concede that there are some good, small private homes offering homely care: I have visited them. But those are the homes that are being disposed of, on the basis that they are the least profitable.
There is, as yet, no profit to be made from preventive services. The profit-making sector—the market—has therefore moved into institutional care rather than preventing people from entering institutions. Strategies for care, having been left to the market by the Government, are now being determined by large business interests rather than by the needs of the elderly. Ladbrokes, for example, now owns about 1,000 residential and nursing care beds. Boddingtons brewery and the Vaux brewery group are also involved.
Does anyone honestly believe that those organisations are motivated by concern for what is in the best interests of dependent elderly people? Are they involved merely in acts of charity? Of course they are not. We all know that their involvement is based on hard-headed business decisions and profit motivation. They are diversifying into areas where they know that a quick killing can be made. Dependent elderly residents who have no one to stand up and vouch for them are the pawns in this increasingly big-business game.
The Government know that their community care policies are a shambles. That is why the Minister made no defence of them in response to the hon. Member for Southport. He did not even refer to issues raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) mentioned that the Audit Commission had said that community care was in disarray and that the Government were getting poor value for money, which I think is an understatement. The Government have been sitting on the Griffiths report for over a year. The report, in my view, is full of holes: its
422
vision of community care is very narrow, as my hon. Friend has made clear in a document produced by the Labour party. There have been many criticisms of it, but the important point is that it provides a basis for thought and debate on a matter that desperately needs both.
Urgent action is needed, rather than the complacency demonstrated by the Minister tonight. If I had more time, as I hope that I shall when we debate the Griffiths report, I should spell out what I think should be done. For the moment, however, let me make three brief points.
First, we need to reverse the present trend back to care in isolated institutions. Choice of care is a myth and a nonsense: the Minister conceded that. Of all the elderly people whom I have admitted to residential care in my time in social work, I cannot think of one who wanted to go into an institution. Sadly, however, the way in which the Government have allowed their policies to develop has resulted in that often being the only option. They have shunted investment into institutional care rather than into preventive community care.
In our debate before Christmas, the Minister virtually conceded his concern about the fact that any woman over 60 or man over 65 could obtain income support, fit as a fiddle, and then go into residential care. The system is nonsense. We must stop this open-ended income support for private care, and redirect public funding towards preventing institutionalisation rather than actively encouraging it.
What could have been achieved in funding proper community care if the Government were not ideologically committed to the role of the free market? What could have been achieved with the amount of money that has been thrown into the explosion of private residential care? What could have been done with all that wasted money? The Public Accounts Committee suggests that £250 million is the sum spent on sending people to institutions who do not need to be there.
What could have been done every year with that kind of money in providing proper community care, home helps, meals on wheels, support units, befriending services, day care, social clubs, community nursing, social support, sheltered housing, and numerous other elements of community care—all of which avoid the need for people to enter institutions and allow them to remain living in dignity in their own communities, surrounded by the people with whom they have lived all their lives?
Imagine what could have been done with that amount of money, had the Government not been tied to the vision of the free market and to the blind dogma that they apply to every area of their policy. To leave the care of vast numbers of the most vulnerable people in our society to the whims of the market, as the Government have done, is scandalous.
9.29 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) because it reminded me that we have something in common—we were both brought up in Yorkshire.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that there is a predisposition for elderly people to move to the south coast or to my own constituency of Fylde on the west coast of England. When I was selected to contest a seat in Lancashire, I apologised for the fact that I came from over the Pennines. However, one day I was told by one of my

423
supporters, "Don't worry that you come from Yorkshire. Half of Yorkshire is here already." Many people move to different parts of the country because that is where they want to retire and where they wish to be cared for.
The hon. Gentleman's narrow view of the source of care in the community must be criticised, because many of the people who have moved to the west coast of England are impressed by the diversity of care in the community, in both the public and the private sector, that is found there. The hon. Gentleman does not realise that a vast spectrum of resources is available to individuals. It ranges from income support, which the hon. Gentleman also criticised, to the provision of services to people who have adequate assets of their own—perhaps from the sale of their houses—and who currently benefit from the development of sheltered accommodation by the private sector and from the growing development of continuing care that is also to be found in the private sector. However, even those people, as they grow older, may require more institutionalised forms of community care.
The hon. Member for Wakefield criticised the Government's response to the Griffiths report. We would all like to see an early response, but it was not the act of a reluctant Government to ask Sir Roy Griffiths to concern himself with community care. His report opens with the statement:
"Mr. Norman Fowler asked me to take an overview of community care policy."
The Government asked for that to be done and, in the nicest sense, they knew what they were letting themselves in for—a report from somebody who would seek an answer, and an answer of accountability. The Government were aware of the contribution that Sir Roy had made to earlier reforms of the Health Service when they sought the application of his intellect to the problem of community care and his ideas.
Sir Roy produced a brief but enormously thought-provoking response that sought to answer the questions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) pointed out, of bringing together the enormous diversity of community care. I suggest that rather than calling it community care, we should talk about the development of a community of carers. By that I mean the bringing together of all agencies—private and public, voluntary and individual—that make up the concept of community care.
Our country's capacity to care is enormous, and the good will felt towards the elderly is considerable. However, some education remains to be provided in terms of attitudes towards those who are mentally ill, mentally handicapped, or both. If they are to be properly received in their communities as they arrive there from long-stay institutions, we must educate ourselves on the need to receive them positively into our number and to provide them with the necessary care.
When considering recommendations such as those in the Griffiths report, we must decide whether we are looking for a top-down solution or a bottom-up solution. A top-down solution involves the kind of national institution that we would perhaps want to monitor. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West spoke in great detail about the various models that could be used. I am interested in a solution that grows from within the community. My hon. Friend identified the multiplicity of sources of community care. The essence of community care is the flexible response to the needs of the community.
424
In my constituency there is one of the finest community hospitals. It is so good that I was recently asked, "Mr. Jack, why is this new hospital opening in your constituency? Is it not a private hospital?" I had to say that it was not. It is a new community hospital opened under the auspices of the National Heath Service. It provides day care facilities, and a broad range of other services for the elderly, including physiotherapy and special wards dedicated to the rehabilitation and training of elderly people to help them re-enter the community.
I visit that hospital regularly for personal reasons, as my mother is there, recovering, we hope, from a stroke. I look around the hospital and I see the quality of the care that is available. It occurred to me that it is an ideal centre to base community care and to set up a buying and enabling agency to cater for the needs of the community as identified by the social services, general practioners and the private sector in rest homes or nursing homes. A buying or enabling agency centred in that hospital could draw resources from the community to provide care for elderly people. It could be broadened to serve the interests of mentally ill and physically handicapped people to provide a broadly based community service.
How do we adapt that on a national level? I am attracted by the suggestion in the White Paper for hospital trusts. By definition, trusts seem to encompass all those who care about a particular matter. We have identified a broad range of sources for community care, so let us imagine a national care trust in which the interests of the Government, the social services and the private sector could be represented and where funds for the various budget heads catering for the needs of the community and the care of the elderly and the mentally ill could be accumulated and redistributed according to need to different parts of the United Kingdom. It is for the communities to ascertain their present needs and try to identify their resource needs to continue and develop existing services.
Community care has been prevented from working, in the way referred to by all hon. Members who have spoken, by the friction between health authority services and the social services. There have been differences of opinion. I used to hear them when I sat on the Mersey regional health authority, where we found it difficult to overcome the frustration at the lack of progress towards the right provision.
The Griffiths report give us the opportunity to seek a solution in which the wheels of the relationship between the different agencies can mesh and run more smoothly. The smoothness with which care in the community can be delivered will mean a great deal. I applaud the comments made abut the need to allow elderly people to stay in their own homes. I pay tribute to my constituent, Mr. Stephen Hay, who runs a private rest home and has developed a private care in the community programme. His wife, who is a trained SRN makes domiciliary visits and supplies a broad range of services to elderly people in their own homes. His service is already over-subscribed, but how much better and how much more caring a service could be supplied if my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State would appeal to his ministerial colleagues in the Department of Social Security to free the shackles on income support and use that money more creatively. Such creativity would allow communities to respond to the many and diverse needs of the elderly and mentally ill patients.

425
There is much work to be done, but we have sufficient resources. My hon. and learned Friend referred to the money available through income support. Perhaps he did not have time to mention the £1 billion in attendance allowance. Such expenditure is not a sign that the Government do not care or are being mean with resources. It is a sign that the Government recognise the demographic issues and are trying to respond to them while creating a flexible response that will bring together the best of the private sector and the best of the public sector to provide care in the community.
Sad to say, the problems of the mentally ill have not been referred to in the debate. I say sincerely to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that the most difficult case with which I have had to deal since coming to the House involved the mother of a schizophrenic boy. She writes to me asking who will look after him when she dies. I have been to the district health authority, the regional health authority and even to my hon. and learned Friend's Department but all they say is, "tomorrow". That lady's tomorrow may come but she looks to me to provide an answer within the community for the problems of her son, Dennis. That is the challenge of mental illness and I feel certain that my hon. and learned Friend will respond to it.
9.40 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I have listened with interest to the discussion and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on the way in which he opened the debate. It is an important subject and that has been reflected in the speeches.
I listened with particular interest, as I always do, to the speech of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). Interesting contributions were made by the right hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and for Chertsey and Walton (Sir. G. Pattie). I should like to draw a line under the ministerial intervention in reply to my hon. Friend's opening speech by saying that we should leave past records behind us in the time remaining in the debate and look to the future. I recognise that a subject such as the provision of community care is difficult for the Government because it cuts across Government Departments. Also, I am not daft and I recognise that there are substantial funding implications if we are to get right the future provision of community care.
Having said that, and falling over backwards to be as amenable to the Government as I can, I must say that there is a blockage in the system. It is not right for the Minister to say that it does not matter if time passes while we get the provision right. It is wrong that two and a half years have passed since Sir Roy Griffiths was given his commission. It is a year since he produced his report, and people are suffering as a result of the delay. The lack of planning and the hiatus that has been created by the Government's unconscionable delay is not good enough. It is an indictment, and the speeches made by hon. Members, including Conservative Members, have shown that it is unacceptable.
The difficulties were well rehearsed two or three years ago, before Sir Roy Griffiths was given his commission, by the Select Committee on Social Services and by the Audit Commission. Hon. Members have referred to the points
426
made by those two bodies. I shall point out one or two of the important points that remain with us. The problem confronting the House is that community care is delivered by a vast array of organisations with different structures and different funding mechanisms. No one has overall responsibility for co-ordination. I had hoped that the debate would produce an indication of how the Government will resolve that confusion or, indeed, whether they intend to do so. That is the key question which has suffused all the arguments that have been deployed.
The funding mechanisms that the Government have been using—as I have said, there is a difficulty with different Departments being involved—have sent conflicting signals to the people responsible for the discharge and provision of the services. Health authorities have been cash limited, local authorities have been rate-capped and the DSS, particularly in relation to residential and nursing home provision, was demand-led and the provisions have been produced on a demand-led basis. The Minister is beating his chest and saying that the Government have increased expenditure from £10 million to £1 billion in that sector, but that was not planned. The Minister is making a virtue of something that took him and the Department by surprise. The Government must resolve the different funding mechanisms. That may be difficult, but they must grasp the nettle.
Sir Roy Griffiths was asked to consider the geographical discrepancies between local authority and health board areas. It is extremely difficult to achieve coherent delivery of community care. The two-and-a-half-year delay has been quite unreasonable.
Community care will inevitably become more important, given the increase in the number of elderly people and the demographic changes that will occur between now and the year 2000. The Government are also considering the OPCS report on disability, and I pay tribute to the work done by the hon. Member for Monklands, West on that. District health authorities have been closing hospitals and local authorities have been finding it increasingly difficult to train and obtain funds for social work departments.
Three clear messages came from the Griffiths report. First, Griffiths gave local authorities a clear vote of confidence on the way in which they currently discharge their duties and the way in which they will do so in the future. That may cause the Prime Minister and the Cabinet some ideological difficulties, but only a planning role would be involved. Griffiths was suggesting an essential co-ordinating role, so Conservative Members should not put about scare stories of local authorities being given tremendous extra powers, which the Government do not want. Griffiths's recommendation was broadly right, and if local authorities are not involved in co-ordination, another agency should be.
Secondly, the funding recommendation is fundamental. The idea of a community care grant paid for from a local authority's agreed overall plan is extremely attractive. A Minister for community care, whoever he or she may be, would have some input into agreeing such overall plans, so, again, the Government need not divest themselves of control of these important funding systems.
Thirdly, the delivery of tailored services to meet individual client needs is an important improvement that which the Government should embrace.

427
There are only three, or perhaps four, options open to the Government. They could fully implement the Griffiths report, but people would accept phasing if the Government made it clear that they accepted the broad tenet and thrust of the recommendations. Alternatively, they could opt for limited acceptance of the report and engage in consultation on the need for joint planning, setting up community care managers and funding for training and pump priming. We believe that that would be a second-best alternative which would result in a lack of overall planning and co-ordination, which, more than anything else, is needed.
I should be worried if the Government placed responsibility for community care with another body jointly funded by health authorities and local authorities. Perhaps more worrying are scare stories that the Government may be considering entirely privatising community care and handing it over lock, stock and barrel to the private sector.
Mr. Mellor indicated dissent.
Mr. Kirkwood: I see the Minister shake his head. He seems to be ruling that out of court. If he is prepared to say that in his response to the debate, he would allay some of the fears that have been expressed to me recently.
The Minister must accept that there is overwhelming support for the Griffiths solution. If the Government set their face against the report, they will do so at their peril. They must bear in mind important issues such as the fact that there is no correct way of providing care in the community. It is right that there should be plurality of provision, diversity and local initiatives. The Griffiths report made a virtue of that and drew it to the fore of the argument when it said:
"The aim must be to provide structure and resources to support the initiatives … the innovation and the commitment at local level and to allow them to flourish; to encourage the success stories in one area to become the commonplace of achievement everywhere else. To prescribe from the centre will be to shrivel the varied pattern of local activity."
That is the essence of the Griffiths report.
I implore the Minister to give us some idea when we shall receive a statement about what is happening in the Cabinet committee carrying out the review. Is it going over all the ground again? Is it commissioning its own evidence? Will that evidence be published? There are a host of questions. This debate was designed to elicit the answers from the Government. I implore the Minister to use the short time available to him to try to open the doors of Whitehall on this important subject and to tell us what is going on.
9.51 pm
Mr. Mellor: I spent last evening discussing the vexed question of AIDS with a group which included the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), and he knows how much I agree with his insights on that matter. It is a pleasure to follow him in this debate. I am sorry that I cannot satisfy his curiosity on all his points, although I found his speech interesting and valuable. As the debate has progressed, it has proved possible for hon. Members of all parties to come to grips with the complexity of the issue.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of privatising community care, but the clear analysis given in the Griffiths report needs to be tested against certain other
428
competing possibilities. That is done purely in the context of provision within the public sector, while allowing proper access to provision made by the voluntary services and by private providers, which the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), as he made clear in his opening speech, saw as a part of his party's policy.
I can assure the House that we do not want to take a moment longer than necessary in considering the report, and I hope that it will not be long before a full statement can be made. During the debate, there was no shortage of points on which we could all agree.
I am sorry that I missed the first half of the speech by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). He was right to remind me of the debate we had before Christmas, when we shared some of the insights he mentioned. He mentioned factors that are very much at the heart of our consideration of the Griffiths report. But I am sorry that he felt compelled to say that we have no community care policy. We have a community care policy that meets the points that he emphasised; hence the care we are taking in analysing the Griffiths report.
It is the key to our policy that people should he able to live their own lives for as long as possible and that we should respect people's independence, and work to protect it. It is our policy to ensure that it is only in the final analysis, when other community-based options are no longer viable, that people move into long-term residential care. That is why I am dissatisfied with the absence of a gatekeeper role. As those are our baste beliefs, there has to be a range of community services, from domestic assistance to home helps and nursing care, going on to residential care. We want to ensure that those services can be provided by a range of different providers but although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) made clear, that is not an easy thing to achieve, we must achieve it and it is a priority for us to do so.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made his points with his customary vigour and clarity. I well understand why he and some other hon. Members representing rural areas are concerned about the contract and that nothing should be done to damage the expansion of rural practices, to which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledged, we have committed so many resources. Indeed, we have played a full part in revolutionising today's primary care, when compared with what it was when the hon. and learned Gentleman first became conscious of it. Rural doctors have nothing to fear from the changes that we propose. The various arrangements for the contract will make it easier, not more difficult, to take on practice nurses. Those are matters of hard practicality, not of principle and certainly not of dogma.
We are concerned to try to ensure that we achieve greater consistency in primary care not only by putting within the contract a basis for rewarding general practitioners for the efforts that they have made, but by creating incentives for them to do more. That is a practical business. I assure the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that we are looking at the various points that have been raised, not only by Members of Parliament following the extensive discussions that we know are taking place with doctors, but also from our own discussions. I have been having at least one meeting and often two meetings with GPs every day for the past

429
fortnight, and I shall have another large one in the west country tomorrow. That is not being done as a public relations exercise. We are listening, and we are taking note.
The draft contract that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has submitted is not necessarily the last word. Attention has been drawn to the Scottish contract, which was issued following discussions here in England. We shall not hesitate to make changes to the contract if we are persuaded that the present arrangements do not achieve what we have set out to achieve. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman finds that helpful. I shall certainly take careful note of what he has said.
Mr. right hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) raised a question with which I chose not to deal in my opening speech in this short debate because, although ministerial contributions could expand endlessly, I wanted the opportunity to hear the anxieties of the House. I left out the important points about mental handicap. I accept that it is essential for us to justify not only the necessary policy of closing the large Victorian institutions for which nobody would want to make a strong case, but to emphasise that we have managed to build up in the community facilities which mean that people are not left to wander abroad, but have facilities in the community that enable them to lead, we hope, an altogether more satisfactory life.
It is worth noting that between 1976 and 1986—we must remember that there has been continuity of policy on this subject—the hospital population of people suffering from mental handicap fell by about 15,000 places while the number of day care and residential places in the community rose by 50 per cent. over and above that to a total of 26,000. Expenditure on services for mentally handicapped people increased by 62 per cent. over the period 1978–79 to 1986–87.
We aim to ensure that no institution is closed if there is not the proper provision in the community to ensure that continuity of care is provided. I am well aware that hon. Members of all parties have expressed concern about whether that has been achieved in every instance. Indeed, we have under active consideration the question whether there needs to be some fine tuning of our policy in this respect. That matter is being considered, as well as the proposals of Griffiths, and I hope that we shall be able to announce our conclusions shortly.
Another question that I did not have time to deal with is that of carers. Of course, through the invalid care allowance, through our £10 million policy of innovation throughout the country, under the "Helping the Community to Care" banner, we are committed to assisting carers. These are all revolving policies, which I look forward to having future opportunities to debate in the House.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 159.

Division No. 167]

[10 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Beith, A. J.

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Buckley, George J.

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Callaghan, Jim

430

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Maclennan, Robert

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Oixon, Don

Meale, Alan

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Eastham, Ken

Patchett, Terry

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Pike, Peter L.

Fatchett, Derek

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Fearn, Ronald

Ruddock, Joan

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Skinner, Dennis

Golding, Mrs Llin

Steel, Rt Hon David

Haynes, Frank

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Hinchliffe, David'

Wareing, Robert N.

Howells, Geraint

Wigley, Dafydd

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Wilson, Brian

Johnston, Sir Russell

Kilfedder, James

Tellers for the Ayes:

Livsey, Richard

Mr. James Wallace and

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

McKelvey, William

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Gregory, Conal

Amess, David

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Amos, Alan

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Arbuthnot, James

Ground, Patrick

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Hague, William

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Ashby, David

Hanley, Jeremy

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Hannam, John

Bellingham, Henry

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Harris, David

Bevan, David Gilroy

Hawkins, Christopher

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Hayward, Robert

Boswell, Tim

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Bottomley, Peter

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Bowis, John

Hordern, Sir Peter

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

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

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Brazier, Julian

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Bright, Graham

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Irvine, Michael

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Jack, Michael

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Janman, Tim

Budgen, Nicholas

Jessel, Toby

Burns, Simon

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Knowles, Michael

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Lawrence, Ivan

Carrington, Matthew

Lee, John (Pendle)

Carttiss, Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Chapman, Sydney

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Chope, Christopher

Lightbown, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Lilley, Peter

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lord, Michael

Cope, Rt Hon John

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Day, Stephen

Maclean, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Major, Rt Hon John

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Mans, Keith

Dover, Den

Marlow, Tony

Durant, Tony

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Evennett, David

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Maude, Hon Francis

Fookes, Dame Janet

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Forman, Nigel

Mellor, David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Forth, Eric

Miller, Sir Hal

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Mills, Iain

Freeman, Roger

Miscampbell, Norman

French, Douglas

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Gale, Roger

Moss, Malcolm

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Gill, Christopher

Needham, Richard

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Neubert, Michael

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Norris, Steve

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Oppenheim, Phillip

Gow, Ian

Paice, James

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

431

Porter, David (Waveney)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Thorne, Neil

Redwood, John

Thurnham, Peter

Shaw, David (Dover)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Trippier, David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Trotter, Neville

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Twinn, Dr Ian

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Viggers, Peter

Speed, Keith

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Speller, Tony

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Waller, Gary

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Watts, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wheeler, John

Stern, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Stevens, Lewis

Wilkinson, John

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Wilshire, David

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Wood, Timothy

Summerson, Hugo

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Tellers for the Noes:

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Mr. Tom Sackville and

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Mr. Michael Fallon.

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 41.

Division No. 168]

[10.12 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Forth, Eric

Amess, David

Freeman, Roger

Amos, Alan

French, Douglas

Arbuthnot, James

Gale, Roger

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Gill, Christopher

Ashby, David

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bellingham, Henry

Gow, Ian

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Green way, Harry (Ealing N)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Boswell, Tim

Gregory, Conal

Bottomley, Peter

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Bowis, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Ground, Patrick

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hague, William

Brazier, Julian

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bright, Graham

Hanley, Jeremy

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Hannam, John

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Budgen, Nicholas

Harris, David

Burns, Simon

Hawkins, Christopher

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hayward, Robert

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Carrington, Matthew

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Carttiss, Michael

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

Chapman, Sydney

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Chope, Christopher

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Jack, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Janman, Tim

Cope, Rt Hon John

Jessel, Toby

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Day, Stephen

Knowles, Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Lawrence, Ivan

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lee, John (Pendle)

Dover, Den

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Durant, Tony

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Evennett, David

Lightbown, David

Fallon, Michael

Lilley, Peter

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Lord, Michael

Forman, Nigel

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

432

Major, Rt Hon John

Stern, Michael

Mans, Keith

Stevens, Lewis

Marlow, Tony

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Maude, Hon Francis

Summerson, Hugo

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mellor, David

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Miller, Sir Hal

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Mills, Iain

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Miscampbell, Norman

Thorne, Neil

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Thurnham, Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Trippier, David

Neubert, Michael

Trotter, Neville

Norris, Steve

Twinn, Dr Ian

Oppenheim, Phillip

Viggers, Peter

Paice, James

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Waller, Gary

Porter, David (Waveney)

Watts, John

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Wheeler, John

Redwood, John

Widdecombe, Ann

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wilkinson, John

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wilshire, David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wood, Timothy

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Speed, Keith

Speller, Tony

Tellers for the Ayes:

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Mr. David Maclean and

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mr. Tom Sackville.

Stanbrook, Ivor

NOES

Alton, David

Livsey, Richard

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Beith, A. J.

McKelvey, William

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Maclennan, Robert

Buckley, George J.

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Callaghan, Jim

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Patchett, Terry

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Pike, Peter L.

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Dixon, Don

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Ruddock, Joan

Eastham, Ken

Skinner, Dennis

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Fatchett, Derek

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Fearn, Ronald

Wallace, James

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Wareing, Robert N.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Wigley, Dafydd

Haynes, Frank

Wilson, Brian

Hinchliffe, David

Howells, Geraint

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Mr. Harry Barnes and

Kilfedder, James

Mr. Alan Teale.

Kirkwood, Archy

Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. Speakerforthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House expresses full support for the Government's policy of community care and for the proposals set out in the White Paper, Working for Patients; commends the Government's record on the funding and development of primary health care and community care; and believes that the White Paper, together with the Government's earlier White Paper, Promoting Better Health, will help family doctors to develop the services which they provide for their patients, strengthen the provision of primary care in general and complement the development of policies for community care, improve the quality of care for all patients, and ensure that all those concerned with delivering health care make the best use of the resources available to them.

Barnburgh Colliery
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
10.23 pm
Mr. Terry Patchett: I appreciate the opportunity to discuss in the House a matter that dramatically affects my constituents. In an area that already suffers from high unemployment, the loss of another 775 jobs is a dramatic blow. Barnburgh colliery is covered by the review procedure and its closure is a matter for discussion between unions and British Coal, which will listen to the ideas and propositions of the unions and will go away and think about them. I do not intend to interfere in any way with the negotiations.
I know that the Minister tends to take a Pontius Pilate stance on the issue because the Government take the view that colliery closures are matters for the commercial judgment of British Coal. We are speaking about social problems, real human problems that affect my constituency. The Government should accept some responsibility because perhaps they have been involved in misleading the country in the last few years. I recall that, during the miners' strike, a duly elected president of the National Union of Mineworkers was called a liar and a scaremonger when he prophesied a huge pit closure programme if the miners were unsuccessful in that dispute. History proves who was telling lies and who was telling the truth. Many hon. Members owe Arthur Scargill and the British public an apology because that pit closure programme took place.
We had thought that it was over, but virtually every month we find that it keeps rolling on. In pits that we thought, and had been told, had some sort of future, union officials are suddenly sent for and virtually given a closure date. Barnburgh colliery falls into that category. We were promised that it had reserves of 15 years, and then the officials were called in. The manager suggested that there was no need to go through the review procedure, a procedure accepted by all sides. This I find despicable. Nevertheless, because of pressure from the union, the procedure has been used.
The work force are told that, regardless of money that has been spent, a seam is unworkable because of geological conditions, even though there is evidence to suggest that the management was told that it was using the wrong mining techniques. So after all that money has been spent, we find that suddenly, for geological reasons, the reserves have gone. I have had some experience in mining—26 years of it—and I find it unacceptable that, with today's mining and surveying techniques, such a view should be put forward. It just should not happen.
We have finally reached the point where we must ask who is managing our pits and who makes these incompetent blunders. It is rather ironic that the last pit managed by Barnburgh's manager was Cortonwood. He seems to be an unfortunate manager. It was in his last pit that the Government organised the dispute with the miners.
Quite apart from the question of reserves, the unions were sent for, shown the financial position and told that the pit had lost £600,000 over a period of time. When the union officials looked through the books they found a figure of £125,000 for transport from the washery plant associated with Barnburgh shown as an expense for
434
transport from that washery plant to another colliery for blending purposes. When the officials argued that the receiving colliery normally accepted that expense, British Coal said that the book-keeping arrangements had been changed.
British Coal, therefore, seems to be in the business of making unprofitable any pit that it chooses. It is very distressing. Hon. Members may have difficulty in understanding that point, but the truth is that, while British Coal appears to lurch from crisis to crisis and react only with further pit closures, it really knows just what it is doing. If it does not, the question of its competence should be raised.
British Coal talks of problems with market forces and competition in the energy industry when I sincerely believe—or I would not say so here—that it is preparing the industry for privatisation by these closures. It may seem strange to speak of closing pits to prepare for privatisation, but I believe that British Coal, on behalf of the Government, is preparing nice, neat little parcels, ripe for the picking by the Government's friends on the stock exchange. The Government may say that they believe in free market forces, but that is inconsistent with their actions, because they have more sympathy for other sources of energy. We have only to look at the protective cocoon that they have thrown around the nuclear energy industry in the Electricity Bill to establish that. It is a fact that market forces prevail in one energy industry—coal—but the nuclear industry is cocooned.
Without a mandate, the Government and British Coal are using taxpayers' money to prepare the industry for privatisation. That is their declared intent if they are returned to government after the next election. I am sure that the Minister will laughingly deny that and speak of the investment that the Government have put in. In fact, they have clawed more back in debt charges than they have put into the industry. That is another burden which the industry has to bear.
Many hon. Members and I are concerned, and if the Minister says that our fears are unfounded, I challenge him to set up a public inquiry into the management of British Coal and its directors. Constituents such as mine already have high unemployment as a result of the policies of the Government and the coal industry. We have a right to know the truth.
I shall not go into the specific problems at Barnburgh, but Government policies have contributed to its proposed closure. Without a mandate from the House or a general election, the way is being prepared for privatisation. That is the truth. If the Minister wants to prove that I am wrong, and allay my fears, I would welcome a public inquiry into the management of British Coal, because I cannot accept that it is so incompetent as to come up with the old ideas about unworkable resources. I have worked in the pits and know that modern technology protects them from that. If modern management has brought about such a state of affairs, questions should be asked.
10.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): The hon. Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) has quite properly raised the question of the future of Barnburgh colliery, which he also discussed, in his capacity as chairman of the miners' group of Members of Parliament, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

435
State on 21 February this year. My right hon. Friend said at that meeting that individual colliery closures were matters for the judgment of British Coal, in which Ministers did not intervene. That remains the position. Barnburgh colliery, which started producing coal as long ago as 1917, is one of 18 deep mine collieries at present operating in British Coal's south Yorkshire area. Generally, the south Yorkshire area has reserves of good quality coal, although these have been extensively worked on the western side of the coalfield, and operations are now increasingly concentrated on the deeper reserves to the east.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, East may make snide comments about this, but it is a fact that massive amounts are being invested by British Coal on expanding production on the eastern side of the coalfield. For example, £140 million—no small sum—is being invested in Maltby colliery to double its output to 2 million tonnes a year. Large sums are being invested in heavy duty equipment at Silverwood and Rossington. Nationally, a massive investment programme continues to run at over £2 million every working day. The resulting increases in productivity are the reason why we are confident that, if the pace of improvement can be maintained, the British coal industry will be able to compete with imports for the bulk of its business. That process does imply the closure by British Coal of pits that are uneconomic.
Although decisions about the closure of individual units are the management responsibility of British Coal, that does not mean that British Coal closes pits without prior consultation with the work force. The modified colliery review procedure, agreed between the mining unions and British Coal, provides for the detailed review of the performance of individual collieries, including where appropriate the scrutiny of proposals for closure at three levels: local discussions, national appeals and ultimately the independent review body. The last stage is chaired by an eminent independent individual who is acceptable to both sides and whose report, while not binding, is given full weight by the corporation in reaching its final decision. Barnburgh colliery has reached the stage of national appeal.
The consultation procedure for considering closure proposals is the most comprehensive process of its kind available to any industry. It allows representatives of the work force to submit evidence throughout the three stages of the proceedings. The Government are not at any stage a party to these arrangements.
I shall not prejudge the outcome of the review procedure, and in particular of the national appeal meeting between the unions and British Coal that is due to take place tomorrow, but the House may find it helpful if I give a few financial facts about Barnburgh.
At the end of December, the Yorkshire area as a whole made an operating profit, before capital charges, of £40 million for the first three quarters of the financial year. Barnburgh had contributed an operating loss of around £1–5 million. Barnburgh's performance in 1988–89 was not exceptional. In the two previous years it had made losses of £1·4 million and £2·2 million respectively.
In the quarterly review meeting on 24 January, British Coal's south Yorkshire area director referred to five collieries within his area that were giving him cause for concern. One of those five was Barnburgh. The other four were Brodsworth, Dinnington, Thurcroft and Shireoaks.
436
All four of those pits have subsequently been the subject of their own reconvened colliery review meetings. In each case British Coal has suggested an alternative 10 closure which has received the backing of the unions. For Brodsworth, Dinnington and Thurcroft, revised production targets were agreed. The fourth colliery, Shireoaks, was placed on development work only.
A reconvened colliery review meeting was arranged for Barnburgh on Friday 3 February. At this meeting, at which the National Union of Mineworkers, the British Association of Colliery Management and the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers were all represented, the area director said that there was no method of working the remaining reserves that would result in the colliery being viable. Therefore, he proposed that the colliery should cease production in June once the remaining faces were worked out. The Manvers central coal preparation plant would also have to close.
The area director also took the opportunity to pay tribute to the efforts of the work force, particularly, in relation to the work carried out on the Meltonfield and Newhill workings. He added that there would be no compulsory redundancies. Those wishing to remain in the industry would be offered alternative jobs at other collieries within the south Yorkshire area.
It is worth emphasising that no compulsory redundancies would be involved and—perhaps equally important—no moves of necessity to collieries outside south Yorkshire. Men who wished to be transferred to other units would receive the short-distance transfer payment. Men opting for redundancy would be eligible for the enhanced terms that are available from British Coal until 26 August.
The voluntary redundancy terms offered by British Coal are of course a matter for the corporation. Last November it announced improved redundancy terms for mineworkers that included an additional £7,500 lump sum payment for those with 15 or more years' service. British Coal calculated that a mineworker aged 32 with 16 years' service would receive total benefits upon redundancy of more than £17,000. A mineworker aged 51 with 25 years' service would receive more than £33,000. Those terms are without doubt very generous and compare favourably with those available in any other industry.
Following the reconvened review meeting on 3 February, NACODS and BACM members decided to accept the closure, while NUM members voted by a narrow margin to fight the closure proposal—52 per cent. against to 48 per cent. for. Under the terms of the modified colliery review procedure, the unions are given one month following the announcement of closure to request that the proposal be referred to a national appeal meeting so that they can give their reasons why the pit should not close. To help them prepare their case, British Coal offers them every assistance. The unions are given the opportunity to undertake a technical inspection and study market performance and financial prospects data.
At the meeting on 28 February, a detailed survival plan was submitted by the NUM. On 3 March, the two sides met again so that British Coal could give its reaction to the survival plan. British Coal estimated that the NUM plan would lead to an operating loss of more than £9 million. In view of that massive projected loss, British Coal felt that it had no alternative but to confirm that its decision on closure should remained unaltered.

437
As the hon. Gentleman said, we now await the outcome of tomorrow's national appeal meeting to see whether the union has managed to modify its plan in such a way as to make the pit profitable.
Mr. Allen McKay: Is not the bottom line at review meetings the expenditure line? Is the profit line ever questioned? I accept and acknowledge that, as the Minister said, there has been massive investment in the mining industry. Barnburgh is one of those involved. Barnburgh has served as an in-taking colliery for miners who have been affected by closures once, twice or even three times. Although the Minister's claim that there have been no redundancies is true to a certain extent, it is questionable. However, I will not take up with him at this stage what is or is not compulsory redundancy.
Will the Minister explain what is deemed to be an economic mine or an uneconomic mine? The word "economic" is one we have been hearing since Lord Robens' days. The top five or six mines are skimmed off as being economic, the next five or six become uneconomic, and the five or six after that are again deemed to be economic. However, those collieries take on the burden of expenditure associated with the closed collieries. When will it stop?
Mr. Spicer: One of the reasons for the situation that the hon. Member accurately describes is that the industry still receives enormous subsidies. There is nothing new about that. There is no great revelation being made in saying that a pit has become unecomonic. Subsidies have been going to the industry for a long time.
The Government take the view that that process of subsidisation must ultimately cease. It was implicit in the speech of the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and was mentioned by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) that the industry has many debt obligations. That aspect may lie behind the question of the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone as to whether it is fair to include loan interest payments in the calculation of what is or is not economic. The Government say that the time may come when we must examine the industry's financial and debt structure.
We also must bear in mind the fact that those debts or uneconomic investments are real. They have not appeared out of the blue but represent moneys which have been spent and which the industry finds it impossible to recover from its operating revenue. They are not artificial burdens on the industry. At some point the Government will have to decide whether to restructure those debts. But it cannot properly be argued that the pits to which those debts are attributed are not uneconomic as that would be a faulty assessment.
The Government will be examining British Coal's debt structure at some point in the future, but in the meantime, in every way in which operating costs can be set against operating revenue, it is the view of British Coal—the facts speak for themselves—that certain pits are simply not paying their way. Unless we can achieve an industry which is genuinely paying its way, and in which each pit is paying its way in a marginal sense, the entire industry will be
438
dragged down, and ultimately questions will have to be asked about its ability to compete with imports, for example.
The Government consider that a slimmed-down, efficient industry such as British Coal, with good coal reserves and backed by high investment, is well able to compete with imports and will be a great source of pride to the country in the years ahead.
Mr. George J. Buckley: In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett), the Minister said that British Coal's regional director in south Yorkshire had five collieries which were causing him great concern and local reviews had been taking place. If those collieries were to be closed, 13 collieries would remain in south Yorkshire. Does the Minister agree that the burden of debt spread over 13 collieries instead of 18 collieries would make some of the remaining collieries uneconomic and inevitably that redistribution of debt would put some of the remaining 13 collieries in jeopardy?
The Minister mentioned the review procedure. Does he accept that there has been a breakdown of that procedure in the negotiations at area level in Barnburgh? The area director and the British Coal team did not accept the NUM's proposals. The Minister said that tomorrow a national review will be carried out. Inevitably it will reach the same conclusion as a consequence of the evidence presented by the NUM. Does the Minister accept that there is a case for some independent arbitration that, for whatever reason, might consider that Barnburgh colliery should not close, and that the decision to close the colliery should be taken on the basis of an independent assessment of the future of the jobs at that colliery?
Mr. Spicer: On the hon. Gentleman's first point about the focusing of debt, I certainly did not say anything about the future of the other pits. That is a matter for British Coal, which no doubt will review their performance, but no clear decision has been taken on whether they should be closed. There is some merit in what the hon. Gentleman says about the need to examine the capital and debt structure of British Coal, and the Government fully concede that.
When assessing the viability of a pit it is probable that the assessment will be made upon genuine operating costs and against genuine revenue. I would not want to dispute with the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) that the time may come for a reassessment of British Coal's debt, but I do not believe that one can ignore the fact that uneconomic investments have taken place in the past. One has to take that into account when assessing the viability of the pits.
On the review procedures, there is a third level at which the matter can be considered, and the hon. Member for Hemsworth is aware of that. This is the eve of the appeal, and I would not want to prejudge what I am certain will be an objective assessment of the circumstances. As the hon. Gentleman said, the NUM has, up to now, disputed the position at local level, and it will put its views tomorrow. If it comes up with a plan that is credible and acceptable to British Coal, it will cast a new light on the matter. I do not want to go into that any further, as I do not want to inhibit the objectivity of the discussions. Hopefully, on the basis of that response, we can await tomorrow's events and see what they bring forth.

439
There is no doubt about the Government's intentions for the British coal industry. Our intentions are often misinterpreted. The Government are, rightly, piling money into the coal industry because it is a great national asset. The Government want that asset to reach its full potential in the interests of the British economy. It is our desire that the industry will beat off imports. However, for the
440
purpose of efficiency and the well-being of electricity consumers particularly, we will allow imports to compete, but, as I have said, we hope that the British coal industry will beat them off.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  South Africa (Sanctions)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the issue of nuclear sanctions against South Africa will be on the agenda for the forthcoming Council of Ministers meeting in Granada, Spain, on 15 and 16 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There was no discussion of nuclear sanctions against South Africa at Granada, although the possibility of South Africa's accession to the nonproliferation treaty was noted and EC Foreign Ministers agreed to keep it under review.

  It remains our policy not to supply any materials or equipment to South Africa which would aid her nuclear programme. This policy is exercised through the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1985.

  Prisoner Repatriation Agreements
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report the progress made on concluding prisoner repatriation agreements with Egypt, Peru and Thailand; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Details of our negotiations with Foreign Governments are confidential. However, the present position is as follows.

  The agreement with Egypt was to have been signed in Cairo in December 1988. Unfortunately, this did not prove possible. Discussions continue.

  The Peruvians proposed a revised draft text of a proposed agreement in July 1988. Further discussions will shortly take place with the Government of Peru.

  A Thai delegation is expected in London in the next few months to discuss the outstanding points on the proposed agreement with Thailand.

  British Citizens (Convictions)
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out, for each of the last five years for which figures are available, the number of British citizens who are convicted of offences abroad and who have not received custodial sentences, giving the nature of the offences and the sentences passed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is unavailable. There is no requirement for us to be notified of non-custodial sentences enforced on British nationals by foreign courts.

  Turkey (Detentions)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have 160
  been made to the Government of Turkey regarding the detention of Dr. Nihat Sargin and Mr. Haydon Kutlu; and what effect Turkey's continued detention of political prisoners has on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Turkey's application for admission to the European Community.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Turkish Government are well aware of our concern about such cases, and our expectation that they should respect and abide by the human rights conventions to which they are a party.

  Turkey's application to join the EC has been referred to the Commission for its opinion. Once available, the Council of Ministers will consider it further, taking alto account all relevant factors including Turkey's human rights record.

TRANSPORT

  King's Cross Fire
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now authorise the reimbursement of the legal costs of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority in relation to its representation at the King's Cross public inquiry.

  Mr. Portillo
  We see no reason to question Mr. Fennell's judgment, reached after careful consideration of representations from the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, that it was not appropriate that it should receive an order for costs, notwithstanding his acknowledgement of the substantial contribution made to the proceedings by the authority.

  "The Road User and the Law"
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses he has received to date to the White Paper, "The Road User and the Law".

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have had over 90 representations from hon. Members, interested organisations and members of the public. We welcome the enthusiastic public response that the White Paper has received.

  M5 (Wellington Access)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the closure of the southern exit off the M5 motorway at junction 26 and its consequences for access to Wellington; why the closure is necessary; and what temporary signposting measures he is taking to assist southbound motorway traffic heading for Wellington.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The work involves the complete reconstruction of about one mile of the southbound carriageway including that length through the interchange abutting the southbound slip road, which has to be closed for reasons of practicality and safety. The work should be completed before the spring bank holiday.

  Signs warning of the closure were installed at junctions 25 and 26 about four weeks before work started. The diversionary routes are well signed on the M5, A38 and A358 at strategic positions. These routes are little longer but may take more time depending on the level of traffic congestion in Taunton.
  161
  Representations have been received from the Wellington chamber of trade, a local manufacturer and a member of the public, concerning the alternative route through Taunton and its signing.

  M1-M25 Junction
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 11 April to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, when he expects to conclude his consideration of what remedial action is required to ease the way for traffic leaving the M1 and joining the M25.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We expect to make an announcement in early summer following completion of the current comprehensive review of the road programme.

  M1 (Traffic Flow)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 11 April to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, what action he will be taking to reduce congestion during peak hours to restore traffic flows between junctions 9 and 10 of the M1.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are seeking to increase capacity, assist traffic flow and offer improved alternative roads.

  Our current programme includes the provision of climbing lanes for use by slow moving heavy goods vehicles in both directions from junction 9. The northbound one will extend the whole length between junctions 9 and 10, creating an extra lane. The southbound one will extend 1·41 km. from junction 9. Work is planned for 1991–92.

  The possibility of further improvement is being considered in the current review of the road programme.

  Motorways (Traffic Flows)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the current hourly traffic flow standards for(a) two-lane motorways and (b) three-lane motorways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department uses "design reference flows" rather than traffic flow standards when designing motorways. These indicate only the starting point for detailed economic and operational assessment of options.

  The Department's design reference flows for a dual three-lane motorway range from 50,000 to 79,000 vehicles per annual average day in the design year (15 years after the road opens). Comparable figures for a two-lane motorway are 28,000 to 54,000 vehicles per day.

  The capacity of roads is substantially greater than design reference flows.

  Road Building
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what Government financial assistance has been allocated to county road building and improvement programmes for 1988–89 and for 1989–90.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The 108 local highway authorities in England were given a total capital allocation of £567·111 million for capital expenditure in 1988–89 on 162
  road building and improvements. Of this £191 million was provided by way of transport supplementary grant towards the cost of schemes of more than local importance. The corresponding figures for 1989–90 are £513 million and £204 million respectively.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what Government financial assistance has been allocated to East Sussex's road building and improvement programme for 1988–89 and for 1989–90.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  East Sussex county council was given a capital allocation of £7·180 million for expenditure on road building and improvements in 1988–89. Of this £2·121 million was provided by way of transport supplementary grant towards the cost of schemes of more than local importance. The corresponding figures for 1989–90 are £6·720 million and £2·482 million respectively.

  Forth Rail Bridge
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications for transport safety of the decision to withdraw the services of watchmen from the Forth rail bridge.

  Mr. Portillo
  Whilst this is a management matter for British Rail, which considers that the decision does not endanger safety, I understand that watchmen's duties were to guard against risk of fire from steam trains and to deter trespassers when the only other means of crossing the Forth was by ferry.

  Derbyshire (Traffic Problems)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set up a departmental inquiry into traffic problems in Dronfield, Derbyshire.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  An A61 Trunk road bypass on Dronfield was opened in October 1975. Any traffic problems within Dronfield are a matter for the local highway authority, Derbyshire county council.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all current publicity campaigns being conducted by or for his Department or one planned for the first three months of 1989–90, indicating those which involve television advertising and the starting and finishing dates of each campaign.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It would be extremely difficult to draw up a complete inventory of all the Department's publicity material (posters, leaflets, TV and radio "fillers", etc) which are likely to be issued or broadcast during the current quarter. Nor could all this material be properly dignified with the title of "campaign".

  The Department produces a wide range of publicity material, particularly in the road safety field, which will be available throughout the period in question. Specific campaigns to be conducted during the first three months of 1989–90 are as follows:

  —child seat belts ("Belt Up in The Back") from 24 April

  —merchant navy reserve from 17 May

  —drink/drive ("Drinking and Driving Wrecks Lives") from 12 June to mid July.

  Only the drink-drive campaign involves television advertising.
  163
  We try, with limited success, to offer information constantly for news and current affairs coverage of the causes of road casualties.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he proposes to take to reduce the number of pedestrian accidents.

  Mr. Channon
  I have today announced a series of proposals in a document "Pedestrian Safety: Making Walking Safer". I am placing copies in the Library. The measures include:

  1. A major pilot "Traffic Club" demonstration for pre-school children, funded by General Accident, and covering some half a million children.

  2. Proposals to amend the road hump regulations so as to allow them to be used more widely, and to help and encourage local authorities with area wide traffic calming and urban safety schemes.

  3. A campaign this autumn to encourage the greater use of reflective material on children's clothing.

  4. Enlisting the help of the motoring organisations in improving driver awareness of pedestrian safety.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of General Accident's support for the Government's efforts to reduce road accidents and road casualties.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  General Accident has supported the Government's road safety efforts magnificently. Its initiatives since 1986 have included:

  1986

  a. National Children's Poster Competition—Winning efforts used as basis of 1988 General Accident calender.

  b. Roadsafe Family of the Year Competition 1986.

  c. "The Road's Story" Booklet.

  d. 100 sets of interactive video equipment.

  e. Interactive video programme—funded jointly with Department of Transport "Road Show".

  f. Advertising Campaign—£750,000.

  g. Support for the regions of United Kingdom not primarily covered by the Department of Transport—Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

  h. Reflective conspicuity aids.

  i. Gallup Polls—Driver behaviour (September)

  Drink/Drive (December).

  j. Road Safety Officer/Department of Transport/GA Regional Liaison Meetings.

  1987

  a. "The Road's Story" Booklet—revised edition—making 3·5 m in total.

  b. Welsh edition of "The Road's Story".

  c. 100 sets of interactive video equipment.

  d. Interactive video programmes—funded jointly with the Department of Transport—"Roadsafe Family of the Year" and "The Bike Show".

  e. Reflective conspicuity aids.

  f. "Roadsafe Family of the Year" competition 1987.

  g. Support for the regions of the United Kingdom not primarily covered by the Department of Transport—Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

  164

  h. Video in support of PACTS—Children wearing suitable restraints and seatbelts in rear of car.

  i. 1988 General Accident Calendar.

  j. Road Safety Officers Conference—Exeter.

  k. Gallup Poll—Children/Parents Driver (August) "Dumbos and Yobs" Drink/Drive (December).

  l. "Are you prepared to be safe?" Leaflet giving advice for those going abroad on holiday.

  m. Road Safety Officers/Department of Transport/GA Regional Liaison Meetings.

  1988

  a. "On the Motorway"—a new 'Road's Story' booklet.

  b. "Roadsafe Family of the Year" competition 1988.

  c. "Lorry Driver of the Year" competition 1988.

  d. Police National Motorway Safety Campaign.

  e. National Competition in support of Motorway Safety Campaign.

  f. Police Summer Conference on Road Safety.

  g. "Trouble Free Motoring"—a paperback by Roger MacDonald ex BBC.

  h. 25 more sets of interactive video equipment.

  i. Interactive video programmes funded jointly with Department of Transport—"The Collector" and "Streetsense".

  j. Gallup Poll on Motorway Driving.

  k. Support for regions of United Kingdom not specifically covered by Department of Transport—Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

  l. Research Fellowships—£500,000 for six projects. These cover various aspects of road safety, including road crossing skills for children, and driver behaviour amongst women, the elderly, and young drivers.

  m. "Positive Cycling" booklet—a joint initiative with the Department of Transport and CTC.

  n. Road Safety Officers/Department of Transport/GA Regional Meetings.

  o. Road Safety Officers Conference—Solihull

  p. Exhibitions—International Motorshow, Welsh Show, Scottish Roadshow and London Road Safety Officers "Eurosafe" '87.

  q. Launch of "FIRMS"—an insurance package designed to provide fleet operators with an incentive to include driver training as part of fleet management.

  1989

  a. "On the Road in GB" for visitors abroad.

  b. "Highway Code for Young Road Users".

  c. "Lorry Driver of the Year 1989"

  d. Re-print "The Road's Story" and "On the Motorway.

  e. 25 more sets of interactive video equipment—total now 250.

  f. Interactive video programmes—jointly with Department of Transport. One based on "Highway Code for Young Road Users".

  g. Road Safety Officers Conference—Reading.

  h. Research Fellowships.

  i. Support for regions of United Kingdom not specifically covered by Department of Transport—Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

  j. Road Safety Officers/Department of Transport/GA Regional Liaison Meetings.

  k. Gallup Poll—Pedestrians.

  l. Pilot Traffic Club for pre-school children.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all current publicity campaigns being conducted by or for his Department or ones planned for the first three months of 1989–90, indicating those which involve television advertising and the starting and finishing dates of each campaign.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department is not currently involved in any publicity campaigns. However, a teacher recruitment publicity campaign mounted by the teaching as a career unit has recently been completed. This included newspaper advertising but not television advertising. The campaign has attracted over 10,000 responses. There are no plans at present for any Departmental publicity campaigns in the first three months of the financial year 1989–90.

  Under-Fives
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he proposes to reply to the report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts entitled "Educational Provision for the Under Fives".

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have sent the Government's response to this report to the Chairman of the Committee today. A copy has been placed in the Library.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Land Registry (Security)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps are taken to ensure that the security arrangements at the land registry in Nottingham are sufficient to ensure that documents remain confidential and are not disposed of in public places; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  All the normal security arrangements to be found in government offices obtain for the Nottingham district land registry. Those arrangements at Nottingham, as at all district registries, remain under constant review to ensure that documents are in safe custody. A small number of papers stolen from the Nottingham district land registry have recently been recovered. An urgent, independent investigation is being conducted into the loss of these documents, and the circumstances of their recovery.

  Commonhold
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to make a decision on implementation of the recommendation of the working group of the Law Commission on commonhold, Cm. 179; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor hopes to be in a position to announce a decision on the implementation of the Law Commission working group report on commonhold during the summer. Work is continuing at the Law Commission on the preparation of draft legislation to give effect to the report.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hospitals (Norwich)
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Prime Minister if, in the last three years, she has met medical consultants concerning the location of the second district general hospital in the Norwich health district.

  The Prime Minister
  As the House is aware, my normal practice is and will continue to be neither to confirm nor to deny whether meetings with private individuals have taken place, even in those cases where no such meeting has occurred.

ENERGY

  Efficiency Expenditure
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much will be spent by his Department in the next financial year in energy efficiency work; and what was the expenditure of his Department five and 10 years ago.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Expenditure by my Department on energy efficiency programmes was £2·4 million in 1979–80 and £17·5 million in 1984–85. The provision for expenditure by the energy efficiency office in 1989–90 is £15 million as published in the supply estimates.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, and overall in his Department are(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Parkinson
  As at 1 April 1989 there were no women in grades 1 to 4; three (7 per cent.) at grade 5; one (5 per cent.) at grade 6; and 18 (12.5 per cent.) at grade 7. Information on ethnic origin in these grades is not yet available.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origin of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  A survey was completed in 1986 and a further survey is planned later this year.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My Department, which is an equal opportunities employer, does not itself recruit to senior posts. The Civil Service Commission recruits to these positions, following equal opportunities procedures.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all current publicity campaigns being conducted by or for his Department or campaigns planned for the first three months of 1989–90, indicating those which involve television advertising and the starting and finishing dates of each campaign.

  Mr. Parkinson
  There is a continuing programme of publicity to promote the work of the Department's energy
  167
  efficiency office, offshore supplies office and the use of renewable sources of energy. None of these campaigns will involve television advertising.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Recruitment and Training
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next plans to visit the Fylde coast area to discuss matters relating to Civil Service recruitment and training.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no plans to do so. However, I am pleased to note that, in terms of the north-western region as a whole, numbers of civil servants have been increasing in recent years, a period when overall numbers in the service and numbers in the south-east have declined. I am sure that the relative attractiveness of the region for departmental recruitment has been an important factor in this.

THE ARTS

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, respectively, and overall in his Office are(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Luce
  The number, and percentage, of women officers in grades 2, 5, 6, 7, and overall, in the Department, are given in the table. The Department does not employ anyone at grades 1, 3 and 4.

  Number of women in grade

  Percentage

  Grade 2

  —

  —

  Grade 5

  1

  25

  Grade 6

  1

  100

  Grade 7 (and equivalent)

  4

  33

  Departmental total

  27

  45

  My information is that none of the staff of the Office of Arts and Libraries is a member of the ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when his Office last conducted a survey of the ethnic origin of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The last survey was conducted in 1986. There are no plans to repeat it, but the ethnic origins of all new entrants to the Office of Arts and Libraries are monitored on a continuous basis by the Cabinet Office.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects Britain's trade to be in balance.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects the balance of trade to be positive.
  168
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects Britain's trade to be in balance.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects Britain's trade to be in balance.

  Mr. Major
  The Financial Statement and Budget Report for 1989–90 shows a forecast of a deficit in visible trade in 1989. Forecasts of the balance in later years are not published.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the level of the parameters of inaccuracy for the balance of trade.

  Mr. Major
  The estimates for trade in goods are generally considered to be of fairly high quality. Figures for trade in services are subject to much wider margins of error.

  There are considerable difficulties in measuring the United Kingdom's balance of payments account as a whole, and over the last three years, the "balancing item" has averaged £14 billion per year. The "balancing item" reflects errors and omissions in both the current and capital account.

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. Harry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he now expects to be the trade deficit in 1989.

  Mr. Major
  The Financial and Budget Report for 1988–89 shows a forecast deficit for visible trade in 1989 of £211/2 billion.

  Manufacturing Trade Deficit
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the manufacturing trade deficit in 1989.

  Mr. Major
  The Financial Statement and Budget Report for 1989–90 shows a forecast deficit in manufactured trade in 1989 of£151/2 billion.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the deficit in trade in manufactures for 1990–91.

  Mr. Major
  The Financial Statement and Budget Report for 1989–90 provides a forecast of the manufactured trade balance for 1989 only. Forecasts of the balance in later years are not published.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will bring up to date the information in his reply dated 28 July 1988,Official Report, columns 497–98, concerning the United Kingdom net contribution to the European Community budget; and if he will add forecasts for 1989, 1990 and 1991, drawing attention to any differences between these figures, and those used for the estimates in table 21.2.2 of Cm 21.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 18 April 1989]: The updated figures are set out in the table. An estimate of the

  169
  United Kingdom's net contribution in 1989 will be contained in the statement on the 1989 Community

  £ million

  Year

  Net contribution before refunds or VAT abatements (cash)

  Negotiated-refunds

  VAT abatements

  Net contribution after refunds and abatements (cash)1

  Net contribution after refunds and abatements at constant 1988 prices2

  1975

  -56

  —

  —

  -56

  -180

  1976

  167

  —

  —

  167

  467

  1977

  369

  —

  —

  369

  908

  1978

  822

  —

  —

  822

  1,813

  1979

  947

  —

  —

  947

  1,828

  1980

  804

  98

  —

  706

  1,138

  1981

  1,090

  693

  —

  397

  574

  1982

  1,625

  1,019

  —

  606

  815

  1983

  1,454

  807

  —

  647

  827

  1984

  1,184

  528

  —

  656

  802

  1985

  2,035

  61

  166

  1,808

  2,090

  1986

  2,273

  —

  1,701

  572

  639

  1987

  2,866

  —

  1,153

  1,713

  1,827

  1988

  2,956

  —

  1,594

  1,362

  1,362

  1 United Kingdom figures show payments to the Community budget on a cash flow basis. Budget refunds and abatements are credited to the year they are paid.

  2 Constant prices have been constructed using the GDP deflator at market prices.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on what percentage of the capital of British banks was represented by outstanding loans by major Third world borrowers in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: The percentage of the capital of major British clearing banks with exposure to highly indebted Third world countries represented by outstanding loans to those countries in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Figures

  1984

  179

  1985

  128

  1986

  103

  1987

  81

  1988

  65

  The figures for exposure do not take account of the provisions made by the banks against their loans to these countries. Net of provisions the banks' exposure to these countries represented 44 per cent. of their capital in 1988 (56 per cent. in 1987).

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, and overall in his Department are(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Brooke
  The information is as follows:

  Women

  Ethnic minorities1

  Number

  Percentage of staff in grade

  Ethnic Number2

  Percentage of staff in grade

  Grade 1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade la

  1

  25

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  3

  13

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  170
  budget, to be published later in the month. It is not the Government's practice to publish calendar year forecasts for future years.

  Women

  Ethnic minorities1

  Number

  Percentage of staff in grade

  Ethnic Number2

  Percentage of staff in grade

  Grade 5

  9

  13

  0

  0

  Grade 6

  0

  0

  2

  3·5

  Grade 7

  43

  16

  0

  0

  Total for Department3

  1,241

  39

  IIS

  44·8

  1 Information on ethnic origins was provided on a voluntary basis.

  2 In accordance with the Department's Code of Practice governing the use of ethnic data, figures for ethnic minorities have been rounded to the nearest 5 to preserve confidentiality; the 2 denotes less than 3. The percentages have been calculated on the basis of unrounded data.

  3 Equivalent information on ethnic origins of industrial staff is not available.

  4 Because of 3 above, the percentage quoted is based on the figure for non-industrial staff only.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origin of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  My department conducted an ethnic survey of all its non-industrial staff during 1986; updating and monitoring information on the ethnic origins of our staff is a continuous process.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Civil Service Commission is responsible for recruitment to the top grades in my Department.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the total value to the latest available full year of public sector contracts in England of a character which will make them open to Community-wide bidding as part of the creation of the internal market.

  Mr. Brooke
  None. The cost of assessing the value of public contracts in England to be opened to Community-
  171
  wide bidding would not be justified. The European Commission is currently investigating the effect of applying procurement rules to contracts above various value thresholds in sectors excluded from the existing Community directives.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pollution
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms in England were advised by agricultural development advisory service staff about methods of controlling agricultural pollution in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Grain Stores
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many grain stores the intervention board owns and manages on his behalf; if he

  Location and managers

  Storage area '000 sq.ft.)

  Capacity (tonnes wheat equivalent)

  Value1 (£'OOO)

  1 Driffield (North Humberside)

  Fishers Seeds and Grain Ltd.

  180

  74,000

  650

  2 Hartlebury (Hereford and Worcester)

  Anglia Agricultural Merchants Ltd.

  214

  67,000

  900

  3 Hemswell (Lincolnshire)

  William Gleadell and Sons Ltd.

  180

  75,000

  800

  4 Locharbriggs (Dumfries)

  Storage Services (Leith) Ltd.

  135

  71,000

  960

  5 Manby (Lincolnshire)

  Wilsons Corn and Milling Ltd.

  155

  53,000

  800

  6 Prees Heath (Shropshire)

  Wilsons of Hadleigh

  144

  59,000

  600

  7 Tangmere (Sussex)

  John Bryant (Romsey) Ltd.

  86

  29,000

  1,320

  8 Yorkshire (Yorkshire)

  Fishers Seeds and Grain Ltd.

  230

  78,000

  2,750

  1 As advised in 1988 by the Inland Revenue district valuers with the intervention board as sitting tenants.

  MV Perintis
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what information he based his opinion recorded in the preamble to the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Sea Fish) (Revocation) Order 1989, S.I., 1988, No. 619, that the toxic substances which escaped as a result of the sinking of the MV Perintis were not in the area designated in the schedule to the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Sea Fish) Order, S.I., 1989, No. 529.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The precautionary ban on fishing was lifted after the French navy had completed an intensive search of the sea-bed in the area concerned. I understand their search operation extended over two weeks and involved a number of specially equipped surface ships and submersibles at a cost of over 8 million French francs but they were unable to find the lindane container in the area where they previously suspected it had sunk. In addition, the results of fish and water sampling which we and the French authorities were carrying out revealed no evidence of lindane leakage in this area.
  172
  will publish in the Official Report the location, size in square feet or volume, the capacity and the approximate value of each; how and by whom each of these stores is managed; how and by whom the managers are recruited and appointed and how much they are paid; and which of the stores has returned a profit or a loss and of what order, in each of the financial years 1980 to 1988.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The intervention board does not own any intervention grain stores but rents eight Government-owned properties from the Property Services Agency estates. Details of the locations, volumes, capacities, values and managing companies are given in the table. Managing companies are contracted by the intervention board after selection by competitive tender. Information on amounts paid to individual companies is commercially confidential. The stores are used exclusively to store intervention grain or oilseeds and the intervention board derives no income from their use other than the European Community's contributions at standard rates towards handling and storage costs. In terms of the cost per tonne of grain or oilseeds handled and stored, they are fully competitive with the commercial stores contracted for intervention storage.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate the types and approximate number of fishing vessels registered in the United Kingdom and other countries, which have been, or are likely to be, affected by the precautionary fishing ban, invoked by the Minister, under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 following the foundering of the vessel Perintis on 13 March.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The precautionary fishing ban, which applied to United Kingdom and Channel Islands vessels between 21 March and 7 April, covered an area of sea lying within a radius of seven nautical miles, centred a n the position where the container of lindane was presumed to have sunk.

  For part of the period the area was unsuitable for fishing because of poor weather and tidal conditions.

  The area is used for potting by six vessels from Alderney. No English or other Channel Island vessels are understood to take significant catches from the area.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate the methods of
  173
  monitoring instituted by his Ministry, following the loss of the MV Perintis in the Channel on or about 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Immediately following the sinking of the MV Perintis, my Ministry undertook a programme of monitoring of water and biological material (fish and crabs) from around the wreck of the vessel and from the area in which the container of lindane was presumed to have sunk. This programme has since been extended to include fish landed at south coast ports. The results of the monitoring indicate that there has been no leakage of the permethrin, cypermethrin or lindane being carried by the vessel.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations are taking place regarding the retrieval of the container containing five tonnes of organochlorine insecticide, lindane, which was lost when the vessel Perintis foundered north-west of Guernsey on or about 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My officials have kept in close touch with the Department of Transport, the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment in connection with the search by the French authorities for the container of lindane lost from the MV Perintis on 13 March. Contacts were maintained with the French authorities both directly and through the Department of Transport, which has lead responsibility for marine pollution control operations. Officials from my Department participated in a meeting with French and Channel Island experts on 4 April to review the degree of threat to the marine environment posed by this container of lindane.

  Piper Alpha Platform
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline the role performed by his Department in the monitoring of the area above and on the seabed surrounding the wreckage of Piper Alpha; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Monitoring in the area concerned is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Beef Special Premium
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to switch the beef special premium from its present administration to on-farm administration.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The beef special premium scheme has been in operation for just over two weeks. I have no plans to change its administration in Great Britain at present. However, as my right hon. Friend announced on 6 March we shall be reviewing the operation of the scheme with my colleagues in other Departments to assess the practicability and cost-effectiveness of moving to an on-farm operation in due course.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he established the beef special premium as an off-farm administration.
  174
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We have had only a very short time in which to make arrangements for the operation of the beef special premium scheme in Great Britain. As my right hon. Friend announced on 6 March, we concluded that in the first instance it was desirable to build on the arrangements then in place for the operation of the beef variable premium scheme and thus to operate the scheme at live markets and abbatoirs. This method of operation has the further advantage of enabling producers to apply for premium under the new scheme in much the same way and at the same marketing stage as they like to apply for beef variable premium. In practice, the transition to the new arrangements has been effective relatively smoothly, largely in consequence of this decision.

  Fishing Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that those British owners of fishing vessels who have not yet been issued with full or temporary certificates despite submission of bona fide applications are not in any way disadvantaged in terms of access to fishing quotas and grounds.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I understand that the Department of Transport has now issued full or temporary certificates to all applicants fulfilling the necessary requirements. Fishing entitlements for such vessels have not been affected by the introduction of the new registration arrangements.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all current publicity campaigns being conducted by or for his Department or ones planned for the first three months of 1989–90, indicating those which involve television advertising and the starting and finishing dates of each campaign.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The current publicity campaigns being conducted by my Department and planned for the first three months of 1989–90 are as follows:

  On-going campaigns:

  Imports

  Rabies

  Food

  additives

  labeling

  surveillance

  Farm and conservation grants scheme

  Recruitment

  Farm woodlands

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  Diversification

  Planned campaigns:

  Plant health—May 1989 to October 1989

  Colarado beetle—May 1989 to June 1989

  Food nutrition—April 1989 ongoing

  Food safety (joint with Department of Health)—May 1989 ongoing.

  No campaigns use paid TV advertising.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce his conclusions following the review of potato market policy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My right hon. Friends and I have considered the many replies to the consultation document.
  175
  I have also just completed meetings with various producer and processor interests. We now need time to reflect on the conclusions to be drawn from this exercise. I do not at present envisage an announcement before the end of May.

SCOTLAND

  Tweed Towards 2000 Symposium
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what is the estimated total cost related to participation by civil servants at the Tweed Towards 2000 symposium to be held in May; and if any charge is being made by his Department to the organisers of the symposium for this service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Five scientists from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland laboratories at Aberdeen and Pitlochry were invited to participate in the symposium on Saturday 6 and Sunday 7 May 1989 by the organisers, the Tweed Foundation. The scientists will be attending in their own time with their travelling and accommodation costs being met by the Tweed Foundation. A charge by the Scottish Office for their services would not be appropriate in the circumstances.

  Motor Neurone Disease
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if L-Threonine is available on the National Health Service for the treatment of motor neurone disease;

  (2) how many people in Scotland suffer from motor neurone disease.

  (3) if he will list the drugs available on the National Health Service for sufferers from motor neurone disease in Scotland;

  (4) what representations he has received about the availability of L-Threonine.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Under the NHS, general medical practitioners have freedom to prescribe whatever drugs they consider to be clinically necessary for the treatment of their patients, except items which are excluded under the selected list scheme. Foods and food supplements are not normally prescribable and L-Threonine is more properly classed as a food supplement than as a drug. Doctors can, however, prescribe food supplements where they are, in their clinical judgment, necessary for the treatment of patients but may be asked to justify their prescribing by their area medical committee. Exact information on the numbers of people in Scotland suffering from motor neurone disease is not centrally available. There are no drugs which are specifically recommended for the treatment of motor neurone disease. Representations have been received from the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and from two general medical practitioners.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why the decision not to allow the sale of the extract of the community charge register was taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The decision was taken after careful consideration of representations made by the Data 176
  Protection Registrar and others that the sale of the publicly available community charges register was not an essential part of the community charge system and that there would be a potential threat to privacy if extracts were made too readily available to interests who might wish to use them as mailing lists.

  Police Rent Allowance
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consult local authorities about the possibility of introducing a temporary flat rate allowance for officers in provided accommodation in Scotland to take account of their requirement to pay the community charge and pending the final outcome of the rent allowance arbitration.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. This matter was considered at a meeting of the police negotiating board on 17 April when the staff side's proposal for an interim housing allowance payable to officers in provided accommodation was rejected by the official side.

  However negotiations between the two sides on long-term arrangements proposed by the Police Arbitration Tribunal are continuing.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what representations he has received from police authorities in Scotland concerning the desirability of interim financial arrangements being introduced to ensure that no police officer is worse off as a result of the introduction of the community charge pending the final outcome of the recent rent allowance arbitration; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will consider the difficulties facing new recruits to the police forces in Scotland due to the uncertainty surrounding the financial recompense for the community charge pending the final outcome of the rent allowance arbitration; and if he will take urgent action in conjunction with the local authorities to introduce interim arrangements as suggested by the arbitrators, subject to subsequent adjustment following the Government's decision on the recommended implementation of the new housing allowance.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations from police authorities about this issue. In response it was made clear that the question of interim arrangements was a matter for the police negotiating board. The question was considered at a meeting of the board on 17 April when, with the position of my right hon. and learned Friend being reserved, the official side agreed the staff side's proposal that all officers in Scottish forces in receipt of rent allowance on 31 March 1989 should continue to receive the levels payable at that date pending the introduction of a new housing allowance recommended by the Police Arbitration Tribunal. There are no grounds for interim arrangements for officers entering the service after 31 March 1989.

  The tribunal accepted the official side's case that the community charge payable by police officers should not be reimbursed.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. William
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many projects have been supported by regional assistance over the past year.

  Mr. Newton
  My Department expects to have supported in excess of 7,500 projects through regional assistance during 1988–89. Specifically, the Department has made 1,275 offers of regional selective assistance and 920 offers of regional enterprise grant, approved 5,380 projects under the revised regional development grant scheme and made payments under the original regional development grant scheme in respect of some 270 projects. All these figures are provisional.

  Inner-City Task Forces
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many projects have been supported by his inner-city task forces.

  Mr. Newton
  Since the task forces began their work in 1986 over 1,200 projects have been approved and over £38 million has been committed. These projects are projected to secure over 4,000 jobs, facilitate over 23,500 training places and provide support for over 2,600 businesses.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the leaders of the inner-city task forces; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) on 15 March 1989 at column 256.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the distribution of European regional development fund moneys within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  Since the inception of the European regional development fund in 1975, the United Kingdom has received commitments valued at £3,307 million. Commitments for England have been £1,602 million, for Scotland £792 million, Wales £491 million and Northern Ireland £343 million. The remaining £79 million has been committed on a multi-regional basis. The future distribution will depend on decisions by the Commission, and may fluctuate from year to year.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Jim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent estimates his Department has made of the effects of 1992 on Britain's regions.

  Mr. Maude
  None. It is for individual businesses, wherever they are, to assess for themselves what the effects of the single market will be for them. My Department provides a comprehensive information service to enable them to do so.

  Mergers and Acquisitions
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the percentage increase in expenditure on mergers and acquisitions since 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  Expenditure on acquisitions and mergers by industrial and commercial companies within the United Kingdom in 1988 is estimated to be about £22 billion. In current prices this is about 13 times greater than the 1979 total of about £13/4 billion.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the percentage increase in expenditure on mergers and acquisitions since 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  Expenditure on acquisitions and mergers by industrial and commercial companies within the United Kingdom in 1988 is estimated to be about £22 billion. In current prices this is about 13 times greater than the 1979 total of about £13/4 billion.

  Consumer Advice Centres
  Mr. John
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has for strengthening the national network of consumer advice centres.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has for strengthening the national network of consumer advice centres.

  Mr. Ernie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has for strengthening the national network of consumer advice centres.

  Mr. Forth
  I have no such proposals. Funding of consumer advice centres is a matter for the local decision and local funding. The Government do fund the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, and Citizens Advice Scotland which provide central support services for local bureaux. In recent years the grant to these bodies has risen substantially in real terms. In 1980 the local bureaux took over a considerable proportion of the work of consumer advice centres.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives from local authority consumer advice centres; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Tom
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives from local authority consumer advice centres; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Bill
  To askton the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives from local authority consumer advice centres; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Forth
  I have had no such meeting and none has been requested.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects Britain to have a trade surplus in information technology.
  179
  Mr. John
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects Britain to have a trade surplus in information technology.

  Mr. Newton
  It is not possible to make a prediction of the kind that the hon. Member seeks. What is important is that this Government's economic policies have led to record levels of productivity, output and investment and have helped to attract companies such as Fujitsu which will provide a major boost to our balance of trade in imformation technology, through both exports and import substitution.

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on his response to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry's report into information technology.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on his response to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry's report into information technology.

  Mr. Newton
  We have received no formal representations on this response.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement of the Government's policy for information technology.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government's response to the Trade and Industry Select Committee's report on information technology published on 9 March as Cm 646 contains a comprehensive statement of the Government's policy towards information technology.

  Mr. Win
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the balance of trade in information technology in 1979 and 1988.

  Mr. Newton
  For the information technology and electronics manufacturing sector the United Kingdom had an adverse balance of trade in 1979 of £444 million. In 1987, the latest full year for which figures are available, the adverse balance for this sector was £2,226 million.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the balance of trade in information technology in 1979 and 1988.

  Mr. Newton
  For the information technology and electronics manufacturing sector the United Kingdom had an adverse balance of trade in 1979 of £444 million. In 1987, the latest full year for which figures are available, the adverse balance for this sector was £2,226 million.

  Company Liquidity
  Mr. Ron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his latest estimate of company liquidity; and when it was last lower.

  Mr. Maude
  The liquidity ratio for all large industrial and commercial companies is estimated by the Department's survey to be 76 per cent. at the end of the fourth quarter of 1988 on a seasonally adjusted basis. This is the lowest figure since the end of the third quarter of 1982.

  Manufacturing Productivity
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by what proportion manufacturing productivity has increased since 1980.
  180
  Mr. Maude
  In the three months to February 1989 manufacturing productivity, as measured by output per person employed, was 55 per cent. higher than the 1980 average level.

  Footwear Industry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received regarding the British footwear industry.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Since I replied to a similar question from the hon. Member on 15 February at column 305 of the Official Report for 16 February a number of hon. Members have made known to me the concerns of their constituents.

  I am taking a close interest in this matter and in the outcome of the Commission's investigation into imports of footwear from Taiwan and South Korea.

  Borrowers (Advice)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the range of advice available to borrowers and potential borrowers on alternative forms of credit, especially in the inner cities.

  Mr. Maude
  The Office of Fair Trading has a statutory duty under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to inform the public about credit. It gives advice through the media, and booklets, posters and videos which are freely available through citizens advice bureaux, trading standards departments and public libraries. In addition the banks provide a banking information service. In the inner-city areas certain local authorities have set up money advice services; and some 20 financial organisations are providing £750,000 over a period of three years for money advice and debt counselling services.

  Civil Research and Development
  Mr. Ted
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries the proportion of gross domestic product spent by Government on civil research and development has fallen since 1983.

  Mr. Alan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reduced the share of gross domestic product spent on civil research and development between 1983 and 1986; and which countries increased it.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) on 15 March at column 265.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reduced t he share of gross domestic product spent on civil research and development between 1983 and 1986; and which countries increased it.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reduced the share of gross domestic product spent on civil research and development between 1983 and 1986; and which countries increased it.
  181
  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Pike) on 14 February at columns 256 and 257 of the Official Report for 15 February.

  Communications Infrastructure (Report)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the Macdonald report on communications infrastructure.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the Macdonald report on communications infrastructure.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the Macdonald report on communication infrastructure.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) on 15 March at column 266.

  Directors (Disbarral)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many times in the last 10 years he has exercised his power to disbar directors of public companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The Secretary of State may apply to the court to disqualify directors under various provisions now consolidated in the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

  Between 1 April 1979 and 28 April 1986, when the current provisions came into force, 111 applications were made. Since 28 April 1986 the number of applications has been:

  Number

  1986

  22

  1987

  180

  1988

  421

  11989

  99

  1 To 31 March.

  Such applications relate both to public and private companies.

  The Act also empowers the courts to disqualify directors in certain criminal proceedings and where the Secretary of State brings such prosecutions it is his practice to draw the court's attention to these powers.

  Industrial Investment
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest indications he has for the growth in industrial investment over the past year.

  Mr. Maude
  The volume of investment by the manufacturing, construction, distribution and financial industries in 1988 was nearly 11 per cent. higher than in 1987.

  Competitiveness
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from industry on matters affecting competitiveness.
  182
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from industry on matters affecting competitiveness.

  Mr. Maude
  Frequent, numerous and diverse.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from industry on matters affecting competitiveness.

  Mr. Maude
  Most contacts which my Department has with industry and commerce involve matters having a bearing on United Kingdom competitiveness.

  EC (Trade Barriers)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action he is taking to ensure that the European Community does not erect protectionist trade barriers.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to him on 16 February at column 248.

  Single Market
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest indications he has of awareness in the business community about opportunities presented by the completion of the single market in 1992.

  Mr. Maude
  Our surveys indicate that over 90 per cent. of firms throughout the country are aware of the single market challenge.

  Mr. Nicholas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the achievements of his 1992 campaign.

  Mr. Maude
  Since the campaign was launched on 18 March 1988, the DTI has handled over 205,000 requests for further information. Our surveys indicate that over 90 per cent. of firms throughout the country are aware of the single market challenge and that around 50 per cent. of British business is taking action or considering steps to prepare for the single market.

  Mr. Andy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many calls have been received to date by his Department's 1992 hotline.

  Mr. Maude
  Our 1992 hotline has received over 123,000 calls since it opened on 18 March 1988.

  Midland Bank
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received over the activities of the Midland bank in(a) the distribution of unsolicited auto-cheque cards and (b) other banking issues; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I am not aware of any representations about unsolicited auto-cheque cards or other banking issues relating to Midland bank. I understand that as certain service cards are renewed some have been incorporated into a multi-purpose card but I am not aware that this has caused any difficulties.

  Boeing 747 Aircraft
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the Boeing 747 series of aircraft is manufactured by the British aerospace industry.
  183
  Mr. Forth
  A number of United Kingdom aerospace companies participate in the Boeing 747 programme but the United Kingdom share is largely dependent upon the choice of engine. If a Rolls-Royce engine is selected, as is increasingly the case, the United Kingdom share of the initial sale value of the aircraft is 25 per cent., rising to 30 per cent. of its lifetime value once engine spares have been provided.

  Consumer Rights
  Mr. Geoffrey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he now has plans to bring forward legislation affecting consumer rights.

  Mr. Forth
  We intend to improve the protection given to consumers in a number of ways, including the introduction of regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 on price indications at bureaux de change and changes to other legislation affecting consumers' interests.

  Business in the Community
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives of Business in the Community; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Newton
  I last met representatives of Business in the Community at its president's committee meeting on 7 March 1989. The committee discussed how companies can contribute to community regeneration through their mainstream business activities, and what action companies can take to improve opportunities on housing estates.

  Airbus Industrie
  Mr. Gerald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made by Industry Ministers in the restructuring of Airbus Industrie.

  Mr. Atkins
  A new management structure for Airbus Industrie, broadly based on the recommendations contained in the 1988 report of the Airbus "wise men", was introduced with effect from 1 April 1989. The new structure is intended to strengthen the strategic control of Airbus projects by the four partners in the consortium while, at the same time, placing the senior managers of Airbus Industrie at the centre of all day-to-day operations of particular Airbus programmes.

  Export Science System
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to extend the export licence system to cover material capable of being used for torture.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Licences are required for export to all destinations of military, para-military, police and security equipment which is subject to control under the Export of Goods (Control) Order, 1987, (SI 1987, No. 2070) as amended. It is not our normal practice to grant a licence for the export of equipment which is likely to be used for internal repression.

  It is impractical to seek to control materials capable of being used for torture, since almost any material could be put to such use.

  Manufacturing Productivity
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in which position Britain lies in an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development league table for manufacturing productivity.

  Mr. Maude
  No reliable comparisons exist for absolute levels of manufacturing productivity between different countries. But available figures do show that in the eighties the United Kingdom has had the fastest rate of growth of manufacturing productivity of all the major industrialised countries.

  Overseas Companies
  Mr. Ian
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many overseas companies set up operations in Britain in 1988.

  Mr. Newton
  According to the latest figures known to the Invest in Britain Bureau, during the first three quarters of 1988, 271 inward investment decisions were made to locate in the United Kingdom. These include the establishment of a new business, expansion or acquisition of an existing business and involvement in joint venture.

  Council of Consumer Ministers
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what matters he intends to discuss with his European Economic Community counterparts at the next meeting of the Council of Consumer Ministers.

  Mr. Nicholas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what matters he intends to discuss with his European Economic Community counterparts at the next meeting of the Council of Consumer Ministers.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what matters he intends to discuss with his European Economic Community counterparts at the next meeting of the Council of Consumer Ministers.

  Mr. Forth
  I plan to represent the United Kingdom at the next meeting of the Council of Consumer Ministers which the Spanish presidency has provisionally scheduled for 1 June. The presidency has yet to finalise the agenda for the Council.

  Regional Grant and Assistance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the planned and estimated outturn expenditures on regional development grant and regional selective assistance for the year 1988–89.

  Mr. Forth
  The estimated 1988–89 outturn expenditure for regional development grant in England is £161·3 million, against supply estimate provision of £158·9 million. The equivalent figures for regional selective assistance are £136·1 million and £164·3 million. All figures are gross of domestic and European Community receipts. The RDG figures cover expenditure under the original and revised schemes. Those for RSA cover industrial and training grants, as well as expenditure under the business improvement services and exchange risk guarantee schemes.

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the question of publication of his inspectors' report into the acquisition of the House of Fraser.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the matter of publication of his inspectors' report into the acquisition of the House of Fraser.

  Mr. Maude
  I and my colleagues have received a number of representations.

  Civil Aerospace Programmes (Aid)
  Mr. David
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much launch aid for civil aerospace programmes was provided by his Department in 1988; and how much has been committed for 1989.

  Mr. Atkins
  For the calendar year 1988, £63 million was provided to British Aerospace in connection with the development of the Airbus A330/A340 programme and £10.3 million to Westland Helicopters in connection with the EH101. For the financial year 1988–89 the total figures were respectively £88.5 million and £9.9 million. For the financial year 1989–90 up to £154 million will be available to BAe and £12 million to Westland. The A330/340 and the EH101 are the only programmes currently receiving launch aid from the Department.

  Licensed Credit Brokers (Advertising)
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he proposes to take to monitor the growth of advertising of loan facilities offered by licensed credit brokers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Responsibility for monitoring the day-to-day operation of the Consumer Credit Act and of the activities of licensed credit businesses are matters for local authority trading standards departments and the Office of Fair Trading. In relation to credit advertisements, I intend shortly to make new regulations under the Act governing advertisements, and my Department circulated proposals in a consultation letter dated 5 April 1989.

  EC Commissioner for Consumer Affairs
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the European Commissioner for Consumer Affairs; and what matters were discussed.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the European Commissioner for Consumer Affairs; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Forth
  I met Commissioner Van Miert during his visit to London on 2 February, shortly after his appointment. The Commissioner took the opportunity to mention in general terms his views on the future direction of EC consumer policy.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further representations he has received on the effects of current interest rates on industry.
  186
  Mr. Maude
  I have received a number of further representations about the effects of interest rates on cash flow and investment in industry. Representations continue to give overwhelming support for firm action to control inflation and investment intentions remain strong.

  Company Mergers
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment his Department has made of company mergers and the effect on employee rights.

  Mr. Maude
  Normal employee rights continue when a company is taken over.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his Department's latest indication of the value of inward investment into Britain in 1988.

  Mr. Newton
  Inward investment into the United Kingdom in 1988 was £11·2 billion of which £7·1 billion was direct investment and £4·1 billion was portfolio investment.

  Seals (Exports)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further steps he plans to take to encourage exports from companies that manufacture seals.

  Mr. Maude
  Comprehensive support measures are already available through the DTI export initiative to assist companies who wish to export their products.

  Regional Development
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he plans to announce any new initiatives to benefit Britain's regions.

  Mr. Newton
  Major changes in the focus of DTI's policies were made only last year. Regional policy now operates within a framework designed to encourage enterprise and economic growth in all parts of the country but with extra help available for firms in the regions.

  Yorkshire and Humberside Confederation of British Industry
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside Confederation of British Industry to discuss industrial trends in that region.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans for such a meeting at present.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he plans to announce any new initiatives to benefit Britain's regions.

  Mr. Newton
  Major changes in the focus of DTI's policies were made only last year. Regional policy now operates within a framework designed to encourage enterprise and economic growth in all parts of the country but with extra help available for firms in the regions.

  Ford Motor Company
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for
  187
  Warrington, North of 12 April, Official Report, column 545, if he will make it his policy that in the next discussion between his Department and Ford about that company's manufacturing strategy, Ministers or officials will seek to encourage Ford to publish its own estimate of the net effect on the United Kingdom balance of payments of the transfer of the manufacture of Sierras.

  Mr. Maude
  The transfer of Sierra manufacture from Dagenham to Genk is only one element in Ford's reorganisation which also includes expansion of Fiesta manufacture at Dagenham, of Escort manufacture at Halewood and Transit van manufacture at Southampton. The overall effect of these changes on the balance of payments is dependent on so many variables as to be impossible to estimate with any accuracy and I see no value in encouraging Ford to attempt to make such an estimate.

  Bophuthatswana
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what trade is carried on between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Bophuthatswana; and what outward trade missions there have been.

  Mr. Alan
  Clark Since Her Majesty's Government do not recognise the independent status of Bophuthatswana, UK trade statistics do not disaggregate trade figures for it or other regions within South Africa.

  UK trade missions to South Africa may have visited Bophuthatswana but I am not aware of their precise itinerary.

  Deregulation
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current membership of the advisory panel on deregulation; and when he will be appointing new members.

  Mr. Maude
  Four new members have been appointed and will join the panel on 24 April 1989. They are:Professor Sue Birley—Philip and Pauline Harris Professor of Entrepreneurship, Cranfield School of Management, Bedford.
  Mr. John Lawrence—Chief Executive, Thorn Security Ltd., Feltharn.
  Mr. Brian Prime—Proprietor, Northbay House Residential Care Home, Lowestoft.
  Mr. Brian Wicks—Deputy Director General, National Farmers Union, London.

  The advisory panel makes an important contribution to the enterprise and deregulation unit's work by advising them on the impact of regulatory requirements on business and enterprise development. I should like to express my gratitude to them and particularly to the four retiring members, Mr. Colin Dauris, Mr. George Gray, Mr. Damon de Laszlo and Mr. Phillip White.

  These new appointments will help to ensure the panel's continuing effectiveness as a source of valuable advice.

  The existing membership of the advisory panel on deregulation is as follows:
  Sir Nigel Mobbs DL, Chairman—Chairman and Chief Executive, Slough Estates plc, Slough.
  Mr. Mike Fisher—Managing Director, Whale Tankers Ltd., Solihull, West Midlands.
  Mrs. Teresa Graham—Senior Manager, Price Waterhouse, Newcastle.
  Mr. Neil McArthur—Chairman, Thurnall Engineering Ltd., Manchester.
  188
  Mr. Stephen Moss—Managing Director, BCP Parking, and Director, Grosvenor Securities Ltd., London.
  Mr. Tom O'Connor—Chairman and Managing Director, Elta Plastics, Stockton-on-Tees.
  Mrs. Jenifer Rosenberg—Managing Director J and J Fashions Ltd., London.
  Mrs. Celia Urquhart—Managing Director, CU Data L td., Glasgow.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will now publish the report produced by the consultants Touche Ross on the National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 18 April 1989]: The report has only just been received. No decision about publication has yet been taken.

  Harrods (Report)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he now has any plans to meet the serious fraud office to discuss the publication of his Department's inspectors' report into the sale of Harrods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I have nothing to add to the statement made on 3 April by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in another place and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy's reply to a Private Notice Question by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on 4 April(Official Report, cols. 19–20).

  British Shipbuilders
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether any further progress has been made on the disposal of the subsidiaries of British Shipbuilders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Pursuant to my answer to the hon. Member of 16 March at column 282, I am pleased to report that William Steward and Company, Ltd. has now acquired British Shipbuilders' pipe work and electrical contracting subsidiary Sunderland Forge Services Ltd. This will become the centre for the Steward group's expansion into building services contracting in the north-east. The whole of William Steward's subsidiary, Durham Switch Gear Ltd., will shortly be moving its switch gear manufacturing activities, together with 135 employees, from nearby Washington into the factory previously owned by Sunderland Forge Services. William Steward's has in addition taken on nearly 200 of the previous 254 employees of Sunderland Forge Services and believes there is a good prospect of more jobs to come.

  On 16 March I also told the House of my agreement to the disposal of British Shipbuilders Training Ltd. at Govan to a management team. This sale has now also been successfully completed, thereby maintaining an important training resource in Govan and south of the Clyde providing employment for 28 people in the area of training and management consultancy.

  Finally, I can report that British Shipbuilders has now received a number of new bids for its design and computing subsidiary, Marine Design Consultants Ltd., based at Sunderland and Dundee. As with the new bids

  189
  that have been received for Ferguson Shipbuilders Ltd., these are now being assessed by the corporation and its advisers.

WALES

  "Roads in Wales"
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to begin improvements to meet traffic requirements between Woodbank junction and Shotwick, as referred to in his Department's publication, "Roads in Wales" 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The section of trunk road between Woodbank and Shotwick is to be improved as an extension of the Department of Transport scheme for improvement between Woodbank and Ledsham, a start of works on which is envisaged in the financial year 1993–94 subject to satisfactory completion of statutory procedures and the availability of funds. Work in Wales will also be subject to the findings of a study that I am commissioning to determine the need and timing of improvements to the trunk road network in north east Clwyd.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate the extra resources he intends to make available to the valley councils concerning trunk road maintenance and local authority highways maintenance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Allocations for trunk road maintenance are made annually on a county area basis. Allocations for 1989–90 will be announced shortly. Provision for county councils for maintenance of their roads in 1989–90 formed part of rate support grant settlement. Grant is allocated according to need on the basis of arrangements agreed by the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all current publicity campaigns being conducted by or for his Department or one planned for the first three months of 1989–90, indicating those which involve television advertising and the starting and finishing dates of each campaign.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The current publicity campaigns being conducted by the Welsh Office or are planned for the first three months of 1989–90 are as follows:

  Duration of campaign

  General

  Celebration of British food and farming

  4–9 May

  National curriculum and its implementation

  On-running through year

  Education Reform bill

  On-running through year

  School governors' guide to the law

  May/June

  Careers services in Wales

  No date decided

  Community charge

  8–31 May

  WOAD/ADAS publicity for:

  Research and development

  On-running through year

  ADAS divisional funds

  ESA open days

  Welsh outlook conference for farmers

  Trawsgoed open day

  190

  Duration of campaign

  ESA parliamentary report

  June/July

  Road safety drink/drive

  Awaiting decision from Department of Transport

  Child rear seat belt restraints

  May/June

  Child pedestrians and cyclists

  May/June

  Priority estates project final report

  September

  Tenants choice

  Awaiting decision from Department of Health

  TASC publicity

  May/October

  Various housing publications covering compulsory purchase, public development, business development, farming, traffic noise and road developments

  No date decided

  History of education in Wales centenary

  October/November

  document

  A55 publicity

  On-running through year

  StreetSense

  April

  Industry

  Various initiatives planned in conjunction with Department of Transport covering exports, grants, marketing etc.

  On-running through year

  Programme for the valleys—printed publicity material

  May/June

  Health

  Anti-smoking campaign

  October/November

  Keep well keep warm

  November 1989/ February 1990

  Donor cards

  On-running through year

  Breast cancer screening

  On-running through year

  Hospital complaints procedure

  October/December

  Mental illness strategy report

  February/March 1990

  Nursing recruitment literature from Department of Health

  On-running through year

  Midwifery

  On-running through year

  Your health abroad

  On-running through year

  Contagious diseases

  On-running through year

  Rabies

  On-running through year

  Drug abuse and AIDS

  September onwards

  Nursing recruitment campaign (Welsh Office)

  September onwards

  Health care Wales

  On-running through year

  Television was not involved in any of these campaigns either last year or in the current financial year.

  Valleys Initiative
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the projects in the Cynon valley which are currently receiving funding under the valleys initiative; and from which budget or funds they are being supported.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: The hon. Lady will be delighted that this is a lengthy reply.

  The following projects and activities in the Cynon valley have benefited in 1988–89 or will benefit under the key programmes and initiatives identified in "The Valleys: A Progamme for the People":

  Welsh Development Agency (WDA) Programmes

  Five Cynon valley projects have been supported to date under the new valleys small loan scheme and valleys

  191
  enterprise loan scheme. Current WDA research on component supply includes a pilot project involving a Cynon valley based company.

  Nine potential Cynon valley small businesses registered for a "Be Your Own Boss" course held in September 1988.

  The advance factory and workshop programme includes the following projects which are currently under way:

  Four 5,000 sq ft factories currently under construction at Aberaman

  Site redevelopment at Hirwaun

  Landscaping schemes at the Hirwaun industrial estate.

  Discussions are taking place with Cynon valley borough council on providing additional small factories and valley workshops. Projects expected to go ahead in 1989–90 are 20,000 sq ft of small units at Hirwaun and sewer replacement in the same location.

  The land reclamation programme includes schemes currently under way at:

  Cwmcynon/Deep Duffryn (95 acres)

  Graig y Dyffryn Tip (70 acres)

  Abercwmboi tip (4 acres)

  A further six schemes involving 300 acres are planned for future years.

  The agency is supporting environmental improvement schemes at:

  Bryntirion

  Mount Pleasant street

  Bryn Cynon club

  Dare valley

  Railway link—Monk street to Brynmawr

  Victoria hall, Aberdare

  Gap site, Abercwmboi

  Riverside walk, Hirwaun

  Robertstown, Aberdare

  Abercynon

  The Welsh Development Agency's renewal unit carried out a development study of Mountain Ash in 1988–89 jointly with the relevant local authorities. Following this the Welsh Development Agency's urban renewal programme includes support for:

  Mountain Ash town square improvements

  Landscaping on southern approach to Mountain Ash town centre

  Feasibility study of a proposal to build 35,000 sq ft industrial workshop space at Mountain Ash

  New footbridge construction at Mountain Ash

  With the assistance of increased Welsh Development Agency funding in 1989–90 the Prince of Wales Committee is supporting:

  Restoration of Tyle Morgug farmhouse Rhigos for use as activity centre

  Restoration of Darwonno farm—phase II

  Welsh Office support for industry and enterprise

  During 1988–89, 69 projects in the Cynon Valley received offers of assistance under the regional selective assistance, regional development grant and regional enterprise grant schemes.

  Local enterprise agency services were strengthened in 1988–89 by the establishment with Welsh Office support of a "One Stop Shop" scheme to be run by MADE and a new computer data base for MADE.

  Export clinics will be held in the Cynon Valley area 1989–90. Approximately 50 companies will be invited to attend.

  Training Agency programmes
  192
  The Training Agency provided more than 1,100 places in the Cynon Valley in 1988–89 under the youth training scheme, employment training, adult training and wider opportunities for women.

  Urban Programme

  Welsh Office urban programme allocations made in 1988–89 and for 1989–90 include the following projects in the Cynon valley:

  Appointment of field development officer for the hearing impaired.

  Aberdare craft and youth enterprise centre

  An integrated approach to children in trouble

  Access road, Ynysboeth industrial estate, Abercynon phase 2

  Conversion of Gadlys/SWEB buildings into youth enterprise centre.

  Cynon valley women's aid

  Litter abatement scheme

  Housebound library scheme

  Aberdare pedestrianisation scheme

  Interpretation and tourism project, Dare valley country park

  Business centre/enterprise centre Aberdare

  Home improvement agency service

  Library service scheme for Fernhill and Penywaun

  Enterprise development workshop scheme—Cwmbach

  Provision of community alarm system for elderly

  Provision of grants and loans within industrial and commercial improvement areas

  Provision of a community centre at Penywaun

  Repairs to Coliseum theatre, Trecynon, Aberdare

  Seed capital for new businesses

  Cynon Valley MIND support and development project

  Pedestrianisation of main shopping areas in town centre

  Landscaping around by-pass and major roads

  Development of respite care and family link scheme

  Cynon valley community support unit

  Environmental improvements to adjoining highways in Aberdare

  Conversion to business units of the former station buildings, Aberdare

  Provision of community centre, Fernhill, Mountain Ash

  Salaries and running costs for the MADE business centre, Aberdare

  Three nursery factory units at Aberaman

  Refurbishment of Cwmamman public hall and institute

  Establishment of Cynon valley groundwork trust

  Purchase of equipment for Cynon valley Disabled Alliance sports section

  Urban Development Grant

  Welsh Office gave final approval of two projects for Urban Development Grant support in 1988–89:

  Development of 19 low-cost houses at Aberarnan.

  Redevelopment of Park Cinema, Aberdare for shop and office premises.

  Welsh Office support for housing

  In 1988–89 the Welsh Office approved special allocations for the following enveloping schemes:

  Wyndham crescent, Aberaman—114 houses

  John street, Abercwmboi—71 houses

  Glanlay street, Penrhiwceiber—82 houses

  Carnetown, Abercynon—191 houses

  King street/Queen street, Cwmdae—88 houses

  Approval in principle has been given for a further three schemes to be undertaken for renovation of some 160 dwellings in 1989–90.

  Welsh Office support for health and social services

  A 40-bed unit for elderly people at Aberdare general hospital is programmed to start in July 1989 with completion anticipated in early 1991 with the assistance of 50 per cent. Welsh Office funding.
  193
  Diabetic liaison nurse care of the elderly in Merthyr Tydfil and Cynon valley was approved under the elderly initiative grant scheme in 1988–89.

  Prince of Wales Committee tree and bulb planting campaign

  With the assistance of Welsh Office support under the special grants (environmental) programme the Prince of Wales Committee organised the following schemes in 1988–89:

  Railway Halt, Aberdare (Aberdare and District Civic Society)

  Cwmbach church school

  Cwmbach infant school

  Hirwaun junior school

  This is not a comprehensive list of activities. Further projects are being considered under the headings listed above. In addition the area stands to benefit from initiatives which have a wider geographical coverage and from other ongoing main programmes.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Horse Racing
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will supply a detailed breakdown of all financial grants made to individual horse racecourses in Britain by the Horserace Betting Levy Board since 1987.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand from the board that its records are of annual totals of financial grants for direct expenditure by horse racecourses for particular purposes, not of grants to individual racecourses. For example, the annual grant of prize money is apportioned to individual racecourses by the Jockey Club.

  Following is the information as to totals of grants for racecourses which is held by the board, for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89:

  £000s

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Prize money

  12,000

  12,850

  Seventh race scheme

  —

  100

  Daily grant

  1,612

  1,612

  SUB TOTAL

  13,612

  14,562

  Fixture fees

  1,397

  1,541

  Fire and safety

  115

  323

  Plastic running rail

  187

  275

  Track ambulance

  —

  225

  TOTAL

  15,311

  16,926

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will provided a list of the levels of prize moneys at each registered horse racing course in Britain for each year since 1987;

  (2) if he will provide a list of all horse racing courses in Britain, by region, showing the level of attendances at each course since 1987.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that the "Racing Industry Statistical Bureau Statistics", which are published by the Jockey Club, provide information on the annual totals of prize money and attendances at each approved horse race course in Britain over a period of five calendar years. The next edition of the statistics, to be published at the end of April, will therefore provide this information for 1984–88 inclusive.
  194
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will supply a list of all financial grants made by the Horserace Betting Levy Board to other horseracing bodies in Britain during 1987.

  Mr. John Patten
  Following is the information requested, for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89:

  1987–88

  1988–89

  £

  £

  Field Force Grant

  1,425,000

  1,132,000

  Racehorse Publicity Agency

  120,000

  89,000

  Horseracing Advisory Council

  116,000

  139,000

  Apprentice School Charitable Trust

  70,000

  100,000

  South Yorkshire Apprentice Training School

  12,000

  90,000

  Farriers Apprentice Scheme

  27,000

  29,000

  The Shire Horse Society

  28,000

  38,000

  The National Pony Society

  26,000

  26,000

  National Light Horse Breeding Society

  110,000

  110,000

  The Arab Horse Society

  8,000

  12,000

  The Welsh Pony and Cob Society

  6,000

  6,000

  Irish Draught and Horse Society (Great Britain)

  5,000

  5,000

  The Clevelant Bay Horse Society

  5,000

  7,000

  The British Percheron Horse Society

  5,000

  5,000

  The Clydesdale Horse Society

  5,000

  7,000

  The Suffolk Horse Society

  7,000

  7,000

  The Hackney Horse Society

  7,000

  7,000

  Animal Health Trust

  278,000

  303,000

  Equine Virology Research Foundation

  58,000

  50,000

  Point to Point

  144,000

  151,000

  Racing Industry Accident Benefit Scheme

  —

  25,000

  Statistical Bureau

  6,000

  2,000

  Horseracing Scientific Advisory Committee

  5,000

  5,000

  Horseracing Forensic Laboratory Limited

  1,117,000

  1,613,000

  Racecourse Technical Services Limited

  4,493,000

  4,716,000

  Research Projects, Scholarships, Residentship and Travel Grants

  645,000

  665,000

  Veterinary Advisory Committee

  10,000

  12,000

  Bookmakers Committee

  67,000

  121,000

  Totals

  8,805,000

  9,472,000

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a breakdown of the distribution of the finances raised by the Horserace Betting Levy Board in each year since 1983.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested, for each financial year from 1983–84 to 1987–88 inclusive, is given in the respective annual reports of the board, copies of which are in the Library. My right hon. Friend envisages laying the board's report for 1988–89 before the House in July this year.

  Depot Site (Pyrton)
  Mr. Heseltine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of any documents held by his Department relating to the acquisition, planning status, construction, rating and occupancy of the depot site in the parish of Pyrton in the county of Oxfordshire which have not been released to the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The supply and transport branch of the Home Office occupied this depot between 10 November 1978 and 20 July 1987 under standing arrangements with the Property Services Agency. Home Office papers relate only to the administration of the depot
  195
  during this period and are of a routine nature: they will in due course be disposed of under the Public Record Acts of 1958 and 1967. I understand that copies of relevant papers are being placed in the Library by the Property Services Agency.

  Asylum
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute procedures within the immigration service to ensure that persons applying for asylum on entry to the United Kingdom are dealt with in accordance with procedures laid down in the immigration rules and the obligations of the United Kingdom under international law.

  Mr. Renton
  Such procedures are already in place.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the reasons why the sale of the electoral register is allowed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Representation of the People Regulations 1986 provide for the publication and supply of the electoral register, including supply of copies at a prescribed fee. These provisions reflect the fact that the electoral register is a public document which needs to be in wide circulation for electoral purposes; and the conclusion that its use by commercial organisations could not effectively be prevented.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each year since 1978, the number of citizens of the United Kingdom whose citizenship was revoked, providing the following information in each case(a) the reasons for which citizenship was revoked, (b) the country to which each individual was deported, and (c) the length of time between the granting of citizenship and its removal.

  Mr. Renton
  No order to deprive a person of citizenship has been made since 1973.

  Holloway Prison
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what efforts are being made to recruit permanent nursing staff to Her Majesty's prison, Holloway; and what plans there are to improve C2 psychiatric unit.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Campaigns to recruit permanent nursing staff are undertaken regularly. Arrangements for the next campaign are in hand. Plans to replace the present facilities for psychiatric assessment with a purpose-built unit are being pursued.

  Mr. Corbyn
  (Islington North): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the approved complement for medical units at Her Majesty's prison, Holloway; what is the current shortfall in permanent staff; and how often agency nurses are used to make up the numbers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The approved complement of nursing staff is 84. On 17 April 1989 a total of 47 of the 196
  posts were filled and 17 others were covered by agency nurses. Agency staff have been used for some years as a consequence of recruitment difficulties in London.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long the position of health care manager/chief medical officer has been vacant at Her Majesty's prison, Holloway; and when this vacancy will be filled.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The decision to create a post of health care manager was taken in September 1987. The post has been vacant since then. An appointment has now been made and takes effect on 1 May 1989.

  Guildford Four
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to facilitate ease of legal access for solicitors acting for the Guildford Four; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The inmates may be visited by their legal representatives at their current prison locations. Any request for alternative facilities would be carefully considered.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will allow independent medical assessors to examine the Guildford Four prisoners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The physical and mental health of these prisoners is the responsibility of the prison medical officers of their respective establishments. Prison medical officers can arrange for a second opinion when this is clinically indicated.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what payments have been made by his Department to the Somerset and Avon constabulary in respect of their costs in inquiring into new evidence surrounding the conviction of the Guildford Four; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) yesterday.

  Traffic Police
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state for police authorities in England and Wales the number of traffic officers employed in traffic branches in each force for the years 1980, 1985 and 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information for 1980 is not readily available. That for 1985 and 1988 is as follows:

  Police forces in England and Wales

  Traffic division strengths

  31 December

  1985

  1988

  Avon and Somerset

  295

  251

  Bedfordshire

  99

  95

  Cambridgeshire

  132

  127

  Cheshire

  229

  231

  City of London

  74

  34

  Cleveland

  98

  90

  Cumbria

  138

  123

  197

  Traffic division strengths

  31 December

  1985

  1988

  Derbyshire

  155

  156

  Devon and Cornwall

  239

  231

  Dorset

  136

  114

  Durham

  132

  132

  Dyfed-Powys

  120

  103

  Essex

  277

  257

  Gloucestershire

  142

  84

  Greater Manchester

  496

  448

  Gwent

  102

  109

  Hampshire

  304

  259

  Hertfordshire

  143

  155

  Humberside

  167

  166

  Kent

  265

  159

  Lancashire

  283

  294

  Leicestershire

  157

  77

  Lincolnshire

  81

  81

  Merseyside

  340

  350

  Metropolitan

  896

  906

  Norfolk

  103

  112

  Northamptonshire

  75

  76

  Northumbria

  258

  247

  North Wales

  131

  140

  North Yorkshire

  141

  156

  Nottinghamshire

  181

  183

  South Wales

  259

  262

  South Yorkshire

  203

  201

  Staffordshire

  242

  239

  Suffolk

  106

  101

  Surrey

  195

  226

  Sussex

  264

  246

  Thames Valley

  305

  318

  Warwickshire

  101

  112

  West Mercia

  113

  216

  West Midlands

  540

  452

  West Yorkshire

  427

  381

  Wiltshire

  116

  104

  Total

  9,260

  8,804

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all current publicity campaigns being conducted by or for his Department or ones planned for the first three months of 1989–90, indicating those which involve television advertising and the starting and finishing dates of each campaign.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Home Office's crime and fire prevention campaigns continue, although there is no current press or television advertising. The only other publicity campaign planned for the three month period from April to June 1989 is a small probation officer recruitment campaign, starting 17 May and finishing 31 May.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assistance is being given to local authorities to enable them to cope with the influx of cases being referred to them for housing benefit from April; if his Department intends to carry out a review of delays due to the change over; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The only category of claimant who became entitled to housing benefit for the first time from April were people in board and lodging accommodation whose housing costs were formerly met from income 198
  support. This change was part of the April 1988 reforms of social security but implementation was postponed at the request of the local authority associations. The administrative arrangements for the transfer were discussed with the local authority associations and individual timetables for implementation were agreed locally between the Department's local office and local authorities. The Government made £1 million available to local authorities for their costs in preparing for this change. In addition, the overall level of provision for local authorities' housing benefit administration costs in 1989–90 has been increased by more than £7 million because of the expected increase in work load. There is thus no reason for the changeover to result in delays. Delay in general is kept under review as part of the Department's monitoring of the social security reforms.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in the borough of Walsall will receive no actual increase in total benefit in April; and what is the number who will receive a sum less than the increase paid in the retirement pension.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 6 March at column 445.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all current publicity campaigns being conducted by or for his Department or ones planned for the first three months of 1989–90, indicating those which involve television advertising and the starting and finishing dates of each campaign.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department is running one publicity campaign involving television advertising in the first three months of 1989–90. The campaign is to promote the take-up of family credit. Paid advertising started on 13 April and is currently planned to run until 30 June.

  Women's Help Centres
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women's help centres are in operation in the United Kingdom; and what percentage of their operating costs are funded by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Mellor
  No figures are collected centrally on the numbers of refuges for battered women. However, the national voluntary organisation, Women's Aid Federation (England), estimates that there are some 256 refuges in the United Kingdom. None of these refuges receives central Government funding.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to reply to the letter of 16 January 1989 from the hon. Member for Woolwich about the release of local education authorities' employees for Territorial Army training.

  Mr. Neubert
  I have now written to the hon. Member f cw42about this matter.

  F111 Aircraft (Upper Heyford)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many F111 aircraft of the United States Government are currently stationed at Upper Heyford.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand that 78 F111 aircraft are assigned to RAF Upper Heyford.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he has given permission for an increase in the number of F1–11 aircraft of the United States Government stationed at Upper Heyford;

  (2) what requests he has received from the United States Government for the extension of facilities for F1–11 aircraft at Upper Heyford; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he has had any discussions with the Secretary of Defense of the United States in relation to an increase in the number of F1–11 aircraft to be stationed at Upper Heyford.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 18 April 1989 to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).

  Dual-capable Artillery
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what number of dual-capable artillery pieces was held by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in 1986, 1987 and 1988; and what proportion in each year have been assigned a nuclear role.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested can be found in figure 15 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1986" (Cmnd. 9763-I), figure 16 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987" (Cm. 101-I), and figure 19 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988" (Cm. 344-I).

  Launchers
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many launchers of each type the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation had in its nuclear systems(a) in 1979 and (b) at the latest available date.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Details of launchers for NATO's theatre nuclear forces have been given in successive Statements on the Defence Estimates.

  Cyprus (Accommodation)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on accommodation for service personnel and their families in Cyprus and plans for its improvement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The standards of accommodation for service personnel and their families serving overseas are kept under regular review and a major study into both single and married accommodation is currently under way in Cyprus.

  In the eastern sovereign base area a £3·5 million Army project of new build married quarters and single living accommodation, together with the upgrading of some existing single accommodation, was started in March 1988 and is due for completion in 1991. In the western sovereign
  200
  base area a first phase of new build of 48 soldiers' married quarters began this year and will be completed in 1990 with further phases to follow. Extensive refurbishment of single accommodation is planned. At Akrotiri the RAF have a substantial refurbishment programme underway for both single and married accommodation and plans have been agreed for the construction of up to 100 airmen's married quarters over the next three years.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all current publicity campaigns being conducted by or for his Department or ones planned for the first three months of 1989–90, indicating those which involve television advertising and the starting and finishing dates of each campaign.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following publicity campaigns are currently under way or will be undertaken during the periods shown:

  (a) NATO 40th anniversary postal slogan in April 1989, which appeared on approximately 46 million items of mail.

  (b) NATO briefing tour in April 1989, which will visit six major towns and cities in the United Kingdom.

  (c) NATO exhibitions from April until late in 1989, which is an annual exhibition, but which will be enhanced this year to reflect the 40th anniversary of NATO, and will visit 15 venues throughout the United Kingdom.

  (d) National Employer Liaison Committee campaign, which started in September 1988 and will last for five years, and whose aim is to enhance the image of the Reserve services with employers.

  (e) A regular recruitment campaign for Royal Navy and Royal Marines officers and other ranks, which will continue throughout the year, together with some smaller scale recruitment campaigns for specialist trades and reservists.

  (f) A recruitment campaign for the Army which will run throughout the year as usual, aimed at officers, other ranks, and territorial reservists. This year the campaign will include limited television advertising from 31 March to 22 April, with a parallel campaign on Capital Radio. The television commercial will also be screened at 246 cinemas in London from 14 April to 22 June.

  (g) A regular recruitment campaign for RAF officers and airmen, which will run throughout the year.

HEALTH

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about, and how many accepted by, his Department since June 1987.

  Mr. Mellor
  In the four Departmental Select Committee reports completed since June 1987 which relate to what is now the Department of Health, and to which the Government have already responded, a total of 30 recommendations were made, of which four have been accepted by the Government in whole or in part. A further nine recommendations have been noted. Most of these reflected proposals in the recent White Paper, "Working for Patients" [CM 555]. Copies of Government replies to all four reports have been placed in the Library.

  Staffing Costs
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of expenditure by each regional health authority on administrative and clerical agency staff in 1987–88.

  Mr. Mellor
  Following is the information for each health region derived from annual accounts submitted to the Department for 1987–88:

  Expenditure on non-National Health Service (agency, etc.) administrative and clerical staff

  £000

  Regions1

  Northern

  137

  Yorkshire

  853

  Trent

  1,421

  East Anglian

  1,317

  North-West Thames

  9,613

  North-East Thames

  9,754

  South-East Thames

  6,680

  South-West Thames

  4,607

  Wessex

  1,346

  Oxford

  980

  South Western

  1,181

  West Midlands

  2,029

  Mersey

  184

  North Western

  518

  Regions total

  39,620

  Special health authorities2

  3,463

  Total

  43,083

  1 Regional and district health authorities.

  2 Special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  Note:—The figures include costs relevant to typing, secretarial and all other administrative and clerical staff.

  Midwives
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by sex how many midwives there are in the Trent regional health authority; what the figure was five and 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is in the table.

  NHS Midwives in post at 30 September of each year Trent Region

  Whole-time equivalent1

  1979

  1984

  1987

  Total Midwives

  1,827

  21,211

  22,172

  Male Staff

  n/a

  2

  —

  Female Staff

  n/a

  2,119

  2,172

  Source: Department of Health (SM13) annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest whole-time equivalent.

  2 Latest available.

  n/a = Not available.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has as to the reasons for the disproportionate rate of mental illness among ethnic minorities

  Mr. Freeman
  None, but we are taking a close interest in research in this area which hopefully will suggest reasons for what seems to be a higher incidence of some forms of mental illness.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the amounts due to pharmacists in England and Wales for each year from 1978 to 1988 for the provision of pharmaceutical services; and what were the amounts paid and the profits earned for the same period.

  Mr. Mellor
  The amounts for England and Wales as shown in the balance sheets prepared with representatives of the profession are as follows; the basis of calculation change in 1985 from calendar years to financial years:

  Year

  £ million

  £ million

  Overpayment outstanding at beginning of 1978

  8·0

  1978

  142·0

  147·0

  1979

  170·9

  155·4

  1980

  215·2

  205·5

  1981

  238·9

  246·7

  1982

  280·0

  283·7

  1983

  324·8

  301·3

  1984

  350·3

  359·6

  1 January 1985—31 March 1985

  96·6

  89·5

  1985–86

  383·7

  390·1

  1986–87

  415·0

  427·8

  1987–88

  485·8

  443·2

  Arrears payments: 1 July 1988 and 1 May 1989

  45·3

  Information for 1988–89 is not yet available. No information is held on profits earned by pharmacists.

  Private Hospitals
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will institute an inspectorate of private hospitals with the responsibility of inspecting hospitals in the private sector and of providing a report annually to him which evaluates the level of patient care;

  (2) if he will order an immediate investigation into the allegations of patient abuse at the private hospital at London bridge;

  (3) if he will discuss with the chairman of the relevant district health authority the conduct of experimental treatment at the London Bridge hospital and its effect upon patient care.

  Mr. Mellor
  Registration and inspection of private hospitals is the responsibility of district health authorities. The authority concerned has already initiated inquiries into the allegations and is continuing discussions with London Bridge hospital. The treatment to which the hon. Member refers in fact had ceased by the time the allegations were made.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been conducted into how much vigorous exercise is required by the age groups(a) under 14 years, (b) 14 to 23 years, (c) 23 to 50 years and (d) 50-plus years in order to significantly reduce the threat of heart disease; and what measures are being taken to encourage people to achieve these levels.

  Mr. Mellor
  The appropriate amount of exercise to help reduce the threat of heart disease will vary not only according to age but also according to each individual's physical and medical condition. It is not possible to quantify the amount of exercise that would be beneficial simply by broad age bands. The Sports Council
  203
  encourages participation in physical exercise and has published, jointly with the Health Education Authority, booklets on exercise which give "rule of thumb" guidelines on "testing" levels of fitness and measuring improvements in those who start to exercise regularly. These reflect the broad consensus of medical opinion that everyone would benefit from physical exercise and that 20 to 30 minutes exercise, on two or three occasions a week, is beneficial against coronary heart disease and brings many other benefits. I understand that the Sports Council hopes to carry out a national fitness survey in 1989–91.

  AIDS
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding Health Service provision for AIDS.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have received three such representations. Two from the network of voluntary organisations in AIDS/HIV and one from the British Medical Association foundation for AIDS.

  Unpasteurised Milk
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations have been made to his Department concerning the possible banning of unpasteurised green top milk; what would be the health repercussions of such a ban; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has received a number of letters from members of the public about a possible ban on the sale of unpasteurised milk.

  The proposed ban would reduce the risks to consumers of salmonella and campylobacter infections. Other infections will also be made less likely, for example, streptococcus zoepidemicus, which in 1984 caused the deaths of eight people who had been drinking untreated milk.

  Nurse Grading
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many successful nurses' grading appeals have been heard to date;

  (2) how many nurses' grading appeals have been heard to date.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses are currently fully qualified but have not yet received their PIN numbers.

  Mr. Mellor
  The issue of PIN numbers to qualified nurses, midwives and health visitors is a matter for the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Dame Audrey Emerton, DBE, chairman of the council if he is aware of any problems in this matter.

  Radioactivity (Accidents)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those district health authorities, which do not have designated medical physics departments for the purposes of his Department's circulars HC(89) and HN (FP) (89) 8 on arrangements for dealing with accidents involving radioactivity.
  204
  Mr. Mellor
  The relevant circular requires regional health authorities to let the Department have details of designated medical physics departments by 31 July 1989. I shall write to the right hon. Member when this information has been received and collated.

  Hospital Sites (Sales)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department lays down any guidelines to regional health authorities about the advertising for sale of hospital sites on which no closure decision or consultation has taken place.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for local management.

  Rural GPs
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average list size of a general practitioner in rural practice in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  The average list size of general practitioners in receipt of rural practice allowance (payable if 10 per cent. or more patients live in rural areas) in England at 1 October 1987 was 2,020. Figures for previous years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average general practitioner salary for doctors in rural practices in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the payments for child immunisation targets and cervical cytology targets for doctors in dispersed rural areas under the proposed general practitioner contracts.

  Mr. Mellor
  Our proposals for target payments to general practitioners who achieve the target levels of coverage for childhood immunisation and cervical cytology will apply equally to rural and non-rural doctors.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will define the concept of rurality to be used as a basis for providing supplementary capitation allowances under the proposed general practitioner contracts.

  Mr. Mellor
  We propose that a rural capitation supplement to basic practice allowance should be related to population density in future; areas of greatest sparsity attracting the highest level of supplement.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the level of estimated payments to be made to general practitioners in rural practices for health promotion work and under the proposed practitioner contracts;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the provision for elderly patients in rural areas under the proposed general practitioner contracts.

  Mr. Mellor
  The proposals set out in "A New Contract" make clear that the provision of health promotion, including the offer of three-yearly check-ups,
  205
  and annual check-ups for patients aged 75 and over, will be made specific requirements in general medical practitioners' terms of service. We intend to introduce a new sessional fee for health promotion clinics, and to raise significantly the level of the capitation fee for patients aged 75 and over. These proposals will apply equally to general practitioners in rural and non-rural areas. The amounts of these payments have not been decided.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of night fees which may be paid to doctors other than from the patient's own practice in sparsely populated rural areas.

  Mr. Mellor
  Under the Government's proposals a higher level of night visit fee will be payable if the visit is made by the patient's own doctor or by a partner or another member of the group practice. A lower fee will be payable if another doctor sees the patient. The same arrangements are proposed for both rural and urban areas. The amounts of the fees have not been decided.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all current publicity campaigns being conducted by or for his Department or the Health Education Authority, respectively, or planned for the first three months of 1989–90, indicating those which involve television advertising and the starting and finishing dates of each campaign.

  Mr. Mellor
  There are no publicity campaigns being conducted by my Department or planned for the first three months of 1989–90 involving television advertising.

  The following publicity campaigns are current or planned:

  Start

  Finish

  Nurse recruitment

  Youth audience magazines

  June only

  Adult audience national press

  June

  September

  Drugs misuse

  Centrally funded regional

  campaigns in Wessex, Trent

  and South East Thames

  March

  May

  National Health Service recruitment

  Mailing of recruitment materials

  to careers officers

  April

  In addition to the above the Department maintains information and awareness campaigns which run throughout the year which include the following:

  National blood transfusion service—donor recruitment.

  Organ donation—promotion of donor cards; awareness amongst National Health Service professional staff.

  Overseas travel—information for those travelling abroad.

  Services for the disabled—information.

  Free or subsidised National Health Service services for low income groups—information

  The Health Education Authority's current and planned publicity campaigns include:
  206

  Start

  Finish

  AIDS

  Encourage condom use— Women's magazines

  March

  June

  Travellers abroad—Poster

  June

  End of summer

  Skin cancer

  Those travelling abroad on holiday—Women's magazines

  June

  End of summer

  "Less Fat Fortnight"

  Consumption of lower fat products—Press

  June only

  Alcohol abuse

  National drinkwise day— sensible approach to alcohol consumption

  June 20

  None of these publicity campaigns involve television advertising.

  Griffiths Report
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish his Department's response to the Griffiths report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 6 April at column 291.

  Public Service Broadcasts
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the likely implications for the transmission of Channel 4 of public service broadcasts emanating from his Department of the White Paper "Broadcasting in the 90s: Competition Choice and Quality".

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 17 March at column 383. I am not aware that the arrangements will be any different for Channel 4.

  Family Practitioners
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to the average number of hours per week spent by full-time family practitioner(a) National Health Service work and (b) other medical work on and the amounts earned in respect of each; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: The survey of general medical practitioners' workload carried out in 1985–86 showed that the average GMP worked about 38 hours a week on general medical services duties. In addition a further 30 hours a week was spent on call during which time no duties were performed. Over and above his general medical services commitments the average GMP who undertakes non-general medical services work spent six hours a week on that work.

  The review body on doctors' and dentists' remuneration recommends the level of GMPs' income each year. In 1989–90 GMPs' average gross income will be £60,000. This figure reflects the review body's recommendation in respect of GMPs net income and indirectly reimbursed expenses which the Government have accepted in full, plus

  207
  estimated directly reimbursed expenses. Information about the average amount earned on non-general medical services work by GMPs undertaking such work is not known.

  Accountants
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified accountants are currently employed in the National Health Service and how many extra will be required by April 1991 to implement the Government's White Paper, "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 18 April 1989]: Information on the numbers of qualified accountants employed by health authorities is not routinely collected. The latest available information relates to 31 December 1987, when a survey showed that there were about 1,100 qualified accountants in post in England, Scotland and Wales. We will be working with health authorities to establish the need for additional qualified accountants to implement the proposals in "Working for Patients" (Cm. 555).

  Health Education
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to introduce incentives for health authorities to invest money in health education.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 18 April 1989]: Prevention of ill health and the promotion of good health is a Government priority. Health education is a key part of that, especially given the relationship between so many diseases and personal behaviour such as smoking, alcohol, sexual behaviour, diet and exercise. However, it is for health authorities to determine how the resources allocated to them are apportioned between all the services for which they are responsible, including health education. Authorities' work is monitored and health education has featured in ministerial reviews of English health authorities for the past two years. The importance the Government give to health education was reflected in the establishment of the Health Education Authority in 1987. One of the authority's functions is to plan and carry out work in co-operation with health authorities and act as a national centre of information and advice on health education. In addition the recommendation in the chief medical officer's report "Public Health in England" that directors of public health be appointed in each district and produce an annual report on the health of the population they serve is being implemented. The annual reports will be public documents and will draw attention to local health education issues, providing an additional incentive to action.

  Factor 8
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what controls on imported factor 8 are being applied to the factor 8 currently being supplied in the United Kingdom on named product basis by the German-based company Octapharnna Gmbh; and what implications such controls have for the health of British haemophiliacs.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 18 April 1989]: Factor 8 is being supplied by Octapharnna Gmbh for use in a clinical
  208
  trial under the terms of the Medicines (Exemption from Licences) (Clinical Trial) Order 1981 (SI 1981/164). This states that this product can only be used in accordance with the conditions of the trial and with the informed consent of the patient.

  In addition, any physician, on his own responsibility, can order this factor 8 for use on a named patient basis.

  The Department is satisfied that the blood meets the requirements of both EC and WHO guidelines and the requirements specified in the BP (Addendum 1386) monograph for factor 8.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Teacher Training
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why the Department of Education (NI) has introduced an annual bursary of £1,300 per annum for postgraduate teacher training courses in physis, chemistry and mathematics.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In order to increase the supply of teachers in England and Wales trained to teach physics, chemistry, mathematics and craft, design and technology, a bursary scheme was introduced there in 1986 for all students studying for postgraduate certificates in education in these disciplines. This coincided with this year's relaxation of the embargo on awards to Northern Ireland students undertaking PGCE courses in Great Britain. There are no teacher shortages in Northern Ireland, but in the light of subsequent experience with the number and quality of applicants wishing to pursue these disciplines in local institutions, it became clear that there was a requirement for parity of incentive and it was therefore decided to introduce a parallel bursary scheme in Northern Ireland, thus ensuring the supply of appropriately trained teachers.

  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for postgraduate certificate of education courses were received by Queen's university, Belfast, for courses commencing in 1986, 1987 and 1988; and how many of the places available were for teacher training courses in physics, chemistry and mathematics.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:—

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Total applications for PGCE courses

  672

  640

  625

  Places available for teacher training courses in:

  Physics

  10

  12

  10

  Chemistry

  10

  12

  10

  Mathematics

  14

  16

  15

  Young People
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many 16 and 17-year-olds were in receipt of bridging allowance at the end of October 1988, November 1988, December 1988, January 1989, February 1989 and March 1989.
  209
  Mr. Viggers
  It is estimated that the following numbers were in receipt of bridging allowance in each relevant month:

  Number

  October 1988

  914

  November 1988

  808

  December 1988

  807

  January 1989

  895

  February 1989

  458

  March 1989

  344

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many 16 and 17-year-olds currently receive income support and bridging allowance.

  Mr. Viggers
  At the end of March 344 persons were receiving bridging allowance and there are currently three claimants receiving income support under the severe hardship provisions. No figures are available for those receiving income support under the normal rules.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many 16 and 17-year-olds who previously received income support were transferred to bridging allowance after new benefit rules were introduced in September.

  Mr. Viggers
  A total of 986 young people were transferred to bridging allowance from income support.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will explain the methods being used to provide publicly available information on 16 and 17-year-olds who remain unemployed after the ending of the bridging allowance payments or extended child benefit.

  Mr. Viggers
  No such information is currently made available.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people of YTS eligible age, registered with jobcentres or the careers service were awaiting an offer of a YTS place at the end of October 1988, November 1988, December 1988, January 1989, February 1989 and March 1989; and of them, how many were receiving bridging allowance or extended child benefit or income support or a severe hardship grant from the social fund.

  Mr. Viggers
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide figures for the number of young people no longer on bridging allowance who have not yet been allocated a YTS place.

  Mr. Viggers
  The number of young people no longer receiving bridging allowance who have not yet been allocated a YTP place is 140. Some of these young people have been submitted to YTP schemes and results are awaited.

  Harland and Wolff
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensure that the terms and conditions of the employees of Harland and Wolff are protected when the undertaking is transferred to the privatised company.
  210
  Mr. Viggers
  On 22 March 1989 I approved, on behalf of the Government, heads of agreement for the sale of H&W plc to a management-employee buy-out team, backed by Mr. Olsen. The terms and conditions of the employees of the privatised company will be a matter for the new owners.

  Sectarian Funerals
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the present system of promulgation of information relating to the routing and timing of sectarian funerals; whether the cause of the failure to brief the late Corporals David Howes and Derek Wood in this respect, has been remedied; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 12 April 1989]: These are operational matters for the general officer commanding and the Chief Constable.

EMPLOYMENT

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Patrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about Government measures to alleviate skill shortages in manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Cope
  There are a number of Government measures designed to alleviate skill shortages in all industries. These include the setting up of training and enterprise councils to enable employers to define and meet local skill needs. The Government is also helping young people and the unemployed to learn new skills through YTS, employment training and the recently announced business growth training.

  Training Shortages
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment to what extent a lack of trained personnel is threatening the ability of United Kingdom industry to meet the surge in demand.

  Mr. Cope
  Previous figures cannot express completely the extent of the threat. The most recent quarterly survey of industrial trends, conducted in January 1989 by the Confederation of British Industry, reported that 25 per cent. of manufacturing firms in the United Kingdom anticipated that a shortage of skilled labour would limit output over the coming four months.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment further to his reply of 13 December 1988,Official Report, column 535, if he will make a further statement on the changes to calculation of the unemployment figures in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  I have nothing to add to my previous reply.

  Training and Enterprise Councils (West Midlands)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils he expects to approve in the west midlands; and if he will make a statement.
  211
  Mr. Cope
  I published a prospectus on 10 March inviting employers to form training and enterprise councils (TECs) in their local area. Response to TECs in the west midlands or elsewhere has been excellent. Groups of employers have been asked to apply for development funding. The deadline for first bids is 28 April. Decisions on the numbers of TECs will be taken when the bids are considered.

  Business Growth Through Training
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of Business Growth Through Training.

  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched business growth training on 11 April 1989. The reaction that we have had from employers has been most encouraging. The Training Agency will be evaluating the impact of the new programme on business performance.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many specialist inspectors have left the Health and Safety Executive in the last 12 months; and how many have been(a) retirements and (b) resignations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989, 17 specialist inspectors have left the Health and Safety Executive; of these, five retired, nine resigned and three transferred to other Government Departments.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many mines inspectors and quarries inspectors the Health and Safety Executive had in place on 1 April.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 April 1989 the Health and Safety Executive employed 58 mines inspectors and 11 quarries inspectors.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the Health and Safety Executive's budget provision for the next three years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Gross provision for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive in the three years from 1 April last is £118·3 million, £125·9 million and £133·5 million. The provision allows for real growth in the executive's activities in all three years, including an increase in the number of inspectors, and of inspections. Details will be published shortly in the commission's plan of work for 1989–90 and beyond.

  Mining (Accidents)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will estimate the number of accidents that go unreported in the mining industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  While under-reporting of accidents is significant in some industries, there is no evidence that it occurs to any marked degree in the mining industry.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to improve access for disabled people to tourist attractions.
  212
  Mr. Lee
  The English Tourist Board's advisory committee on visitor attractions has drawn up a voluntary code of practice for operators, which includes recomendations on access for disabled people. This code of practice is to be piloted in the west country in the near future, with the aim, following further consultations, of issuing the code in early 1990.

  Co-operative Development Agency
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the future of the Co-operative development agency; and what has been his response.

  Mr. Cope
  I have received written representations from 14 organisations on the future of the Co-operative Development Agency. I have also received representations from a Co-operative parliamentary delegation.

  All the representations are currently under consideration.

  Film and Television Industries
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why the report into the film and television industries by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has not been made publicly available.

  Mr. Cope
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report entitled "Labour Practices in TV and Film Making" (Cm. 666) was laid before Parliament on 13 April. Copies are available to Members from the Vote Office and from HMSO bookshops.

  YTS Allowance
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what the level of the 1983 YTS allowance would have been had it risen annually in line with(a) the retail price index, (b) average earnings and (c) the average yearly rate of inflation.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: The YTS allowance was £25 per week in April 1983. If the allowance had been increased in line with changes in the retail price index it would have been £33·17 in February 1989. 1f adjusted in line with increases in the average earnings index, the allowance would have been £38·69 in January 1989. Adjusting the allowance for the rate of inflation is equivalent to the adjustment made for changes in the retail prices index. Many trainees receive more than the minimum level of the trainee allowance.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which items included in the 1988–89 estimated outturn columns of table 7·29 on page 25 of the public expenditure White Paper published in January were not included in the estimated total of £17·8 million on publicity spending by his Department given in the answer to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras on 13 March,Official Report, column 56.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: Since the public expenditure White Paper and my previous answer were published, later information has become available.

  The latest estimated total for publicity expenditure for the Department of Employment in 1988–89 is £18·3

  213
  million. It includes expenditure for the employment service, but excludes that for the Training Agency, ACAS and the Health and Safety Executive.

  The expenditure for the Training Agency, which was given in the reply to the hon. Member on 13 March 1989, Official Report, column 55, excludes expenditure for the skills training agency (shown as "Other TA publicity" in the PEWP table).

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what conclusions he draws from his Department's statistical information on whether assistance to the long-term unemployed is better provided by employment service jobcentres or private job clubs.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: At the end of February 1989, the job entry rate, or percentage of people leaving job clubs to go into jobs, was 56 per cent. for employment service job clubs against 52 per cent. from external job clubs. However the gap in performance is

  Date

  North West

  Great Britain

  Number into jobs

  Number into other positive outcomes

  Per cent. into total positive outcomes

  Number into jobs

  Number into other positive outcomes

  Per cent. into total positive outcomes

  Year to 31 March 1987

  2,280

  611

  71

  10,910

  2,364

  73

  Year to 31 March 1988

  10,623

  2,709

  69

  57,080

  14,883

  68

  11 months to 27 February 1989

  11,590

  3,307

  70

  64,179

  18,032

  69

  Note: Other positive outcomes include training, full-time education, self-employment, a place on community programme and now employment training.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employment training places are currently contracted within skill centres; and what guarantees he will obtain as to their future post-privatisation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: The number of employment training (ET) places currently contracted is 11,774. The skills training agency obtained these places in competition with other training providers, and private sector skill centres will be free to compete for ET places in the same way.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, and overall in his Department are(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Cope
  The table below gives the information requested in respect of women in the Employment Department group in the grades specified. Overall, 34,485 (66·6 per cent.) out of the group's 51,751 administrative staff are women.

  Grade

  Total staff in grade

  Number of women in grade

  Percentage women

  G1

  2

  0

  0·0

  G2

  5

  0

  0·0

  G3

  27

  3

  11·1

  214
  closing; at the end of March 1988 employment service job clubs had a job entry rate of 57 per cent. and external job clubs 50 per cent. In some employment service areas external job clubs are now performing as well as or better than their employment service counterparts. A number of initiatives, such as improved job club leader training, are in progress which should further improve performance.

  External job clubs already provide valuable help to long term unemployed people and statistics suggest they are capable of performing broadly as well as those directly run by the employment service.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details of the destinations of job club participants since the start of the initiative to the most recent date, by year, for the north-west region and for the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: Details of the destinations of job club participants since the year to 31 March 1987 are given in the table. Comparable earlier statistics are not available.

  Grade

  Total staff in grade

  Number of women in grade

  Percentage women

  G4

  12

  0

  0·0

  G5

  111

  17

  15·3

  G6

  120

  14

  11·7

  G7

  785

  124

  15·8

  In common with the rest of the Civil Service, the Employment Department group has carried out surveys of the ethnic origin of its staff. The surveys were undertaken on the basis of voluntary self classification. Results for 1 April 1989 show:

  Grade

  Total respondents

  Ethnic minority respondents

  Percentage

  Grades 1–6

  469

  3

  0·6

  Grade 7

  1,088

  9

  0·8

  All staff

  54,077

  2,501

  4·6

  A code of practice on the use of ethnic data exists to safeguard the confidentiality of individuals who have responded to the survey. For this reason we have not provided figures by individual grades for grades 1 to 6.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origin of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The first survey of ethnic origin of staff took place in 1986 and was undertaken on the basis of voluntary self classification. A further inquiry was sent to all staff for
  215
  whom the information was not held in November 1988. As a result we now know the ethnic origin of 91·5 per cent. of Employment Department group staff. My Department is now considering whether further action is required.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Cope
  Recruitment at grade 7 level and above is undertaken by the Civil Service Commission on behalf of my Department. Members of Employment Department group staff from ethnic minority backgrounds are participating in a series of newspaper advertisements being run by the commission to encourage more people from ethnic minorities to apply for professional posts. My Department is currently examining its effectiveness in selecting graduates with ethnic minority backgrounds, both externally and from our own staff for the "fast stream" schemes of management trainee and administration trainee/higher executive officer (development).

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new measures the Training Agency has undertaken in response to the report on racial inequality published in 1988 by the youth employment and training resource unit entitled "The Firms That Like to Say No".

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: This report presents a selective and biased account of the

  Table 1

  Details of entrants to employment training to end February 1989

  Percentage

  Entrants numbers

  Men

  Women

  Ethnic origin1

  PWD2

  Region

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  South East

  11,891

  65

  35

  90

  2

  2

  3

  3

  15

  London

  18,193

  59

  41

  50

  25

  12

  7

  6

  10

  South West

  11,081

  68

  32

  93

  2

  1

  2

  2

  16

  West Midlands

  22,564

  69

  31

  79

  9

  8

  2

  2

  12

  East Midlands and Eastern

  15,984

  73

  27

  87

  4

  6

  1

  2

  15

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  28,899

  75

  25

  90

  2

  5

  1

  2

  11

  North West

  30,202

  72

  28

  92

  2

  3

  1

  2

  12

  Northern

  20,473

  75

  25

  96

  1

  ֵ

  1

  2

  9

  Wales

  14,627

  71

  29

  94

  1

  1

  1

  3

  12

  Scotland

  22,512

  73

  27

  96

  ֵ

  1

  1

  2

  11

  1. Ethnic groups:

  1. White.

  2. Black/African/Caribbean descent.

  3. Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Sri Lankan descent.

  4. None of these.

  5. Prefer not to say.

  2 PWD—People with disabilities—People with a long-term health problem or disability which affects the work they can do.

  ֵ—Less than 0·5 per cent.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the most recent scheme by scheme details of the numbers of entrants and leavers, excluding community programme transfers, to employment training by sex, ethnic origin and disability in the Greater Manchester area.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: The information is not available in the form requested. Figures for entrants for the Greater Manchester area are provided in the following table. Information for these entrants who have now left employment training will be available in the summer.
  216
  representation of ethnic minority young people within YTS, and calls for no specific response. The Training Agency is, however, continuing its efforts to increase the proportion of ethnic minority trainees in employer-led YTS schemes. It is currently preparing improved marketing materials and new good-practice guidelines for managing agents, and is exploring with employer interests ways in which employers may improve and encourage access to training and employment opportunities for ethnic minority young people. A video is also in production to market YTS to ethnic minority young people.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details in for the nine standard economic regions, of the total numbers of entrants and leavers, excluding community programme transfers, to employment training by sex, ethnic origin and disability.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]The information is not available in the precise form requested. Information is only available for entrants for the eight Training Agency regions in England and for Scotland and Wales. The information for entrants to employment training to the end of February 1989 is given in table 1. The number of these entrants who have left employment training is currently only available for Great Britain as a whole and is estimated to be 50,000.

  Table 1

  Details of entrants to employment training to end February 1989

  Percentage

  Greater Manchester

  Entrants Numbers

  11,208

  Men

  72

  Women

  28

  Ethnic groups

  White

  88

  Black/African/Caribbean descent

  4

  Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Sri Lankan descent

  4

  None of these

  2

  Prefer not to say

  2

  PWD—People with disabilities1

  2—

  217

  1 People with a long-term health problem or disability which affects the work they can do.

  2 Information not available for Greater Manchester. Proportion PWD for North West region is 12 per cent.

  Legionnaires' Disease
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals exist within the Health and Safety Executive to review policy on Legionnaires' disease and air-conditioning systems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 11 April 1989]: The Health and Safety Executive is currently undertaking a review of policy on this subject for the Health and Safety Commission. The commission will inform me of the outcome of this review as soon as possible.

ENVIRONMENT

  Footpaths
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the subject of the Ramblers Association 1989 footpaths appeal; what measures he is planning to prevent footpaths being removed from definitive maps and to encourage local authorities to clear signposts and improve local paths; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a number of representations supporting the Ramblers Association's campaign to protect public footpaths. Successive Governments have recognised the importance of the rights of way network in providing access to the countryside for quiet enjoyment, and have given local authorities the duty of ensuring that such paths are recorded, maintained, and signposted where appropriate, and made available for public use. The Countryside Commission, through its "Enjoying the Countryside" initiative, has sought to encourage and assist local authorities to give appropriate priority to this work.

  Footpaths can be removed from definitive maps only by means of the statutory procedures providing for the creation, diversion and extinguishment of public paths. The Government propose to amend these provisions, in the light of the Rubinstein judgment, to restore the power to correct mistakes on such maps, where there is evidence to show that a right to way, or its status, was recorded in error.

  Recreational Facilities
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many acres of playing fields in(a) state schools and (b) private schools have been added in each of the last five years and how many have been lost to development; how many acres of private sports grounds have been added in each of the last 10 years and how many have been lost to development.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not held centrally. As far as school playing fields are concerned, local education authorities are required to meet the minimal standards prescribed by the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981. There have been some studies of private sports grounds which show that the position varies from 218
  area to area. While there has been a reduction in the number of grounds in industrial ownership there has been a substantial increase in both the quantity and quality of provision in the voluntary sector, for example, approximately 100 new artificial turf pitches have been provided in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what basis recreational need is assessed or calculated for the purposes of public inquiries.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The body or individual making the planning decision, whether a local authority, a planning officer or the Secretary of State, should consider the merits of the case having regard to all the relevant provisions of the development plan. They should also give consideration to the regional recreation strategies prepared by the regional councils for sport and recreation.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the significant regional variations in the provision per head of population of urban recreational open space.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what his Department recommends for the number of acres of playing fields per head of population; and what information he has on the figures recommended by (i) the National Playing Fields Association and (ii) the Sports Council.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department makes no recommendations about the average size of playing fields to be provided per head of the population. However, circular 33/70 encourages local planning authorities to consult with the appropriate sports council (now regional council for sport and recreation) on such matters. I understand that the regional councils for sport and recreation take into account the frequency of play and the days of peak demand in offering advice. The National Playing Fields Association recommends 6 acres per 1,000 people.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many additional areas of recreational open space would be available to the community if dual use became universal.

  Mr. Moynihan
  So far as I am aware, no assessment has been made of the additional areas of recreational open space which would be available as a result of universal dual use.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how his Department recognises and assesses increase in latent demand for sporting provision in the light of Government supported campaigns for healthy lifestyles and increased sports participation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Sports Council have a research programme which monitors and assesses the demand for sporting provision. The results of this research underpin the council's strategies as set out in its annual corporate plan and in its longer-term strategy documents.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance is provided by his Department in the form of target figures for provision of outdoor recreation land within urban district boundaries.
  219
  Mr. Moynihan
  Circular 33/70 sets out the Government's general policy on the provision of recreational facilities. It is for local authorities to decide specific target figures in consultation with local or regional sports councils and in the light of all material considerations. Circular 33/70 encourages local authorities to identify private open spaces in their development plan.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of what are the most popular forms of physical recreation(a) indoors and (b) outdoors, and of what is the stated and latent demand for facilities for these activities and the anticipated provision in the next five years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The table shows, by sport, the percentage of all adults participating in each activity in a four-week period immediately prior to interview. The figures are taken from the general household survey (1986). (Figures are rounded up).

  1977

  1980

  1983

  1986

  Outdoor

  1. Walking/rambling/hiking (2 miles or more)

  17

  19

  19

  19

  2. Football

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3. Golf

  2

  2

  2

  3

  4. Athletics—track and field (including jogging)

  1

  1

  2

  3

  5. Swimming (including public pools)

  2

  2

  3

  2

  6. Cycling

  1

  1

  2

  2

  7. Fishing

  2

  2

  2

  2

  8. Tennis

  1

  2

  1

  1

  9. Bowls

  1

  1

  1

  1

  10. Camping/caravanning

  1

  1

  1

  1

  11. Cricket

  1

  1

  1

  1

  12. Horse riding

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Indoor

  1. Swimming

  5

  6

  7

  9

  2. Snooker/billiards/pool

  6

  7

  8

  9

  3. Darts

  9

  7

  7

  6

  4. Keep fit/yoga

  1

  2

  3

  3

  5. Squash

  2

  2

  3

  2

  6. Badminton

  2

  2

  2

  2

  7. Gymnastics/athletics

  —

  1

  1

  2

  8. Bowls/tenpin

  1

  1

  1

  1

  9. Table tennis

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Information about the demand for facilities is not held centrally.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to what percentage of urban recreation land lost to development has been replaced within the urban area; and what percentage has been replaced in the urban fringe.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not held centrally. There have however been a number of local studies which suggest that, although the position varies from area to area, the overall provision of recreational land has remained fairly static.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many acres of municipally owned recreation grounds have been added in each of the last 10 years and how many have been lost to development.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not held centrally.
  220
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many planning applications for development of recreational open space have been approved by(a) local planning authorities and (b) at appeal in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Information about approvals given by local authorities is not held centrally. In the case of appeals, the Department does not keep records of decisions in a form which would enable me to provide the information requested.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent to which participation in sport and recreation is related to availability of facilities within walking distance for(a) car-owners and (b) non-car-owners.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Research carried out by the Sports Council show that on average 20 per cent. of those people using swimming pools and indoor sports centres travel more than five miles to reach the facilities. Thirty six per cent. travel less than one mile. Cars are the most popular mode of transport to sports facilities although there a re variations from region to region. Fifty two per cent. of swimming pool users travel by car compared with 25 per cent. who walk. Studies of indoor sports centres show that 67 per cent. of users travel by car whilst only 8 per cent. walk.

  Car ownership is one factor which determines the use of a facility. However other factors such as the size and management of the facility and the availability of competition are also important.

  Sport
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been undertaken or commissioned by his Department to determine the extent to which people who take part in vigorous sport on a regular basis smoke less than average; and what measures are being taken to increase participation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The general household survey shows that those people who participate in sport are slightly less likely to smoke than those who do not participate, whatever their age or income.

  The measures being undertaken by the Sports Council to increase participation are described in the following publications:

  The Sports Council Corporate Plan 1989–90;

  The Sports Council Annual Report 1987–88;

  A Strategy for Sport 1988–1993;

  Sport in the Community, Into the '90's

  Copies are available from the Sports Council.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent to which the gap identified in the Wolfenden report between participation in sport before and after leaving school has been closed; whether he is now seeking an increase in post-school participation in the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Sports Council has identified that participation in sport falls sharply once young people have left school. Figures taken from the general household survey (1986) show that there has, over the last five years been an increase, in percentage terms, in the number of
  221
  young people participating in indoor sports but a slight decrease in those participating in outdoor sports. The Sports Council has adopted a variety of policies and initiatives aimed at fostering increased participation among this age group.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to what extent the Sports Council campaign to increase sporting participation amongst young people has been successful; and what are its present aspirations in this area.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Sports Council has identified that participation in sport falls sharply once young people have left school. The council has adopted a variety of policies and initiatives, including the "Ever thought of Sport"? and "What's your Sport"? campaigns, aimed at reducing this trend.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria are established by his Department for the purpose of public inquiries as to how protection of(a) so-called "green lungs" and (b) view by residents are to be assessed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The body or individual making the planning decision, whether a local authority, a planning officer or the Secretary of State, should consider the merits of the case having regard to the relevant provisions of the development plan and all other material considerations.

  Departmental Circulars
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department intends to issue a planning circular to replace circular 33/70.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department hopes to issue a planning policy guidance note covering sport and recreation towards the end of this year. The PPG will consolidate and update the existing planning guidance, including that given in circular 33/70.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that private landlords who collect the community charge from their tenants keep accurate records of payments made by each tenant; and how the money will be recovered if any such landlord fails to pay in these sums in full by the date of enforcement action for recovery taking place.

  Mr. Gummer
  Landlords will be responsible for collecting contributions towards the community charge only where a dwelling has been designated for the purposes of the collective community charge. There is a legal requirement on such landlords to keep records, and it is for charging authorities to ensure that the law is complied with. No recovery action for a collective community charge can be taken against a tenant, whose sole liability is to pay contributions to the landlord. Landlords who fail to pay the charge are subject to the same remedies as other charge-payers, and in addition, where a debt exceeds £1,000, a local authority may apply to the court for a charging order on the property.
  222
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce imprisonment as a penalty for non-payment of the community charge.

  Mr. Gummer
  Imprisonment has always been available as a sanction of last resort where an individual refuses to pay rates, and where it is not possible to recover the outstanding amount through distraint. The remedies available to a charging authority for non-payment of a community charge have been widened to include, in addition to distraint, attachment of earnings and deductions from income support, to give people the opportunity to pay off arrears over time. If it proves impossible to recover the debt, a magistrates' court will be able to commit a person to prison but only if, having inquired into his means in his presence, the court are satisfied that his failure to pay was due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect.

  Babbington Colliery Tip
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial assistance his Department has given to reclaim the former Babbington colliery tip in Nottingham.

  Mr. Chope
  None. Responsibility for dealing with the tip rests with British Coal in accordance with the planning permission for tipping granted by Nottinghamshire county council.

  AIDS
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage housing departments and associations to work on the issue of AIDS/HIV and housing; whether he intends to make resources available either through a special allocation or through the housing investment programme; and if he will support the recommendations of the local authority officers working group on AIDS and HIV report, "Housing and HIV Infection."

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department is considering jointly with the Department of Health the housing implications of AIDS/HIV infection, taking account of the working group's report and other information.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Civil Service Commission is responsible for recruitment of top grades to all Departments of the Civil Service. Recruitment is carried out on the principle of fair and open competition.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively, and overall in his Department are(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Ridley
  The number of(a) women and (b) ethnic minorities in grades 1–7 employed in the Department of the Environment as at 3 April 1989 are:
  223

  (a) Percentage of officers who are women

  DOE

  PSA

  Grade

  Number of women

  Percentage of women

  Number of women

  Percentage of women

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  8·3

  0

  0

  4

  1

  10·0

  0

  0

  5

  21

  12·8

  2

  3·8

  6

  19

  7·8

  2

  1·1

  7

  105

  14·1

  21

  3·1

  Total

  149

  12·3

  25

  2·7

  All grades

  3,051

  42·8

  4,087

  28·8

  (b) Percentage of officers who are members of ethnic minorities

  DOE

  PSA

  Grade

  Number ethnic minorities1

  Percentage ethnic minorities1

  Number ethnic minorities1

  Percentage ethnic minorities1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  3

  2·1

  1

  2·4

  6

  2

  1·0

  2

  1·3

  7

  4

  0·7

  12

  2·2

  Total

  9

  0·9

  15

  1·9

  All grades

  350

  7·3

  412

  3·8

  1 Non-respondents to surveys not included.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origin of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Department completed its voluntary survey of the ethnic origins of staff already in post in the autumn of 1987. This information is kept up to date on a continuous basis by asking job applicants to complete a questionnaire about their ethnic origin.

  Water Rates
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average increase in water rates from 1 April by(a) water authorities and (b) statutory water companies.

  Mr. Howard
  I estimate that the average increase in all water charges is likely to be 9·8 per cent. for the water authorities and about 22 per cent. for the water companies. Information on the average rates levied on customers charged by rateable value is not yet available. I will publish the information requested in the Official Report as soon as practicable.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the average domestic water rate bill in (i) the current financial year and (ii) the financial year 10 years ago for(a) the Thames water authority region and (b) nationally; and if he will indicate the extent of the increase in real terms.

  Mr. Howard
  The average domestic water rate bill in 1979–80 for the Thames water authority region was £38·62, and for the whole of England, £41·47. Corresponding data for 1989–90 are not yet available.

  Climatic Change
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the hon. Member for Linlithgow may expect a substantive answer to his questions of 10 April relating to climatic change.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  These questions were answered on 12 and 13 April at columns 586 and 667.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to bring forward the tenants' incentive scheme and other measures to assist housing association members to attain home ownership; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 22 March at column 642.

  Rate Precepts
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which three county councils have had the largest rate increase since 1981–82; and by how much they have increased.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is as follows:

  County councils with highest precept increases between 1981–82 and 1989–90

  Rank and county council

  Increase Percentage

  1 Humberside

  164·5

  2 Derbyshire

  160·8

  3 Nottinghamshire

  140·4

  Rates
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the total proposed rate in Water Rates poundage and percentage terms for every local authority in England for 1989–90.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is contained in a report "Rates and Expenditure of Local Authorities in England 1989–90" which has been placed in the Library.

  Burtenshaw Farm, Bolton
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the announcement by Barratts Housebuilders of an intention to build on land at Burtenshaw farm, Bolton, which was the subject of his decision to uphold a restrictive covenant on 23 November 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  The enforcement of the covenant is a matter for Bolton borough council. I understand that the council is considering what action to take.

  Rents
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the rent due, excluding rates, was collected by inner London boroughs in 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89.
  225
  Mr. Trippier
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  Leasebacks
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the effect of section 100 leasebacks on housing investment programmes.

  Mr. Trippier
  Details of the treatment of housing investment programme allocation for leaseback payments under section 100 of the Housing Act 1988 appear in paragraph 22 of the Department of the Environment circular: "Tenants' Choice": The Housing (Change of Landlord) Regulations 1989 and the Housing (Change of Landlord) (Prescribed Forms) Regulations 1989. The prescribed expenditure arising from leaseback will not present a drain on the authority's housing investment programme.

  Housing Transfer (Gloucester)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what authority officers of his Department phoned Gloucester district council with consent for a proposed voluntary transfer; what was the legal status of that consent; and on what grounds the valuation of the sale was changed.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 4 April 1989 at column 153.

  Housing Subsidy
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the total amount and the average per tenant of(a) local authority subsidy for council housing, (b) central Government subsidy for council housing and (c) housing benefit payable in respect of council tenants in (i) England, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland and (iv) Northern Ireland in 1978–79 and 1988–89 for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Trippier
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Parkinson Homes
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many privately owned Parkinson homes remain unrepaired.

  Mr. Trippier
  Of the 730 privately owned Parkinson houses identified by local authorities, three have been registered for repair under the PRC Homes Ltd. warranty scheme and 211 had been reported as repurchased up to 31 March 1987.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all current publicity campaigns being conducted by or for his Department or ones planned for the first three months of 1989–90, indicating those which involve television advertising and the starting and finishing dates of each campaign.

  Mr. Ridley
  A public information campaign on the community charge will take place in May and early June 1989. This will not involve television advertising.

  Charitable Housing Associations
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he intends to give charitable housing associations on the circumstances in which they may acquire tenanted dwellings from local authorities and other public landlords.

  Mr. Trippier
  1. Housing associations now have wider opportunities to acquire tenanted stock from public authorities in three ways:

  under the tenants' choice provisions of the Housing Act 1988,

  proposals by a number of local housing authorities to dispose of their dwelling stock,

  the forthcoming wind-up of the remaining new town development corporations in England.

  The Department of the Environment and the Housing Corporation, in consultation with the Charity Commissioners, have prepared the following guidance for charitable housing associations with regard to the acquisition by them of tenanted housing stock.

  2. The main objects of many charitable housing associations are on the following lines:
  "to carry on for the benefit of the community the business of providing housing and any associated amenities for persons in necessitious circumstances upon terms appropriate to their means' and/or providing for aged persons in need thereof housing and any associated amenities specially designed or adapted to meet the disabilities and requirements of such persons".

  3. This guidance relates to associations with main objects expressed in the terms set out in paragraph 2 or terms which do not depart substantially from them. However, in all cases, an association's purposes, objects and powers must be carefully considered by its governing body, if necessary seeking legal advice and advice from the commissioners, before the acquisition of tenanted stock is embarked upon. Moreover they must be construed as a whole, and a proposed acquisition must be consistent not only with the main objects and powers but also with any others there may be.

  This guidance will refer to the various categories of qualifying needy or aged persons as "beneficiaries".

  The purpose of the proposed acquisition

  4. (i) In order to abide by the requirements both of its rules (or other governing instrument) and of general charity law, a charitable asociation may only purchase tenanted housing stock when it is satisfied that the acquisition will enable it to further its charitable objects and where the acquisition is capable of being regarded objectively in this way.

  (ii) A charitable association is likely to have two main reasons for contemplating an acquisition of tenanted stock: to provide a better service for the existing tenants than the present, or in some circumstances some other alternative landlord; and to increase the association's ability to provide, in the longer term, for beneficiaries of the kinds specified in its objects as vacancies arise in the acquired stock. A purchase for these reasons is capable of being within the association's main objects, depending on the circumstances. If for some reason one of them does not apply in a particular case (for example if the association is not confident of being able to provide better or more efficient management for existing tenants) correspondingly greater weight would have to be attached to the other for the transaction to be comparable with the objects.

  (iii) If the main reason for the acquisition of the tenanted stock is to provide vacant possession gradually

  227
  over a long period the association may to that extent also be looking at the acquisition as an investment. Accordingly, it may be considered desirable for associations contemplating the acquisition of public sector housing to ensure that their constitution allows the acquisition and holding of land as an investment.

  Factors to be considered by the association in assessing a proposed acquisition

  5. In assessing the compatibility of a proposed acquisition with its objects, the association's governing body will need to consider the following factors in good faith and with open minds (although the list is not intended to be exhaustive):—

  (i) how the acquisition fits in with the association's policy for fulfilling its objectives. The association must consider what the purchase is really likely to achieve for present and future beneficiaries, and whether it is an effective use of money and manpower which might otherwise be used elsewhere;

  (ii) the proportion of non-beneficiaries to the existing tenants as a whole. This will be a major factor. It is impossible to lay down a maximum acceptable percentage, because circumstances will vary too much from case to case, but beneficiaries should normally be a substantial majority;

  (iii) the extent to which the association may pick and choose particular dwellings within the portfolio on offer, and, conversely, the extent to which this might lead to difficult or inefficient management or other disadvantages to the beneficiaries. Where the portfolio on offer contains a substantial number of dwellings occupied by those who do not qualify as beneficiaries, the association may want to see if some or all of them can be excluded from the purchase. However, the vendor will not always be prepared to sell on this basis and there may in any event by management or social considerations which would make acquisition only of selected properties relatively disadvantageous to the beneficiaries;

  (iv) the expected rate of turn-over of non-beneficiary tenants. The higher the proportion of non-beneficiary tenants, the more important this will be. But the rate of turnover of beneficiary tenants may also be important if one of the reasons for the purchase was to get long-term access to vacant housing stock.

  (v) the opportunity to buy on advantageous terms. These transactions will normally take place not at unrestricted market value but at a lower "tenanted market value" assuming, among other things, that the dwellings will generally he kept available for letting and that rents will be kept down to levels within the reach of the lower paid.

  The preserved right to buy and other rights of tenants

  6. Existing tenants taken over from the public sector may have a preserved right to buy under section 171 A to 171 H of the Housing Act 1985 and section 127 of the Housing Act 1988. The association will need to take this factor into account, (and indeed the rights of or attributable to sitting tenants more generally, including security of tenure and a surviving spouse's right of succession) in considering how far the acquisition will enable it to provide for beneficiaries in the longer term (though these matters may of course be reflected in the purchase price). The right to buy might be disadvantageous if the association wanted a portfolio of properties as an integrated whole, to be kept intact as long-term housing stock for present and future beneficiaries, and the
  228
  association would have to consider how far its plans might be undermined by some tenants exercising their right to buy. But the fact that existing tenants, beneficiaries or non-beneficiaries, will have statutory rights including the right to buy does not of itself make the purchase inconsistent with the association's charitable objects.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Norwich, South on 6 April, Official Report, column 281, concerning bathing water standards which are the responsibility of the Anglian water authority, what steps he proposes to require the authority to report on breaches of the European Economic Community guide and mandatory levels for pollutants which are not recorded in its report in the Library.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 18 April 1989]: I am satisfied that the Anglian water authority is correctly fulfilling its sampling and reporting requirements under the EEC bathing water directive.

  Urban Programme (Stockton)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, how much is being spent in the parliamentary constituency of Stockton, South under the urban programme; and on what schemes it is being spent.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 18 April 1989]: The current anticipated spend on the eight approved projects located in the Stockton, South constituency from the inner area programme of Middlesbrough and Stockton-on-Tees borough councils for the 1989–90 financial year is £258,400. One further scheme valued at £13,000 is subject to discussion between the Department and Stockton-on-Tees borough council. The schemes are listed below:—

  £

  Security/Environment Grants to Industry

  52,500

  Thornaby Impasse

  4,200

  Riverside Stockton Landscaping

  500

  Neighbourhood Worker, Thornaby

  16,200

  CEDEMP Mobility Centre Test Track

  61,000

  Neighbourhood Management and Community Resource Centre

  42,000

  Whinney Banks Site 6

  62,000

  Street Lighting Whinney Banks

  20,000

  258,400

  In addition, the Stockton, South constituency will benefit, directly or indirectly, from a number of boroughwide projects totalling £306,545. Again, this figure could increase by a further £50,300 depending upon the outcome of forthcoming discussions between the Department and Stockton-on-Tees borough council.

  Water Charges
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average percentage increase in water charge for 1989–90 announced by the statutory water companies in England; and if he will list the percentage increase announced by each company in descending order of magnitude.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: 1 gave an estimate of the average increase in water company charges

  229
  in my reply on March 14 to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), Official Report, Vol. 149, column 211.

  The detailed information requested by my right hon. Friend is not yet available. I will publish a list when returns now being received by the Department have been analysed.

  Local Authorities (Businesses)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all local authorities which operate businesses themselves in competition with the private sector and the nature of each business concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: This information is not held centrally.

  Development Decisions (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which London boroughs currently supply his Department with information about development decisions in London; which boroughs do not; and what steps he is taking to ensure that all boroughs supply the information necessary for his proposed development monitoring system in London.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: Enfield, Haringey, Lewisham, Sutton and Waltham Forest are the only London boroughs which do not regularly provide the Department with information about development decisions. Officials are in communication with those boroughs in an effort to encourage them to provide the information.
  230
  The Department has set up a pilot study with the London planning advisory committee into establishing a development monitoring system with the co-operation of all the boroughs.

  Business Development (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he will use to decide whether London boroughs have made adequate provision in their unitary development plans for business development.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: The criteria used to judge whether adequate provision has been made will vary according to the individual circumstances and needs of the borough drawing up the UDP.

  Local Authorities (Finance)
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to restrict the access of local authorities to private financial markets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: Clause 34 of the Local Government and Housing Bill provides that, where local authorities are authorised to borrow money, they will be able to do so by borrowing from authorised banking institutions, from the National Debt Commissioners or the Public Works Loan Commissioners, from the private sector by means of loan instruments as defined in subsection 34(4), or, with the consent of my right hon. Friend, by other means. It would be for the authorities to decide which of these means to use.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be visiting Liverpool Combined Sports Centre on Friday, 21st April. Accordingly, I trust the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Friday, 21st April.

Energy Conservation in Buildings
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to introduce new regulations to improve energy conservation in buildings in view of the importance of such measures in relation to problems of global warming and the greenhouse effect.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment(The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, a consultation paper setting out proposals to amend the energy conservation requirements in the Building Regulations 1985 was issued last summer. The responses to this consultation paper are still being considered.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. Is it not the case that insulation standards in Britain are by far the lowest in the whole of Europe? Is it not also true that the department intended to bring in new building regulations in January 1988? Will the noble Earl please accelerate that process?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I will accelerate it as fast as I am convinced that what we propose is the correct answer. As I am sure the noble Lord will be aware, it is better to wait for a while to make sure that we are correct than to hurry into a decision.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if the Government are keen to promote energy conservation why have they slashed the budget for the energy efficiency office at the Department of Energy? Will the Minister confirm that the Government's budget for 1989–90 will be £ 15 million and for 1991 just £ 12 million? That compares with a budget of £ 20 million for 1987–88. How does the drop of 50 per cent. in funding energy conservation and promotion square with the Prime Minister's claims that Britain will become the most energy-efficient nation in Europe by 1990?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a question which has been answered recently by my noble friend Lady Hooper.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if building regulations are intended to improve energy use by up to 20 per cent., why is it that the construction industry in this country finds it so difficult to match the activities of similar industries in Europe?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the difficulty we have in this country, which other countries in Europe do not have, is of course the climate. One has to be certain that the technical risks associated with our proposals, such as increased condensation or rain penetration, do not counteract the benefits that could be derived from implementing the proposals for revised building standards, because in that case one only requires more energy for the problems created.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Earl saying that they do not have climates in Europe?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, that is not the point. We have a very different climate from other countries in Europe.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, is there not a conflict between insulating houses to keep people warm and opening the windows to keep people healthy? Can that not best be resolved by urging people to wear more clothes and not to live in their shirtsleeves in hothouses as they do across the Atlantic?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are talking about building regulations for new houses, a very small proportion of the total housing market and representing a very small proportion of what can be saved by energy efficiency.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that insulation of floors is very important? One reason is that if floors are not insulated it takes much longer to warm up rooms. It is not satisfactory to have insulation of floors as an alternative; that, I believe, is the case in present building regulations.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, provided it does not cause additional problems that have to be counteracted and remedied at a later stage at great expense with more use of energy, I agree with the noble Viscount.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the noble Earl study the experience of experimental houses in Milton Keynes, and elsewhere, which I believe show considerable benefits not only to the developer but also to the occupier?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the department and I are very well aware of the houses that have been built in Milton Keynes. Of course, we look to any ways whereby energy efficiency can be improved. However, I repeat that we must be certain that additional problems are not caused.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister now tell the House how it is possible to promote energy efficiency if the office that has been created by the Department of Energy to do that is having its budget slashed year after year?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper relates to new building regulations.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Earl cannot answer my question.
Noble Lords: Order!

Marine Nature Reserve: Search for Agreement
2.41 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they can yet give a date for an announcement of the second marine nature reserve and, if not, which matters have still to be resolved.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no date for an announcement of the second marine nature reserve can yet be given. Of sites under consideration, most progress has been made on that proposed for the area around Skomer where problems relating to the control of fishing within the proposed reserve have still to be resolved.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he not aware that there is one outstanding matter at Skomer? I refer to the dispute between divers and fishermen. Can the noble Earl tell the House whether the Government are to give a clear lead on that matter or whether we are to go on for ever with the present situation? Is not the noble Earl aware that for the third year in succession a temporary liaison officer has been appointed? Does that mean that for at least another year nothing will happen in relation to Skomer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in that there are difficulties, particularly with a sub-aqua club. The difficulty of a marine nature reserve, as I know the noble Baroness is aware, is that it cannot be ring-fenced. A fence cannot be put round it. Therefore, one has to work out a solution by discussion and co-operation because that is the only way to obtain a lasting benefit. Of course, I will pass on the concerns of the noble Baroness to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that this is the sixth time during the past four years on which this Question—or one almost identical to it—has appeared on our Order Paper? It is also the sixth time that in response we have received in the main prevarication and soothing words. Does the Minister accept that during those four years of waiting great damage has been done to some of the sites nominated by the Nature
770
Conservancy Council? Can the Minister say whether in the long term environmental imperatives are to be subordinate to commercial and sporting interests?
The Earl of Caithness:My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord says about the delays. Obviously we wish to proceed as quickly as possible. However, I am sure he will appreciate that with something as complicated as a marine nature reserve it is essential that we get all the interests together, otherwise it will take a great deal of policing, which in all probability is not practicable.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has asked my question very eloquently. Can the Minister tell us the position not only as regards Skomer but the Menai Straits as well? Can the Minister say whether we are to be fortunate enough very shortly to hear another constructive speech from the Secretary of State for Wales about these and other matters?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not have my right honourable friend's diary with me, but I shall pass on the comments made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. As regards the Menai Straits, the Nature Conservancy Council's consultation paper was published in September 1988 and responses were requested by January this year. To date 25 letters opposing the proposal and some 150 in support have been received.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, can my noble friend please give any clarification concerning responses to the extremely helpful document Some Questions and Answers that the NCC issued on the Menai Straits and the proposed marine nature reserve?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, not without notice. I cannot give that information to my noble friend now.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, why does the noble Earl say that it is so terribly difficult and complicated for Britain when other countries are promoting this kind of reserve? For example, has not the Minister seen the underwater national parks which exist in parts of America? The Americans seem to solve these problems reasonably easily. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell us why we are finding it so difficult.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we prefer to work by consensus. As the noble Lord will be aware, the first marine nature reserve at Lundy is working well.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it has taken five years for the first marine nature reserve to be established at Lundy, and it looks like a similar timescale for Skomer. Can the Minister tell us, for instance, the timescale for Loch Sween? Will it be 1996? For the Isles of Scilly, will it be 2001 and for the Menai Straits, 2006? In view of this casual attitude to delivering the sites, what plans do the Government have to speed up this very dilatory progress?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a question relating to that on the Order Paper and I will now answer him. I will pass on what the noble Lord has said to the Nature Conservancy Council. However, one has to take into account all the interests.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, do I understand that the Nature Conservancy Council is reducing its commitment to marine conservation when one takes into account the fact that it has transferred certain headings? For example, marine birds used to be dealt with under the birds' heading, but it has now been transferred to marine conservation. In effect, that is a cut in the marine conservation budget. Can the noble Earl comment on that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot comment on how the Nature Conservancy Council decide to apportion its work or the finances that the Government have given it on a very rapidly increasing scale. I can assure the noble Baroness that we have certainly not lessened our commitment to marine nature reserves.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, is not one of the problems that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 placed a duty on the Secretary of State to consider all the objections? Does the Minister not agree that that makes it very difficult to produce marine nature reserves such as the one proposed for the Menai Straits, where there have been a great many objections?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is right. I seem to remember that he was very keen that the Secretary of State should take into account all those who were in favour and those who were against the scheme.

NHS: Medical Research
2.48 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements they propose to make, as part of their proposed reforms of the National Health Service, for furthering medical research.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the White Paper Working for Patients makes clear, the Government are firmly committed to maintaining the quality of medical research. We recognise the complexity and special needs of this area and will be discussing with interested parties how best to achieve this aim in the context of the proposals in the White Paper.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can the Government assure the House that research interests will be properly represented on whatever policy and executive bodies may be established to administer the health service under the proposed reforms?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on that question to my right honourable friend. As the noble Lord knows, we have not yet given our responses to the House's Select Committee Report on Priorities in Medical Research, but we hope that they will be published in due course and will deal with such concerns.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the Minister not think it essential for the major and controversial proposals in the White Paper to be first tested by carefully evaluated pilot studies to see whether they work? Does he not further agree that the proposals of your Lordships' Select Committee on Priorities in Medical Research, among which was the proposal to set up a National Health Service research authority, would provide precisely the basis for undertaking such studies? Can the Minister say when Her Majesty's Government will give a full and considered reply to the Select Committee's report?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the White Paper sets out the Government's policy decisions, and further details are contained in the series of eight working papers which were published on 20th February. We shall be programming the introduction of changes carefully to ensure a smooth implementation. But pilot schemes could cause major uncertainty in the National Health Service as to the final pace and direction of change. The Government's response to the Select Committee's report will come in due time. My right honourable friend the Minister for Health hopes to write to the chairman of the Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, before the end of spring.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the moment civil research and development is bedevilled by the concept of near market research and development? This is based on the theory that if the user of the research wants it he will pay for it and if he refuses to pay for it he does not want it. Can the House be assured that this concept will not be applied to medical research?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that concept is certainly not applied to medical research. The Government give a great deal of money to medical research both through the Medical Research Council budget and through the department's direct funding of research.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, do the Government accept that what the BMA this week called,
"the serious threat to research and development in the White Paper",
is one of the reasons why there is a massive rejection of the White Paper proposals among doctors and nurses? Does the Minister really think that it makes sense to threaten to rush through these fundamental proposals for reorganisation in the face of the tremendous and determined opposition of those who are expected to implement the recommendations?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the White Paper makes it quite clear that there is no threat to research and that the Government are fully committed to a strong medical research infrastructure through universities,

773
medical schools and research councils and through the NHS. It recognises that action will be necessary to ensure that the National Health Service review does not harm opportunities for medical research in the NHS.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, has the Minister seen the document published this week by the British Medical Association? It is the association's report for its conference. It says:
"The council is extremely concerned about the minimum references to medical education and research in the White Paper".
It continues with several paragraphs of detailed comment. It would be nice to have as much detailed comment from the department as there is from the doctors' representatives.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well that paragraph 4.30 of the White Paper refers to research. It makes the Government's commitment to research quite clear.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, do the Government accept that the majority of general practitioners are really concerned about the welfare of their patients? That is why they are asking for additional evidence to support the proposed changes.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that there are concerns among general practitioners. No doubt the Government will take them into account. I am afraid that I did not quite catch the last part of the noble Lord's question. Perhaps he will repeat it.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I said that the general practitioners are asking for evidence to support the proposed changes.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Government are not proposing at the moment changes to research. The noble Lord is taking his question beyond that, to the White Paper itself.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Lord say something about the Government's proposal to split the financing of research from the financing of teaching in the universities? Will this apply to medical research?
Lord Henley: My Lords, at the moment medical research is funded by the department directly and by the Medical Research Council. As I understand it, that will continue.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord's department as concerned with consensus as the department of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness?
Lord Henley: Of course, my Lords.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that it is becoming increasingly clear that what is urgently needed is more time? If the proposals are introduced without adequate time for discussion,
774
and therefore without co-operation from the various professions concerned, they are doomed to failure. Have the Government at long last got the message that more time is needed in order to research, consider and possibly obtain the co-operation of the professions with some of the proposals?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we took a considerable amount of time before we came up with the White Paper proposals. We have allowed a considerable amount of time for their discussion.

Water Bill
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Water Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clause 1,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 2 to 4,
Schedule 2,
Clause 5,
Schedule 3,
Clause 6,
Schedule 4,
Clauses 7 to 23,
Schedules 5 and 6,
Clauses 24 to 69,
Schedule 8,
Clauses 70 to 73,
Schedule 9,
Clauses 74 to 77,
Schedule 10,
Clauses 78 to 108,
Schedule 7,
Clause 109,
Schedule 11,
Clauses 110 to 124,
Schedule 12,
Clauses 125 to 128,
Schedule 13,
Clauses 129 to 132,
Schedule 14,
Clause 133,
Schedule 15,
Clauses 134 to 137,
Schedule 16,
Clauses 138 to 147,
Schedule 17,
Clause 148,
Schedule 18,
Clauses 149 and 150,
Schedule 19,
Clauses 151 to 154,
Schedule 20,
Clauses 155 to 162,
Schedule 21,
Clause 163,
Schedule 22,
Clauses 164 to 179,
Schedule 23,
Clauses 180 to 183,
Schedules 24 to 26,
Clauses 184 to 187.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Western Alliance
2.55 p.m.
Lord Home of the Hirsel Lord Home of the Hirsel rose to call attention to the importance, while acknowledging all proposals for the reduction of international tensions, of preserving the unity of the Western Alliance and its power to resist aggression; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, some four years ago I moved a Motion in the House in the context of East-West relations that was somewhat similar to the one I move now. At that time 99 per cent. of the emphasis had to be laid on the physical security of the European democracies, because the foreign policy then of the Soviet Union was geared to the militant pattern of Communism, as practised by Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev, who held it as axiomatic that economic, political and social instability anywhere in the world would redound to the Soviet Union's advantage. It therefore favoured subversion, backed up where necessary by military force, as a legitimate means to gain a political aim.
The doctrine did not stop at theory. Public memory is short, but your Lordships will recall as a horrible reality the attempt to isolate Berlin from Western Europe, only countered by the hazardous and perilous air-lift, and the planting of nuclear missiles in Cuba on America's doorstep, denied until it was proved by photography. Those were acts of brinkmanship at that time which stretched the resources and the nerves of democracy to the limit. In that debate four years ago all I could say in terms of conciliation was that should the Soviet Union's policy seem to signal a change we must not miss the signs.
Today Mr. Gorbachev has given a signal far more dramatic than anything that could have been foreseen two years ago. Therefore the question I can properly put before your Lordships today is: how should Russia's neighbours, in particular the European Community and the NATO alliance, react and respond to this change? There is no easy answer as yet. We know too little so far of the goals for the Soviet Union which are in Mr. Gorbachev's mind. So far there has been a certain ambivalence. He declares in favour of glasnost and perestroika. Indeed, he has made them the plank of his appeal. But he says also that he intends to lead a Communist state. On the face of it, in terms of past experience, that is nearly a contradiction in terms, particularly as lately illustrated by the supply of bombs to Colonel Gaddafi's Libya. I shall make the case therefore, because we want no echoes of that kind of past, for a positive and prudent response until perestroika is illustrated and proved by visible, co-operative deeds.
A supplementary reason for prudence is that nobody knows whether after 70 years of discipline and direction the Russian people will be able or willing to absorb the turbulent adjustments involved in what amounts to a counter-revolution. I believe
776
that I am right to attribute the motive behind Mr. Gorbachev's reforms to the imperative need to avoid collapse in the Soviet Union's economy. The system of centralised socialist direction has been seen to fail to deliver the goods on anything like the scale which the Soviet state requires. The economic reforms were therefore born of necessity and were risqué but deliberate and calculated.
I am by no means so sure that the political consequences which will follow the economic changes and give evidence of weakness at the centre have been foreseen—for example, the fact that in Eastern Europe the Soviet Union will in future need to be content with something far short of military domination. That is clear in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland even now. There is also the fact that on the world stage far afield, the retreat from Afghanistan, the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola and the orders to North Vietnam to leave Kampuchea imply that the communist aim for world domination has had to be modified and is very likely to be abandoned.
These matters have been a shock to the Russian people after 70 years of confident propaganda about Russian supremacy and power. In those circumstances Mr. Gorbachev has very difficult choices to make. I believe that two choices are possible. The first is the minimum choice. He can rely on the economic reforms which he has made in order to restore economic viability to the country, and it may be able to accept the drastic limitations of military power and to settle down, if possible, in that way. As I say, that is the minimum option.
However, the second, the maximum option would be to recognise that great nations in the 21st century are not likely to be those which flaunt military might but those which can boast a lively and resilient economy and political institutions which form a stable base for order and which are committed to co-operate with others to ensure that this earth is a habitable place for man to live on. I by no means put that vision beyond Mr. Gorbachev's comprehension or calculations. Should he go for the big prize, what can Russia's neighbours do to help—that is to say, if he puts the most liberal interpretation on glasnost and perestroika?
If I am right about the parlous state of the economy of the Soviet Union and of the satellite countries, then there will be a number of questions which will acutely arise; for example, matters of credit for reconstruction in the Soviet Union and on the fringes in Europe. There commercial judgments will play their part, but practically I should have no objection to extensive credits for those purposes, with this caveat. It would be folly for the European Community to be so forthcoming with aid as in effect to enable the Soviet Union to continue to finance the massive mobilisation of forces and weaponry which it deploys in the Warsaw Pact area. Therefore, I believe that we should be sympathetic to the economic needs, but there must be a strong link between aid and mutual and balanced disarmament.
When I last negotiated with the old Soviet regime Mr. Gromyko refused to sit at a table if the formula

777
"mutual and balanced disarmament" headed the agenda. That obstinacy seems to have gone, and the Stockholm conference brought the acceptance of verification, which in my belief has changed the whole outlook for possible disarmament. Therefore, I can see the prospect of a sequence of negotiations which could end in agreement on elements of disarmament, and the list that I would suggest would be this: the perfection of confidence-building measures making full use of verification, and there has been considerable progress on that since Stockholm but there is room for improvement; which must seem now to be within reach, again with verification; and thirdly, the reduction of conventional weapons to a point where there is no temptation to use them for aggression; in other words, to a low level.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me a parenthesis for a couple of minutes. There are some in Western Europe who seem to favour the plan that NATO should increase conventional capability so as more nearly to match the Soviet Union's conventional threat. I believe that there is a flaw in that argument. Historically no conventional force and weapons have ever deterred a war. There have been many conventional confrontations; none has deterred a war. The reason why is surely clear. One leadership or another has always persuaded itself that numbers would win. Napoleon so calculated, the Kaiser so calculated, Hitler so calculated, and from what we have been able to measure of the communist battalions facing Western Europe, that was Stalin's calculations too.
So it seems that we have to look to some other method to deter war. I think that there will be long negotiations ahead of us with the Soviet Union, but I suggest that the sequence—that is, the measures to prevent surprise attack, the abolition of chemical warfare and the reduction of conventional weapons and forces to very low levels—should give a good and promising agenda.
At present there is a deadlock on the question of the retention of a minimum number of nuclear missiles. I am inclined to forecast that as the debate proceeds it will become evident that until total trust is restored—and that must be a good many years ahead—there will be less fear both in the Warsaw Pact area and in NATO if a minimum deterrent is retained. It will increasingly become apparent to both sides that the business of deterrence of war, preventing any war starting, is in the interests of all of us, including the Warsaw Pact and NATO. Deterrence is the business we must all be in.
If there are, as I believe, a minimum number of nuclear weapons to be retained, then they must be up to date, because, by definition, if a potential opponent knows that a missile is not up to date, it will not deter. I feel that there will probably be an agreement with the Soviet Union that a minimum number of nuclear weapons should be retained.
I felt that it was right at this time to put such questions before your Lordships so that we could try to discover whether Europe can work together in a positive but prudent response to Mr. Gorbachev's initiative. The question of deterrence is central to
778
all those problems. I repeat, unless we are successful in keeping a deterrent—I see no other at the moment than nuclear weapons—there will be a sharp deterioration in the position. If we in Europe can interpret correctly the signals from the East, if we can contrive a response which I would describe as a prudent response but one with foresight, we may yet construct a firmly based peace on the Continent of Europe.
3.11 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Home, for his timely Motion and for his interesting and thoughtful speech. I agree with much of what he said. I was encouraged by the note of optimism in his speech, and, as he said, we must not miss the signs. Of course scepticism at the end of a century of world wars is not unnatural, but there are also moments when one is entitled to be more hopeful about the future. With many others, I think that this is one of them. As the noble Lord reminded us, we have had several debates upon this subject and on East-West relations over the past few years. As we look back at them, everyone in the House, save the most pessimistic by nature, must concede that a historic change has been taking place over the past three years.
Perhaps I may refer to one of those debates which took place on 29th February 1984. the House will remember that it was the aftermath of the death of Brezhnev and the short reigns of Andropov and Chernenko. They represented the Soviet old guard. Some noble Lords argued strongly then that it would be a mistake to believe that we could rely on any significant change in Soviet foreign policy. They said that to the old guard détente was just another aspect of continuing confrontation and struggle.
On 9th December 1987 we debated the INF treaty and its implications. The noble Lord, Lord Home, then agreed with me that important changes had taken place with the accession of Mr. Gorbachev. He rightly pointed to verification as one of those changes. I recall that my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham, who is to speak later, took the same view; but today in this debate, without being naive, we can say that since Mr. Gorbachev took office changes of historic significance have taken place in the Soviet Union. The future will be profoundly affected, first, by the response of the West to those changes and Mr. Gorbachev's leadership; and, secondly, to his own ability to remain in power long enough for his economic policies to work.
The reduction of food queues and the Soviet's vast arsenal go hand in hand. The noble Lord's Motion deals mainly with the first of those two factors; namely, the response of the West to the changes taking place in the Soviet Union. He stressed the importance of the Western Alliance, and of course we recognise that. This year marks the 40th anniversary of NATO. Ernest Bevin was the chief architect of NATO in Clement Attlee's post-war Administration, and it has been the bastion of Western defence for 40 years, much of which was conditioned by the cold war. We remember 1967 and the Cuban and Berlin crises, when we felt that we were on the brink of war. It was on the whole a period when working for détente and disarmament

779
was a hard and at times a thankless task, but it is also impossible to resist the argument that NATO has preserved the Western democracies when the Soviet leaders were driven to ideological policies. The noble Lord, Lord Home, mentioned that he held office during that period, as did a number of noble Lords now in the House, and his speech reflected the mood of the period with its doubts and disappointments.
Although I was fighting the battles of Wales at the time, I well remember a discussion in Cabinet about the report published by the Belgian Foreign Minister, M. Harmel. The Harmel Report provided NATO with guidelines for coping with the acutely difficult problems of that time; and the British Government and their allies accepted his advice. There is no doubt that the Harmel Report gave NATO new confidence and clear objectives—what have been described as a dual policy of defence and détente—which lasted until recent years.
The question which the Western Alliance must address—this is the gravamen of the noble Lord's Motion—is whether new policies are needed which are relevant to the changes now taking place in the Soviet Union and in other Warsaw Pact countries.
The noble Lord referred to the proposals for the reduction in international tension; but is it not a fact that international tension has been reduced at present to a level that we have not experienced since the end of the war? Western leaders are not considering proposals to reduce tension today; they are puzzled as to how they should react to the remarkable détente which Mr. Gorbachev has achieved.
I should like to return to the Harmel Report for a moment, because that short but historic document has served its purpose. There is a growing belief that NATO needs new and revised guidelines to take account of current developments. The noble Lord discussed that point in his speech. It seems clear that NATO has some difficult problems to resolve. European countries are better off than they were when NATO was founded. There is a strong American view that they should contribute more to the overall budget. This country makes a major contribution, and has done so from the start, but there is a feeling that other European countries should increase their share of the burden.
Another argument is that Europe should manage its own defence and convert into a unified NATO Europe, treating with the United States of America on equal terms. There are other suggestions, as noble Lords will be aware, but they all point to the urgent need for a revised version of the Harmel Report. In his important article in The Times on 4th April which noble Lords will have read, Francois Heisbourg said that a new report:
"should … provide a sense of political direction for the Alliance, for the leaders of its member states and public opinion, by addressing a number of long term issues and setting bounds for political action. First, it should dwell on the Alliance's overall aims with a view to facilitating moves in that direction in a peaceful and constructive manner".
That is something which Harmel could not and did not do.
780
The formulation of a new NATO policy seems therefore to be the central issue in the forthcoming NATO summit. I am sure that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he comes to reply, will be able to confirm this. It will be a complicated task for the simple reason that NATO faces a different and indeed a continually changing scene in the East. NATO's most urgent political problem is one which has been exercising the attention of the right honourable lady the Prime Minister for some time; namely, the modernisation of short-range nuclear forces (SNF). This presents many real difficulties but it would be unfortunate if it was allowed to stand in the way of a new NATO policy. We know that Chancellor Kohl has strong reservations about the proposals to modernise the Lance short-range missile. Dr. Kohl has said, and this appeared in the Financial Times, that the Lance missile,
"remains sufficient and intact until 1995".
He does not think that it is necessary to take a final decision for two or three years. It is obvious therefore that a good deal of complex negotiation is required on a range of options. But once again, perhaps I may say that they should not be allowed to stand in the way of a constructive and forward-looking negotiation for a new report along the lines of the Harmel Report.
There are still a few people who will argue that the scheme has not really changed and that we must pursue the same objectives exactly as if Stalin or Brezhnev were in control. Is that really the position? Is that what people believe today? I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Home, believes this; the Foreign Secretary does not believe it and the Prime Minister herself has made plain her own view; namely, that President Gorbachev,
"has the vision, the boldness and the sheer power of personality to change the whole future of his country and to have a profound effect on the wider world as well".
We on this side of the House believe that Mr. Gorbachev's reforms are one of the most significant events, if not the most important, to have taken place since the war and certainly the most important events to have occurred in the Soviet Union since 1917. Glasnost has opened the doors and windows of Russia to public debate both on the platform and in the press in a way that was unthinkable even four years ago.
We detect improvement in political freedoms and human rights and we see a very real attempt towards political and economic reforms. To try to argue that there is no change is to be blinkered and prejudiced. To say that it is too slow is to underestimate the size of Mr. Gorbachev's task and to be unfair. He has embarked upon an immense enterprise; he has to tackle bureaucratic obstruction; he has to tackle the lack of economic progress, an impatient public expectation and other daunting problems in a vast federation of diverse nations with little democratic tradition.
All that is known to the House and we are also conscious that the reforms he has achieved thus far are not irreversible. The clock at this moment could be turned back. We must therefore consider the consequences for us and for the West generally if he

781
were to be replaced. It is therefore both right and sensible that we and our partners and allies should encourage the reforms. A reformed Soviet Union is a far more appealing prospect. The world has already reaped some practical benefits from the new approach and we have seen benefits in regional conflicts in Kampuchea and Angola and the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Another notable development is that the spirit of glasnost and perestroika is manifesting itself in other Eastern European countries, notably in Hungary and Poland. Hungary has agreed to move towards a multi-party system and last week government and opposition signed an agreement in Poland. The Solidarity trade union is now legally recognised. The wind of change is not yet blowing through the other neighbouring countries but its sound can be heard along the borders. We must hope and work for the best. I say again that we must welcome these changes in practical ways; if Soviet economic reforms provide new markets for the West we must take speedy advantage of them. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, as chairman of the British-Soviet Association, would agree with me on this. The Soviet Union under Mr. Gorbachev is rethinking its economic and foreign policy. We must respond to that and in turn re-assess our own policies as well.
However, while we welcome the new dispensation with the utmost goodwill, we cannot be expected to ignore the immense military power of the Warsaw Pact. The measures taken by Mr. Gorbachev in the field of disarmament are greatly appreciated in the West, but their scale of force deployment still remains formidable. Apprehension and a degree of suspicion still remain on both sides and I believe that Mr. Gorbachev understands that very well. It is one of the secrets of his success. But we must be satisfied beyond doubt that disarmament—nuclear, chemical and conventional—constitutes a genuine and fair deal for both sides. I think we are nearer to achieving that than at any time since 1945 and we must press on with the task.
Last week the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons published a most valuable report on Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. I am sure that noble Lords will have seen it; it is a lengthy and detailed document which calls for careful study. I propose to read the last paragraph of this all-party report because in my view it summarises the present state of affairs admirably. It says:
"We make no apologies for raising many questions in our report, the answers to which can only be hazily glimpsed at this stage. None of us can be sure what kind of Soviet Union to expect in the years ahead; where radical reforms in Hungary and Poland will take Central Europe; how relations will develop between the two Germanies; how the balance of power in Europe will be altered; and what the effects of all this will be for the transatlantic relationship. We are certain, however, of two considerations which directly affect Britain and her allies in NATO. First, the sea-change in relations between East and West presents us all with a challenge to which we must adjust and respond. We need to think afresh about the consequences of the changes we are now witnessing, and prepare to adapt our policies accordingly. Secondly, the potential for strains within the Alliance is as great as at any time since NATO was created 40 years ago. It will require a major effort if differences among European allies and between Europe and North America are to be managed successfully. Yet a common Western approach, which has brought us so
782
far so successfully, is as vital as ever, based on shared values, shared interests and steadfast defence. If our survey has revealed anything, it is that only a responsive and unified Alliance can make the most of the new situation between East and West."
The total trust, as the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said at the end of his speech, may take time to come but I feel in my bones that we can for the first time in decades view the scene with optimism; that we can, if we grasp the opportunity in concert with our friends and allies, change the course of history in what the Prime Minister has called "our common European home."
3.28 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friends will want me first to express our appreciation for the positive manner in which the noble Lord introduced the Motion this afternoon and in particular to express our agreement with his comments on the importance and hopefulness of the talks on conventional disarmament which have just started in Vienna and with the list of priorities he laid down for those talks. I think we also agree warmly with the striking expressions of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, about the "sea change", the enormous importance and far-reaching nature of the changes, initiated by Mr. Gorbachev.
However, both noble Lords also struck notes of caution. We all agree on the good intentions of Mr. Gorbachev; we all agree he is an honest man. But a question arises concerning the future and whether he can survive. I think it is significant to remember his illustrious predecessor, Kerensky, who was also a man of good intentions and honesty. He helped to get rid of one tyranny only to pave the way for another. It is in the great interests of the West that that should not happen again.
I submit that NATO has two tasks at present. The first is to be prepared for the worst and to stay prepared for the worst. The second is to try to prevent the worst happening. The Motion before us is strange in one way: the Government's policy is, I believe, out of line with it. The Motion talks about "preserving" the strength and unity of the Western alliance, but in two important respects the Government's policy is to increase the nuclear strength of NATO and the United Kingdom. First, they insistently demand—the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, touched on this—an increase in the power, range and accuracy of NATO's short-range nuclear weapons. At present NATO has 4,600 short-range nuclear warheads, some in freefall bombs, some on Lance missiles and some in artillery shells. The Government insist that these should be replaced and modernised. I am sure the Minister who is to reply will confirm, if pressed, that that step means modernisation plus escalation. The power, range and accuracy of the new weapons will be greater.
Perhaps the Minister will also explain the Government's present position as regards when the new weapons must be introduced. Certainly until recently, and I think it is still the case, the Government were insisting that NATO should decide now to start the development and production of these powerful new weapons, and that it should decide now to deploy these weapons when they are ready.

783
The argument in favour of the Government's policy is that in a few years' time, if the NATO short-range nuclear weapons are not strengthened, the Soviet Union may not be deterred from aggression. If the new missiles come in, we should be all right. However, if we are restricted to the present 4,600 nuclear warheads plus, of course, the British, French, and American strategic deterrents, plus the conventional forces, we may be faced with aggression. We may be faced with a drive to the Atlantic by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its allies, which means the Russians, the Ukrainians, the Georgians, the Armenians, the Balts, the Poles, the Hungarians and so on. This is the threat against which the Government are basing their immediate updating of the short-range nuclear weapons.
Mr. Gorbachev has made plain that he does not regard this scenario as realistic. There may be something in that, but he has not persuaded the Prime Minister. On the other hand, most of the NATO governments disagree with the Prime Minister on this point. The Belgians, the Dutch, the Germans, and now also possibly the United States, disagree with the Prime Minister. Perhaps the Minister can explain that.
The Motion states also that we should preserve the unity of the alliance. However, the insistence by the Government on what they call modernisation is dividing the alliance. There is no question that the alliance is seriously divided at the moment and the guilty party is Her Majesty's Government.
What should be the Government's line? Ministers argue strongly that while the Warsaw Pact has conventional superiority, the demand of the Warsaw Pact countries for the abolition of nuclear weapons throughout Europe is unacceptable. However, negotiations have now started in Vienna on conventional disarmament, and they are hopeful. Why then do we not agree to negotiate now, provisionally perhaps, for the reduction of nuclear weapons in Europe? How can it be right, at this most hopeful moment in Europe, to deny negotiations and to commit NATO to unilateral increases in its short-range nuclear weapons? Few things could be more helpful to Mr. Gorbachev's enemies in Russia. It helps them to argue that Mr. Gorbachev's new liberal attitude to the West is failing and that the West is taking advantage of the Soviet Union's weakness. They can also argue that if Lance is to be modernised, why should the Soviet reaction to Lance, the SS.21, not be modernised too. Therefore, the attitude of the Government seems to me contrary to what is plainly the wish on all sides that we should do what is possible to forward the disarmament process and to help Mr. Gorbachev maintain his credibility in his own country.
However, it is not just a question of the Government's attitude towards short-range nuclear weapons; there is also Trident. As East-West relations improve, as the Soviet threat recedes, the Government hurry forward with a fivefold or sixfold increase in Britain's strategic nuclear capability. Critics of Trident on these Benches argued from the beginning that for British require-
784
ments the Trident project was much too big, much too sophisticated and much too expensive. We recommended a more modest deterrent, such as the submarine-launched cruise missile. I venture a prediction that, as the months go by, in the deepest recesses of their minds, Ministers will begin regretting they did not take our excellent advice at the time.
We on these Benches would say, in spite of the improvement in East-West relations, that there is a fair case for maintaining the British deterrent at its current level of capability. But a sixfold or sevenfold increase at this time, in this new climate, is an absurd falling away from what the situation requires.
I was particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to the Harmel Report. I warmly endorse what he said. That report came out 22 years ago in a totally different climate. Now is the time for NATO to consider again its strategy and longer term aims in the quite different situation in which it finds itself now.
I hope that NATO will not just confine itself to matters of the balance of contribution between Europe and the United States. Again, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said. I hope it will take a large look at what has changed. I liked the phrase of the Commons Select Committee which talked of a "sea change". The "sea change" should be the basis of a new NATO report on the model of Harmel. I personally hope that the main conclusion of such a report would be that NATO's aim should be not to maintain the status quo, but to try for change by agreement, without upsetting the balance of power in the process. That, I hope and believe, should be the future approach of NATO because things are now moving so fast on both sides of the Iron Curtain that maintaining the status quo is probably impossible in any case.
On both sides in Europe people are beginning to raise and discuss the most far-reaching questions. Should there always be Russian and American troops beyond their frontiers in Europe? Should and can the German people always be denied self-determination, prevented from pulling down the Berlin Wall, denied neutrality and denied unification if they want it?
When the Soviet establishment simply urges loyalty to the Warsaw Pact, or when the NATO establishment simply urges loyalty to NATO, they could find themselves opposed by a growing tide of opinion, especially inside Germany. After all, NATO was created to deal with the threat of Stalinist aggression. If the threat had not been so obvious and so immediate it would not have been possible to bring the allies together to form the alliance. I speak as one who was to some extent involved in the process at that time.
NATO has been immensely successful and still has an important role. But the threat is no longer obvious; the threat is no longer immediate. Indeed, I do not believe that it is an exaggeration to say that at the moment the threat does not exist. While that situation continues—and may it long continue—it is perfectly natural that people should ask questions about the future. It is natural that they should question whether it is possible, gradually by

785
agreement, to evolve a system of common security which is not dependent on confrontation, a system of security which extends to both sides of the Iron Curtain. By definition a long-term aim is not immediately practicable, but it can give a sense of direction which is sometimes useful.
To sum up, in a number of fields the Government have responded well to the changes in the Soviet Union and the opportunities which those changes have presented. I think, for example, of the new and valuable diplomatic and personal relationships that have been formed between the Soviet Union and this country. But the picture is spoilt by the Government's obsessive demand for new and more powerful nuclear weapons. They are supported in those demands by the NATO and British military staffs, and the arguments of the military chiefs must always be respected. But there are occasions when they should be overriden in the broader national interest. This is such an occasion.
3.42 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne):My Lords, I should like to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Home for prompting this debate. Past experience and responsibility mean that no one in your Lordships' House is better placed to promote a debate on this subject. I also listened with interest to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. My noble friend Lady Hooper will respond to some of the points that have been raised by those noble Lords when she replies later this evening.
In the excitement two weeks ago of the important and successful visit of President Gorbachev to Britain, it was all too easy to forget that the same week marked the 40th anniversary of NATO. My noble friend's Motion offers a salutary reminder that it is NATO's policies. NATO's firm hand and cool nerve, which have helped bring about the climate in East-West relations in which such visits can be fruitful and worthwhile. And my noble friend is right to remind us of the importance of preserving the unity of the Western alliance and its firmness of purpose if the gains achieved so far are not to be put at risk.
At a time when NATO has just celebrated its 40th anniversary, it is worth returning to the fundamental charter of the organisation, the North Atlantic Treaty, to examine whether the principles and undertakings contained in that document remain valid today. After all, when the treaty was signed in 1949 the world looked very different: then, for example, the Soviet Union was continuing to blockade Berlin, as my noble friend reminded us. It is not unreasonable to ask ourselves whether we still need an organisation such as NATO, which was established at a time of extreme tension between East and West.
The answers to these questions are, I submit, contained in the preamble to the North Atlantic Treaty, in which the parties affirm their determination:
"to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law".
786
That is what NATO is about, and the values which we have undertaken to preserve in the treaty are as essential today as they were 40 years ago. NATO is not simply a military alliance based on an undertaking to treat an armed attack on one member as an armed attack on us all. That is of course a vital element of the treaty, but it would not, I think, have survived the passage of time had the fundamental values of democracy, liberty and the rule of law not been common to all the parties.
Changes in the world have brought with them new challenges for NATO to meet. When East-West relations were at their most adversarial the primary task of the alliance, to maintain adequate forces to ensure the security from attack of our countries, was difficult but essentially straightforward. The remarkable improvement in our relations with the Warsaw Pact is one which we all welcome unreservedly. But we recognise that it brings with it questions which the alliance has hitherto rarely had to face. The most critical of these is how to continue to foster good relations between East and West without jeopardising our security—how, in the words of the NATO Secretary General,
"to ensure that the Alliance is both an anchor of stability and an instrument of change".
We do not doubt that the alliance has the answer to this question. The underlying approach mapped out in the Harmel Report, to which reference has already been made, is as valid today as it was then. The alliance must continue to rest its policy on the twin principles of maintaining adequate military strength and political cohesion while pursuing the search for more stable East-West relations and, to use that rather unfashionable word, detente. I commend to your Lordships a sentence from the recently published report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the other place on Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred,
"A common Western approach, which has brought us so far so successfully, is as vital as ever, based on shared values, shared interests and steadfast defence".
In considering the improvement in East-West relations in recent years there is a tendency to give a great deal of the credit to President Gorbachev. Certainly, his achievements have been remarkable by any standard. His ambitious programmes of economic and structural change at home, and his readiness to grasp difficult, even embarrassing nettles abroad, to see what needs to be done, for instance in Afghanistan, and do it, make him a leader with whom the world can indeed, as the phrase goes, do business.
At the same time, we must be clear that within the Soviet Union the process of perestroika is no guarantee of political stability. No changes so far brought about are yet irreversible. It was clear from President Gorbachev's Guildhall speech and his discussions here recently that he is under no illusion about the difficulties lying ahead in the reform process. The economic problems which he faces are massive, with endemic shortage; everywhere evident. Add to these economic problems the nationalities issue and it is only too easy to see the considerable cause for concern which the Soviet

787
leadership must be experiencing. We welcome the recent improvement in Soviet human rights performance but here too there is still a long way to go before fundamental freedoms become a natural and institutionalised feature of Soviet society. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that the Soviet Union is about to become a liberal pluralist democracy with a market economy.
On the military side, Soviet forces will perhaps be somewhat smaller in future. But they will also be, thanks to the reforms initiated by Marshal Ogarkhov, leaner and more efficient. With the uncertainties in the Soviet Union and the lack of any fundamental change so far in Soviet military capabilities, the NATO alliance is thus amply justified in maintaining a sensible policy for the security and defence of Western Europe.
NATO's firmness hitherto has been at least as much the cause of better East-West relations as the commendable rethinking of the Soviet leadership. The milestones that have marked the improvement in those relations, such as the INF Treaty, have long been NATO priorities whose achievement was hitherto blocked by the intransigence of former Soviet regimes. We all know that Mr. Gorbachev is a skilled repacker of Western proposals upon which he stamps the words "made in Moscow".
The INF Treaty demonstrated to us a principle that applies directly to the Motion before us today. The alliance need not be afraid of doing business with Mr Gorbachev provided that we have a clear picture of where our interests lie and an unshakable resolve not to be distracted or deflected from pursuing those interests. I shall go further: provided that we keep our resolve, we shall be able to achieve further success in enhancing the security of the world in which we live. If, on the other hand, we allow our defences to become obsolete, or if we were to accept the denuclearisation of Europe, or if we were to allow Europe and North America to be decoupled, we would leave the Soviet Union in a dominant position which he would surely exploit, if only politically.
There are some who see the debate in progress within the alliance about the modernisation of NATO's short-range nuclear forces, and particularly a successor to the Lance missile, as a test case of whether NATO is prepared to maintain adequate defences. But we should not make more of the differences of opinion within the alliance than they warrant.
A perusal of NATO communiqués and statements by those governments concerned well demonstrates that there is a great deal of common ground on that subject. NATO ministers are all agreed that we cannot accept an ageement leading to no short-range nuclear missiles on either side—the so-called third zero—since those systems play an important role in NATO's strategy of flexible response. We also agree that the current Lance missile cannot be sustained beyond the mid-1990s. Having accepted those two propositions, as NATO ministers have, the need for modernisation is clear and overwhelming. The question is not whether NATO will modernise its short-range forces but when and exactly how that decision should be taken.
788
We should not forget the very large reductions which NATO has already made in the number of nuclear warheads that it retains in Europe. Since 1979 we have achieved a reduction from 7,000 to 4,600, which amounts to 35 per cent. of the total, and we hope that further reductions will be possible in the future. In achieving those reductions, we have disposed of four types of nuclear weapons: ground launched cruise missiles, Pershing missiles, surface-to-air missiles and nuclear mines. But such cuts make it all the more important that our remaining theatre nuclear systems remain effective and up to date. Obsolete weapons do not deter.
Noble Lords may think, as I do, that the withdrawal of 24 out of some 1,500 Warsaw Pact short-range missile systems, announced with such a fanfare by Mr. Shevardnadze, hardly merits serious consideration by contrast. The fact that obsolete weapons are ineffective is well understood by the Soviet Union, which, whatever Mr. Gorbachev may say, has conducted widespread modernisation of its nuclear forces at all ranges. We estimate that 95 per cent. of Soviet short-range nuclear missiles in the forward area have been modernised in the last five years, four of which Mr. Gorbachev himself has presided over. Having completed their own modernisation programme, the Russians are now trying to torpedo NATO's much more modest undertaking. They must not succeed.
It is undeniable that there are people in the alliance who have a hankering for negotiations with the Warsaw Pact to reduce the level of short-range nuclear forces in Europe. But it is a simple fact of life that to be successful participants in a negotiation must have broadly compatible aims; and, as the recent Warsaw Pact declaration on tactical nuclear weapons in Europe shows, that is not the case. The avowed aim of the Warsaw Pact is the denuclearisation of Europe, which we believe would undermine the stability that we have enjoyed for the past 40 years. For NATO, on the other hand, theatre nuclear forces remain an essential element of deterrence. With such conceptual differences existing in that field, what chance would there be of a successful outcome to any negotiations on short-range nuclear forces? If Mr. Gorbachev really wants to enhance security in Europe, let him emulate NATO and reduce his arsenals to the levels to which we have reduced ours.
The fact that the Government see no prospect of enhancing our security through negotiations on short-range nuclear systems in Europe should not of course be taken to imply that we see no value in nuclear arms control in general. Where common aims and the prospect of enhancing Western security at lower levels of forces exist, as in the case of the negotiations on strategic nuclear forces between the United States and the Soviet Union, the Government enthusiastically support such initiatives.
START will probably be the most important arms control agreement ever. Not only will it result in substantial reductions in warhead numbers, but it will also enhance stability by imposing disincentives to the retention of some of the less stable elements in the superpowers' strategic nuclear arsenals.

789
It is not surprising that the new US Administration are determined to review their position before they re-enter the negotiations. Apart from the normal review that a new administration might prudently wish to undertake, President Bush also faces difficult decisions on the future structure of US strategic forces, such as the modernisation of its ICBM force. Nevertheless, as regards the overall prospects for a START agreement, we remain optimistic. Of course difficult issues have still to be resolved: none of them presents easy solutions. Of these, the questions of the future of strategic defence, sea-launched cruise missiles and verification will be the most difficult to answer. We believe, however, that a deal is there to be done.
I should like to apply the moral of NATO clarity and firmness to another set of negotiations beginning between the countries of East and West—the talks on conventional armed forces in Europe now getting under way in Vienna. There are those who believe that the onus in these talks lies on the West: that it is up to us to come up with a response to the troop withdrawals already announced by President Gorbachev at the United Nations last December and supplemented by him and others since. That is not so. We are the ones who have already put on the table in Vienna a detailed proposal, intended to increase stability by reducing the numbers of weapons that either side holds which are capable of seizing and holding territory. We are the ones who have proposed that ceilings be placed on specific kinds of equipment: tanks, artillery and infantry fighting vehicles. We are the ones who arrived in Vienna and showed straightaway that we were ready for negotiation.
The talks there have got off to a cordial and workmanlike start. We hope that the Eastern countries will prove to be as ready as ourselves to make a success of them, for the goal is a situation in which it would become impossible for either side to mount a surprise attack or sustain offensive action against the other. NATO, as a defensive alliance, is already in that position. President Gorbachev's New York unilateral cuts, though welcome both in themselves and because of the approach that they illustrate, are less ambitious. They would not substantially reduce the Soviet capability against us; they offer no such dramatic change as our proposals do. What we want is equality in outcome. So let no one expect the West to make equal concessions to those that we shall require of the East.
As Mr. Gorbachev himself has accepted, asymmetries must be eliminated by the side with the larger forces reducing to the level of the other. The negotiations will be more complex than any others yet attempted. But let me apply my moral once again: provided that NATO keeps its resolve, it will be able to challenge the East to co-operate with us in overcoming a problem at the centre of our security concerns; namely, the massive conventional imbalance in favour of the Warsaw Pact. If we are successful, stability in Europe will be immeasurably enhanced.
NATO's third major arms control priority is a global ban on chemical weapons. The United
790
Kingdom abandoned its offensive CW capability in the late 1950s. For 17 years from 1969 the United States observed a unilateral moratorium on CW production. Meanwhile the Soviet Union built up the world's largest and most sophisticated CW capability. Until 1987 it did not even admit to possessing chemical weapons. The figure which it has now stated for its stockpile—50,000 tons of toxic agent—is still several times lower than Western estimates. This issue was discussed during Mr. Gorbachev's recent visit, but no further information emerged on Soviet capabilities to allay our concerns. There is thus a need for much greater openness in order to build confidence. We also need practical proposals from all partners in the negotiations in Geneva to resolve the remaining problems in concluding an agreement. The Government have been active in making such proposals and we shall continue to work hard for a CW ban. But in this field as in others, firmness and resolve by the alliance, coupled with imagination, will be the best means of overcoming the complex issues which remain, particularly on verification.
This is the message of the Motion before us today. The value to us of the unity of the Western alliance, and the power to resist aggression which flows from that unity, is not reduced by developments which tend to improve the climate of East-West relations. We do not need NATO less because President Gorbachev has undertaken to reduce the preponderance of Soviet over Western tanks from 3 to 1 to 2.4 to 1. We cannot abandon the collective self-defence arrangements which have brought as 40 years of security just because the prospects for a START treaty or a chemical weapons convention look rosier than at some times in the past. It is not the smiling bear who keeps us safe.
We in the West assure our security by one means alone: by our own efforts. Whatever may be true of justice, it is not true of peace that it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven. We have to work for it with a stout heart and a cool nerve. And within the alliance we have to work for it together. Unity and determination do indeed provide the best means of guaranteeing our security, even through the heady East-West developments which we are now being lucky enough to live through. And that is why I commend my noble friend's Motion to your Lordships' attention.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I think we are more than usually grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, for introducing this Motion today. He introduced it with the authority and experience that we should have expected. I suspect that many Members of your Lordships' House will not be surprised when I dissent from some of the more enthusiastic reactions that there have been in the West to the phenomena of glasnost and perestroika. Of course it would be foolish in the extreme to suggest that no change at all is taking place in the Soviet Union. Patently there is change occurring but I suggest that it is taking place on a very limited scale. It is certainly not revolutionary or counter-revolutionary. I take leave to doubt whether we can yet say with any certainty that it is historic.

791
In spite of the changes that have taken place, there has been no deviation from the basic political or ideological structure of the Soviet Union. The recent elections which took place and created such a sense of sentimental euphoria in sections of the British media were not elections at all. More than 90 per cent. of the people who put themselves up for election were members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. An election in any democratic sense of the word denotes the ability to change the way in which one is governed. No such possibility was available to the people of the Soviet Union in those so-called elections. As one noble Lord has already said this afternoon, there is no sign whatever—and in my view no possibility—that the Soviet Union is moving toward the status of a pluralist society with a free economy.
Of course Mr. Gorbachev is seeking to make the Soviet Union more prosperous, more self-confident and more self-reliant. All that is very welcome indeed and very good for the people of the Soviet Union; but at the same time I can detect no sign of any fundamental changes in foreign policy. There have been a number of small adjustments. The Soviet Union—much has been made of the point—has withdrawn from Afghanistan. It withdrew because Afghanistan had become a political and military disaster for the Soviet Union, and it was only too happy to get rid of that incubus.
However, I think we should bear in mind that what Mr. Gorbachev is trying to do inside the Soviet Union may not necessarily be good for us, good as it may be for the Soviet people, unless there are fundamental changes in Soviet foreign policy and especially its military policy. At this point I turn to the question of arms control. It seems to me self-evident that one course which Mr. Gorbachev recognised that he had to take was to reduce the crippling Soviet military budget. He had therefore to reduce his own armed strength and, just as any other intelligent statesman, he was concerned to see that the West reduced its arms at the same time. It is for that reason that arms control has been one of the major instruments of the recent Soviet diplomatic offensive.
We should be very careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that an arms control agreement is necessarily a good thing for its own sake. Arms control is a facet of security and defence policy. It is only good if, preferably, it increases our own security but, at the very worst, does not diminish it. I am worried about most of the arms control developments taking place at this moment. I believe that the INF treaty itself contains certain dangers. There is the danger that if it were followed through to its logical conlusion we should soon have a nuclear-free Europe, which has been one of the basic aims of Soviet foreign policy since the days of Adam Rapacki. It is no more welcome now than it was 30 or 40 years ago. That is why I very much hope that the Government will not be deterred from their efforts to ensure that the shorter range missiles in Europe are kept up to date and effective and that the Soviet Union is not allowed to achieve that major aim of its foreign policy.
792
We are next promised a 50 per cent. cut in strategic nuclear systems. Let us look at that offer also with a somewhat sceptical eye. It is not quite as simple as it sounds. Removing half the missiles on both sides may sound like a very desirable objective but we must remember that there is a difference between a nuclear capability that is equipped and designed for first-strike purposes and one that is designed and intended for retaliation. If one simply reduces the size of those forces without taking account of the kind of missiles that are to be removed, their range, their capability and their ability to penetrate hard targets, then after having made that 50 per cent. reduction, one may find oneself far worse off than before it was made.
Similarly in the conventional field we must be very careful in these very complicated negotiations. It is not only the number of forces that counts; what matters is exactly where they are, where they are deployed, what is their tactical doctrine and what is their training. I hope that we shall be successful in persuading the Soviet Union that any reduction, as the Minister said, must be asymmetrical; in other words, we must find when we have completed the reductions that the forces are balanced. It is the forces that must be balanced and not the reductions. But even if we succeed in doing that, I believe that unless we are careful about the way in which our own forces are deployed and the way in which the Soviet Union carries out its reductions, including where it carries them out, we shall find ourselves once again in graver difficulties than we were before the arms control process began. Finally, there is the question of chemical weapons. Yes, we have given up our offensive capability. The Soviet Union has an overwhelming superiority in this field. I would only point out—and I hope that the Minister will accept this—that the verification of a chemical weapons agreement will be more difficult than the verification of any other kind of arms control agreement. I even go so far as to say that in my view, as the technology stands at the moment, a chemical weapons treaty is unverifiable. I believe that we have to be very careful in approaching it.
I move now to the more political aspect. Mention has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, of the fact that the Gorbachev changes are not irreversible. Indeed they are not, but this is perhaps a more serious matter than the noble Lord seemed to reflect in his very thoughtful speech. So far there have been no changes of any kind in the constitution of the Soviet Union. There is no sign yet that the rule of law has any chance of being superior to the rule of the Communist Party. The Gorbachev changes are being resisted constantly and powerfully within the Soviet establishment. There are people in the KGB, in the military forces and in the regional bureaucracies who are determined to see that Mr. Gorbachev does not succeed. His difficulties are being compounded now by the unrest among the various nationalities that make up the Soviet Union. The changes are not irreversible. Indeed it is quite possible that they may be reversed, savagely and dramatically, at any moment. If the West is too naÏve in regarding these changes as revolutionary and historical, we will have engaged

793
in measures of arms control which in no way have enhanced our security and may even have diminished it at the very moment when the smiling Mr. Gorbachev disappears from the scene and a Stalinist regime returns to Moscow. I admit that that is the worst case but anyone in charge of the affairs of a nation state in the world in which we live today must never dismiss the worst case entirely. It sometimes happens.
What should the policy of the West be? It is certainly not to ignore what is happening in the Soviet Union. That again would be foolish and imprudent in the extreme. However, I suggest that our first priority is to maintain effective defences, not only military defences—although they are the most important part of our national security—but also our political and psychological defences. I suggest that we must not fall ourselves, or allow our people to fall, into the trap of thinking that the Soviet threat no longer exists. Of course the Soviet threat exists. Even if its intentions may temporarily have changed, its capabilities have not changed all that much. Mr. Gorbachev talks about a reduction of 500,000 men and women in his armed forces. I think that when we welcome that—and some have welcomed it with great enthusiasm—we should bear in mind that the Soviet Union has 5 million men permanently under arms. It has trained reserves of 50 million. It has a military establishment almost equal to the entire population of this country. When it has removed its 500,000 men, and when it has withdrawn its armed forces from Eastern Europe, it will still have a military establishment greater in strength and numbers than all the Western nations put together. That is the context in which we must consider Mr. Gorbachev's unilateral reductions and the context in which we must regard any statement that is made to the effect that the Soviet threat has disappeared.
I believe that we must maintain effective defences and deterrents in this country and in the West. To do that we shall need, as the Minister has said, to pay attention to the political solidarity of the West. That is in danger at the moment. It is in danger partly because Mr. Gorbachev is beginning to succeed in another of the cardinal aims of Soviet foreign policy: to separate, or decouple, the United States of America from its allies in Western Europe. He is beginning to succeed. He is beginning to succeed because of the subtlety and effectiveness of his diplomatic offensive. One of the danger areas will be West Germany. I suggest to your Lordships' House that as we sit here today serious and dangerous developments are taking place in political thinking in West Germany to which we should pay very careful attention. As someone has already said, we shall need to bear that in mind when we are talking to the West Germans and to our other European allies about the timing, the method and the means of modernising our shorter range nuclear weapons.
In this context we should be careful of such expressions as our "European home". That was a phrase invented by Mr. Gorbachev. It suggests that in some way there is a future for us alongside the Soviet Union rather than alongside the United States
794
of America—a seductive proposition but in my view an extremely dangerous one. It is my strong belief that the foreign policy of this country and of our Western European allies should have as its single cardinal aim to ensure that the United States of America remains fully committed, physically, psychologically and politically, to the defence and security of Western Europe.
Am I suggesting then—as I am sure some would believe—that we should do nothing, hat we should resist all attempts at arms control, that we should ignore what is happening in the Sovet Union? No, I am not suggesting that. I believe that there is now room for imaginative and flexible responses to what is happening in the Soviet Union. However, above all we must remain strong and resolute. We must not roll over at the first signs of tentative change in an empire and a regime which has remained cruel and, to us I think, intolerable in its political and ideological implications for 40 years. We must not believe that in a couple of short years all that can suddenly change. If we remain strong and resolute in the face of this diplomatic offensive, I believe it quite possible that within a measurable time—quite a short time—we may see the beginning of the unravelling of the Soviet empire. If we are clever, subtle and strong, we may even see the beginnings of pluralist societies growing up in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. If and when that happens, perhaps we can relax, but not before.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I join with others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Home, on this timely Motion. In this quarter of the House we agree very much with what has been said by the noble Lord the Leader of the Labour Opposition. I now turn to the substance.
I should like to start by telling the House a story which may be well known to some. However, it is not generally known. When Mr. Gorbachev came on his first visit to London before he WELS Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, he had a meeting with the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. Some Peers were courteously allowed to be present.
He was questioned about the possible growth of Islamic fundamentalism in the Soviet Union. The question was put to him: is that a problem? He said, "I think I understand your question. I would answer it thus. Lenin at the time of the revolution bade the Russian people to be very careful that all the other peoples in the nascent Soviet Union should be able to share fully in the expected economic benefits of Communism. If we had not paid good attention to that advice I do not think that I should be sitting today at the head of this distinguished delegation in your beautiful country."
Gorbachev was wrong about that, and that is the main recent event that we must take on board in this country. They did not pay sufficient attention to that, or they did not pay sufficient attention to something, and it is hard for us to know what. It is possible that he will not again come as the head of a distinguished delegation to our beautiful country, but somebody else will. It is possible that 40 different

795
people may come from what are at present the constituent republics of the Soviet Union. There is a risk of total break up; they all have the right to secede.
We may be misleading ourselves if we put the question: is Gorbachevism reversible or irreversible? It would not be like that. If Gorbachev fell we may be sure that there would never again be a Brezhnev or a Chernenko. It will not be like that. But what there surely would be is the end of the Russian empire, which is long overdue in any case. We may remember the Russians got theirs at the same time as we got ours. The only difference was that they walked and we sailed. Once upon a time there were 14 European empires outside Europe. There is now only one left. We may also remember that they reached the Pacific 40 years before they reached the Baltic and 100 years before they reached the Black Sea. That is the kind of historical view which often eludes us when we are considering the consistency of that extraordinary and confused body politic.
Why do we talk all the time using two Russian words, perestroika and glasnost? We do not use the French or the German words for the same things when we see them there. They mean quite simply "restructuring", meaning economic restructuring, and "openness" or "transparency". The fact that we adopt them as motto words, like pets in English, also clouds our vision. They are Mr. Gorbachev's declared aim. He is getting a certain distance forward with them, but not as fast as he would like. Incidentally I was astonished that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, seemed to believe that the election of Yeltsin in Moscow was of no political significance and that the election of rival candidates all within one party is an innovation which is not of any importance. I differ from him there. I believe it is a good deal better than the automatic election of one candidate from one party for whom you either voted or you stayed at home. That is a great step forward.
There is a danger that we may tend to give the Soviet Union brownie points for its progress in openness in economic reform. That has been a risk for many years now. We tend to mark on a scale from nought to 10 the Russians' performance in human rights, their performance in freedom of the press and in allowing Jews out—many important things. But at the end of the day we have to live with the Russia we get. We have always had to. It has always been difficult. The prime gauge of how we should frame our policy is Russian foreign policy and defence policy. That does not depend on internal liberalisation. There are plenty of historical examples of countries which are despicable despotisms at home, but which have had a more peaceful foreign policy than countries which have vivacious democracies at home. I shall not take time in going into them because that would be contentious, but it has happened. I think that most noble Lords will fill in their own examples.
How to look at them and how to look at their current proposals? The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, called Mr. Gorbachev "a great repackager of Western ideas." So he is. Should we not be pleased? What do we want him to do? Do we want him to go on bended
796
knee and say that he accepts our wonderful proposal of 27th February 1987 and that he is sorry he has been so long about it? What is against his putting something very like it on the table slightly repackaged and saying "How about that?" If the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is right, (and I believe that he is) in saying that these are very largely recycled Western ideas, and government propaganda in the West is always saying that, does that mean that they were bad ideas and that we should somehow hold him in scorn for having re-presented them to us? On the contrary does it not mean that we should be rather grateful for him not putting us to the pain of negotiating anything else? Is that not an extremely good reason for going ahead and accepting them?
I come now to the great question of modernisation. It has so often been pointed out that this is not only modernisation but also a range increase. That is the great point. One will get nowhere in arms control or in any form of military planning without looking at what a given weapons system can hit. What it is proposed to put in the place of Lance can hit a great many places that Lance cannot. This constitutes a tilt in the balance or imbalance between East and West. It is a change, and is not something to be done simply because the other weapons are wearing out. If we were to replace them with weapons of the same range, the same power, the same invulnerability on the ground and the same penetration ability, that would be modernisation; but we are not doing that.
I believe that the right way is to relate our need to update the weapons to what the Soviet Union has done and is doing in short-range and medium short-range nuclear weapons, as so eloquently stated by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. It is a terrifying catalogue: some 95 per cent. renewed in the last five years of which Gorbachev was in power for four, and all that! If that is so, and he is right to be alarmed by what is happening there, why does he not agree with the Soviet Union in its proposal—which is no doubt a Western proposal, I cannot remember—that we should negotiate for agreed reductions in this category of weapons? The West is standing out against that obvious way of going about it. That would give us the chance of saying, "Look, you have been getting more than us all the time". Instead of insisting on going ahead and catching up or half catching up, why do we not say "Suppose you were to take them away, that would make it easier for us to get rid of what we have". That was not done before we built up the American cruise missile force in this country in response to the Soviet development of the SS.20. We did not ask them to take away the SS.20s, but we went straight ahead and built up the corresponding force. There is a danger of that happening again, and that is a great waste of time.
There is now the question of denuclearisation or not which is supposed to be what is preventing us from coming to grips with the Soviet Union on disarmament at all at the moment. A denuclearised Europe is obviously an impossible concept and will not happen. France would not agree. A great many countries would not agree, but for the moment let us imagine that it were possible. Why should the United States be so very distressed by the

797
denuclearisation of Russia? Russia is a European country. If it offers to have no more nuclear weapons, that, prima facie, would leave the United States (Britain and France also having been ruled out of the game) alone with China as nuclear powers, and would make life a good deal easier for them. It is possible that what the Soviet Union means by a denuclearised Europe is that the Soviet Union would move all its nuclear weapons into Asia. That is possible, but at least we might move forward and talk about it a bit.
Anyhow, that is not practical politics. What is practical politics and is very important is the removal or not of nuclear weaponry from the world. I note that this is becoming a plank of British Government policy. They are against it. The Prime Minister particularly wishes to retain nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future, whatever that means. It depends how far one can foresee. I habitually try to foresee 50 or 100 years ahead. It is great fun, even though it may not be much use. I should hope that there are few in power in the Western world who do not occasionally do that in their bath too.
A denuclearised world, that is to say, a world without nuclear weapons, is something to which this country is committed. It has been committed to that ideal for 25 years. It is in the test ban treaty and it is in Article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty. We are bound to work in good faith towards it. Every time the present Government go the other way and say that it can never happen, or not in the foreseeable future, they are breaking a treaty obligation. I hope that this fact has not escaped their attention and that they will have a rethink on it.
As regards the immediate future on the arms control front, the new Vienna negotiations on conventional armed forces in Europe are good. For once they involve the right group of countries, and in that they are much better than their predecessor. Unfortunately they stand no chance of achieving anything because the neighbouring territories of weapons (not geographically) are not being addressed. There are no negotiations on chemical or nuclear weapons—except on START at the highest level—and no negotiations whatever on naval forces. The Vienna negotiations cover only land-based forces which are perhaps two-thirds of the problem. In that respect they are not serious; they are guaranteed failure unless and until negotiations are started on naval, SRN, and chemical.
As regards chemical weapons the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has told us that no further information about the size of Soviet chemical stocks was forthcoming from Mr. Gorbachev during his recent visit. The Soviet Union has given a figure but the Government do not believe it. However, is it not the case, as reported in the press, that Mr. Gorbachev invited the Government to send emissaries to look and form their opinion on the spot? Perhaps in replying to the debate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, could answer that question. Was the invitation made? Will it be accepted? And if so (as we must all hope) what degree of detail is it hoped the emissaries will be able to see?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, last year we were invited to visit a Soviet Union chemical weapons establishment. We sent a team of experts who were shown virlually nothing.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I know that. I was thinking of the invitation which it was said in the press was issued by Mr. Gorbachev to the Prime Minister during his recent visit. It was in a wider context: it was based not only on one plant but on something which would give an industry view. I base myself on press reports, and if I am wrong perhaps that will be stated.
There are three general principles which alone can produce the arms and reductions which are necessary for economic reasons if for nothing else. There will be no meaningful advance in any large category—INF is not that—without having a plan for negotiation and considering those questions before one begins. First, what is happening in the neighbouring categories of weapons? If one goes too low in category A, a superiority in category B may be revealed which will upset the balance of the first negotiation. Secondly, what about the other countries? Let us suppose that we achieve an agreed reduction in nuclear and conventional weapons in Europe. What then about the Middle East, a Turkish invasion of southern Russia, China and so forth? Reductions beyond a certain point always raise such questions which must be considered before one begins. Thirdly, how far down the ladder of reduction are we going? Do we aim I o go to zero, a little lower than at present, half way lower, or a great deal lower? Unless those three questions are addressed there can be no progress. There has been no major progress during the past 45 years because those questions have never been addressed together.
It goes without saying that verification applies to everything. Without verification sufficient to guarantee a reduction undertaken, there will be no reduction.
We should remind ourselves of public opinion in the United States. Three quarters of those recently questioned by Gallup favour cuts in American defence spending. Only 9 per cent. believe that international tension is the most important problem now facing the United States. That is the reality of the world. The Soviet Union has undertaken to pull back forces and weapons. There can be no reproach towards it for not yet having done so because it recently said that it would do so within two years. That is the reality of the world. NATO has unilaterally withdrawn nuclear weapon systems. That is the reality of the world. It is all going downward.
At the forthcoming NATO summit there is every reason to come up with the famous General Concept for which the German Government have been pressing for three or four years. It should address the three sine quibus non which I have enumerated and thus for the first time there will be a hope of organised arms reductions in Europe. I agree entirely with what has been said by many noble Lords about a new Harmel Report. One is tempted to say that it only has to say the same again, but that is not quite right because the emphasis has changed. It must now begin with the preservation of security by reduced

799
military power and then talk about what that military power should be. Above all, let not the Government and Lord Chalfont stand forth indefinitely in the face of public opinion as being the people who could not take yes for an answer.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the one point on which all noble Lords present will agree is that of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel for opening the debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss the most important matter in the world today. If we do not resolve the problems of maintaining international peace, nothing else that we do, such as the social reforms and economic developments of which we may be proud, will matter very much. My noble friend speaks with unique authority and he gave the debate a wonderful start.
The issue which has troubled all the speakers in the debate is the way in which one assesses President Gorbachev's policies and approach. I suggest that we have a difficult task in trying to find a sensible way between two foolish extremes. One foolish extreme is to say, "This is just a try-on and nobody will bother about it. We shall go on as before". The other is to say "This is the beginning of every kind of good thing and we can all relax easily with the future assured". The sensible course must be somewhere between those two foolish extremes.
I should be far more reassured if we now had evidence of real disarmament by the Soviet Union. As has already been said in the debate, the Soviet Union has a regular army of 5 million, who, in the absence of nuclear weapons, could sweep across Western Europe without meeting successful resistance.
The matter about which I am even more concerned is that the Soviet Union has a powerful preparation for chemical warfare. Understandably, many people have anxieties about the horrors of nuclear war. But if one must choose between being incinerated by a nuclear bomb or coughing out one's life under chemical weapons, I do not know that there is much of a choice. The Russians have built up a large facility for chemical warfare. We must ask why and whether, if they intend to maintain that, it rules out the possibility of its use.
If Mr. Gorbachev were able to open up completely, with verification, the approach to his chemical warfare establishment and were to show that he had abolished it, that would give an enormous impetus to negotiations and establish a considerable degree of confidence in him. One of the test cases in assessing the validity of President Gorbachev's approach so far as foreign affairs is concerned must be his attitude to this vast chemical warfare installation. Is it being maintained at very considerable expense for fun, or is it contemplated that it might in some contingencies actually be used? Until that aspect of the matter has been cleared up there is a case for considerable caution in assessing Mr. Gorbachev's intentions.
When one refers to President Gorbachev, of course it is entirely right to recall what was so well said by
800
the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that the Gorbachev initiative is not irreversible. It may well be that he will be forced by internal forces to reverse his approach. It may be that he will be eliminated. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred to Kerensky, not perhaps a happy analogy because, as your Lordships may remember, Winston Churchill described vividly Kerensky's contribution:
"He talked and talked at a time when half a battery of artillery, well served, would have changed the history of the world".
I do not think that he is a very good analogy for Mr. Gorbachev, who is obviously a much stronger and more formidable character than that well-meaning but rather ineffective Russian lawyer.
The assessment that one makes must be between certain limits. One should certainly not dismiss Mr. Gorbachev's initiative. One should give him no excuse whatever for saying, "The West is not responding to my approach, and therefore I am going to drop it". On the other hand, it is essential that we should remain on the alert. This is certainly no time for dismembering or weakening the Western alliance.
When one refers to weakening the Western alliance I must come to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, when he criticised the modernisation of the West's nuclear weaponry. I do not think that the noble Lord appreciated that the West's nuclear weaponry, be it the Polaris submarine or the Lance missile, is becoming rapidly obsolete. Unless it is replaced by more modern instruments, it will be eliminating itself from sheer old age. It is confronted by modernised Soviet nuclear equipment.
I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that there is no halfway house between the nuclear disarmers—with whom I happen profoundly to disagree but whose sincerity I recognise—and those who say that if you are to maintain your nuclear equipment you must see that it remains up to date.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to intervene. He says that there is no alternative. The alternative is to maintain one's nuclear armament and not, as the Government suggest under the term "modernisation", to escalate its power. Perhaps the noble Lord would explain whether he means escalation as well as modernisation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it must have been my fault if I failed to make the position clear to the noble Lord. You cannot simply maintain these weapons by doing nothing to replace them. They are becoming obsolete. It is a matter of expert opinion, which I do not claim to possess, but it is a matter of a year or two before they become increasingly ineffective. When the noble Lord speaks easily about escalating, what is concerned here is modernising so that you have at least a modern equivalent in power to what we used to have for the security that we gained from these weapons over many years. You cannot talk about escalating them unless you take into account by way of balance the escalation, to use the noble Lord's own word, of the Russian nuclear and other armouries. The have modernised to a considerable extent.

801
They have extended enormously the destructive power of their nuclear weapons. To say that we are escalating because we modernise ours, so as perhaps not to keep up with them but at least to maintain a measure of balance, is simply a misuse of the English language. I stress that, while it is perfectly possible logically and intellectually to adopt the nuclear abolition approach, there is no logical justification for saying, "Well, we will keep our weapons, let them rot gradually from old age in our hands and not replace them and modernise them". I beg the noble Lord to understand that.
I wanted to speak—and this is my main point—more about the Western alliance. One of the attractive things about the Western alliance is that it has brought France and Germany together. If you look at the history of Europe for the last 200 years, it has been the hostility of these two countries that has produced the most major and bloodiest wars of history. To have them tied up together in the same alliance is an acheivement which in the light of history is a considerable one indeed. It has removed what certainly was the cause of war again and again in the last century and even in the century before. The fact that they are now allies, co-operating together, is an immense achievement and it is an achievement of the Western alliance for which we should all be profoundly grateful.
Still more important—and here I pick up something said by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—is our relationship in that alliance with the United States. It is no accident that the United States was not allied to us or to the West in 1914 or in 1939. If it had been in those years there might well have been no disastrous years beginning, as they did begin, in its absence. In both cases they were dragged into it. In both cases they made a decisive contribution to the outcome. It is therefore a great achievement that we now have the United States as a major and most important element in the Western alliance, so that anyone who provokes a conflict—and I hope that nobody will—with the West will know that they are also provoking a conflict with the great United States, with its immense resources both of money and of technology and I would say also of determination.
I stress—and this is the point I want to leave with your Lordships—that the close contact and friendship between our country and the United States is one of the things on which the future peace of the world depends. I do not ask your Lordships to take that from me. I shall never forget, and I recall vividly today, an afternoon about 34 years ago. It was the day when Sir Winston Churchill resigned. He summoned to Downing Street a number of middle-rank Ministers, of whom I was one, to say goodbye.
We sat in the Cabinet Room—I remember it vividly—on a rather stormy spring evening, with the sunlight flickering and fluctuating as clouds came across. The old man—it was his last day in No. 10 and he was in a state of some understandable emotion—talked to us about the future. He was obviously trying to give a message to his younger colleagues. The whole of his message was the necess-
802
ity for friendship with the United States. Indeed he went so far as to say that if we remained in close alliance and friendship with the United States we should all come through, peace would be preserved and civilisation would continue; but if we allowed diversities and quarrels to enter that relationship, he foresaw a dangerous and gloomy future.
That statement by the greatest man I ever met—probably the greatest man of this century—who had a lifetime of experience at the highest level made an immense impression on me, as I think it would on any of your Lordships. I have always believed that events since then have fully justified that statement. Apart from the disastrous solecism of Suez, we have stayed in close relationship with the United States and that has been a major contribution to a system which, whatever its limitations, has kept the peace of Europe and the peace among major nations of the world for over 40 years. That is a longer period of continuous peace than one can find unless one looks back in the history books, at any rate to the beginning of the 19th century.
The Western alliance, including above all the United States and ourselves with the special relationship which I believe we still have, is therefore a major contributor to the peace of the world. We must not allow any of the difficulties which will arise—and sometimes the Americans are difficult—to thwart or break that relationship. If we maintain that relationship, together with our other friends in Western Europe, I remain a profound optimist and believe that civilisation will come triumphantly through the dangers and difficulties of the present era.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I concur with previous speakers in expressing appreciation of the action of the noble Lord, Lord Home, in initiating this debate. The debate is described as being chiefly concerned with the power and unity of the Western alliance. I sometimes feel that we have moved away from that to every part of the globe. I wish to stress again that it is the unity and power of the Western alliance that is in question. I must say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that one of the most important features of the alliance is that it has at last ensured that if the democracies of Western Europe are in danger the United States is their ally. So much would have been saved if that had been true in the past.
There is, I am afraid, even today a tendency in this country to refer to NATO as if it were a kind of health-giving but unattractive medicine that we ought to take. I believe that we should rejoice over the fact that we have this alliance with the most powerful country on earth and that it is an alliance based not on geographical convenience but on shared beliefs. I have heard historians and philosophers argue as to whether nations make their alliances and friendships on ideological grounds. One can produce a variety of examples one side of that argument or the other; but there is no doubt at all that NATO is an ideological alliance. That is what has given NATO its strength and what has delivered us from so many dangers over these past 40 years.

803
If NATO had not existed or if it had faltered in its purpose West Berlin would no longer enjoy the freedom it possesses and other parts of Europe would have been under threat or under domination. All over the world nobody could ensure what would happen next. Again and again the existence of NATO—its mere existence—and the knowledge of its power and determination has kept the peace. We must rejoice over that.
Recently there have been a number of events which have caused people to look afresh at international affairs. One such event has been the signing of the INF treaty which I regard not as a matter of overwhelming importance but certainly of great significance and hope. Another episode was brought strikingly to my mind a few weeks ago. I was sittting at home having just turned on the television news. The item I was particularly waiting for was the result of the elections in the Soviet Union. Nobody has waited for such an item for a very long time. Remarkably, the result was that an anti-government candidate had been elected.
I accept all the warnings of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that we should not over-estimate that event, but neither should we under-estimate it. I do not think that the Soviet Government intended or wanted that election to turn out in that way. The fact that it did, however, gives us some reasonable grounds for hope in the future.
The other events, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Home, were the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the retreat of the Soviet Union's influence and power from several other parts of the world. All those events together have given us reason to hope that we may be moving into a more peaceful era. It is remarkable that hardly anyone prophesied that. As far as I can see the world is full of Kremlinologists and people who make it their business to study the working of Soviet communism and what it will do next but who hardly ever seem to get it right. Personally, I have always thought that those who prophesy the future nearly always fail us and we should not devote too much attention to prophecies of that kind.
The matter was well put in the theological context by that witty writer, C. S. Lewis. If I remember rightly he said something to the effect that the Devil wants us to worry about what is going to happen to us but God wants us to be concerned with what we ought to do. I believe those words apply to the political situation. We cannot be certain how reversible or irreversible Mr. Gorbachev's reforms may be. The only certainty is that we do not know and that it is sensible to hope for the best, but not to assume that the best will necessarily happen.
We must then ask: what should we do about it? The right answer in foreign affairs is nearly always a dull pedestrian answer. One must be moderate in judgments. One must not assume that these events, which are important, mean nothing at all. One must not assume that they have solved all our problems. One must not imagine that this sudden change by the Soviet Union changes everything. It is wise to remember the advice that Polonius gave to his son:
804
"Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried, Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel; But do not dull thy palm with entertainment Of each new-hatched, unfledged comrade".

I hope we remember that.
If we then approach the question of what ought we to do in this remarkable, unforeseen and, in some ways, hopeful situation, it is clear that we should do what we can in the field of conventional armaments. The part of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, with which I found myself most in agreement and I thought most hopeful was his description of what the Government are doing at Vienna. The Government should continue on those lines as I think they may have some success.
As regards chemical warfare, have the Government any reason for believing that solving the problem of verifying a treaty on chemical warfare is any nearer a solution than it ever has been? Ever since I first became acquainted with the problem it has stuck in my mind as being the greatest difficulty. I do not know whether we are closer to a solution, but we must continue trying.
We should also look at the fields of political and foreign affairs activities where we can possibly co-operate with the Soviet Union. We have discussed the possibility in this House of an international conference concerning affairs in the Middle East in which the Soviet Union has shown itself interested. The Soviet Union has a liking for trying to find solutions through the mechanism of the United Nations. We should bear that in mind and make use of it whenever we can. It also appears that the Soviet Union is interesting itself in the affairs of Africa in a way that is more hopeful than we have previously supposed. I hope that we shall devote our attention to that matter also.
We have a chance in the various twists and turns of affairs since the last war ended and since NATO come into being. There is now a hopeful turn. It is not desirable to be foolish about it and it is not necessary to be pessimistic. We must plod along at the available ways of trying to achieve greater agreement with the Soviet Union. I believe that that is the way that would most help Mr. Gorbachev to remain in power and that would render the most service to the alliance as a whole.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Pym: My Lords, I join all those who have expressed their gratitude to my noble friend Lord Home for initiating this debate and for giving us in his opening speech the benefit of his immense and unparalleled experience. At the time of the 40th anniversary of NATO it seems quite right that we should express our profound gratitude for the farsightedness of NATO's founders and to all those who have sustained and managed the alliance ever since. It has achieved its objective of safeguarding the peace in Europe. Through all the anxieties of the cold war and the ups and downs of East-West relations, the alliance has stood steadfast, united and effective.
It grew out of the agony of two world wars and the passion people felt to prevent another. By sticking to this determination resolutely and patiently, we have

805
at last arrived at a moment in history when great changes are taking place in the world scene and when there are opportunities to order international affairs with less tension and fewer arms. The challenge we face today is to use those opportunities for the benefit of mankind.
Over NATO's 40-year life the global situation has changed dramatically. Because of the complexity of any alliance of 16 nations it is inconvenient when the facts alter because the consequential adjustments are difficult to make. There is a tendency in some European countries at least to see the world almost as it was at the beginning of the alliance and a reluctance to make changes when circumstances alter. But the fact is that the changes are very substantial and of course they have implications for NATO.
I wish to speak to this Motion with two fundamental considerations in mind: namely, the global situation as it is and as it may develop, and the vital necessity for retaining the support of public opinion for our defence and security policy. Among the great shifts that are occurring in the world I wish to mention two. One is the change within the Soviet Union, where the leaders have realised at last that the past 70 years have been a failure. Their status as a superpower is based only on their military strength, where they have been very successful. In every other sphere they are surrounded by failure and the point was reached when something had to be done. Mr. Gorbachev is now tackling the problems head on with a verve and a conviction that no one can fail to admire.
Without the alliance who can doubt that the story would have been different? The patience and endurance of NATO is responsible, in large part at least, for the new opportunities that exist today. The task facing Soviet leaders is so colossal that no one knows how the Soviet Union will finish up, not even Mr. Gorbachev. I do not believe that he has any idea. The country's ethnic problems are already highly visible and all kinds of troubles lie ahead for it. It seems that its leaders are motivated by a brutally realistic appraisal of their own situation. If they cannot bring about a major improvement in their economy they will not be able to maintain their superpower status and they run the risk that the country's miserably low standard of living will fall even further.
This realism has already shown itself in their foreign policy, where I see three particular features. First, there is a totally new approach to regional issues, most noticeably towards southern Africa and Kampuchea—where they must have concluded that their previous policy was not cost-effective and of no value—but also towards Latin America and the withdrawal from Afghanistan and so on. This indicates the seriousness of their reform programme, for which they require international stability.
The second feature is the maintenance, at least at present, of their existing military stength, which in some areas is actually still increasing. They have made unilateral proposals for some arms reductions, and these are likely to happen but have not done so yet. Thirdly, they are making a deliberate dead-set at Western public opinion with a series of carefully
806
contrived ideas with popular appeal so that they, rather than the West, appear to have the initiative and appear to be making the running in the struggle for disarmament.
Naturally that image is appealing to people, but it contrasts starkly with the negative responses that the alliance has received year after year to a whole series of disarmament initiatives which it has made and is still making. As I have said, it contrasts with the existing military situation on the ground. What should be our reaction to this scenario? First, it must surely be to keep our deterrent in place at whatever level is appropriate according to the strength of the armaments facing us. No one knows how things will develop in the Soviet Union. Everyone wants to see it become a different kind of country, however unlikely that may be. We must do whatever is prudent to further the reform process. But that is not at all simple and I believe that there is very little we can do. Some action that we take could be counter-productive. Do not let us think that we are going to have much influence on it.
The past 40 years have proved one thing. If you want to do business with the Soviet Union, its military might must be contained and use of that might must be deterred. That can only be done by the maintenance of a fully effective and credible deterrent force. Any lowering of the guard on the basis of good intentions would be to fly in the face of 20th century history and indeed to fly in the face of NATO's supreme achievement. If Soviet reforms make progress over the years ahead, East-West relations will be different and safer. If the reforms prove a failure or lead to great troubles, which seems very probable, there could be a return to a very cold, cold war with repercussions in the foreign field as Soviet leaders seek ways to distract their citizens from their misery.
We cannot be certain that this will not happen, so we must not be caught unprepared if it does. We must be prepared for any eventuality and be in a flexible position to respond according to events. I believe that our second reaction should be to put ourselves in a more positive position vis-à-vis the Soviet Union than we are today. The Soviet diplomatic offensive must not be allowed to mislead public opinion and the West must regain the high ground and hold on to it.
I believe that this will require a fresh effort on the part of the alliance. The glue that has helped to keep us together in the past has been the self-evident and menacing threat which the Soviet Union itself presented. The Soviet Union is not perceived in that light today, whether rightly or wrongly we do not yet know. That is especially so in West Germany but in other countries too. Yet it is the alliance that has been responsible for endless proposals for arms negotiations throughout its history and we must take the lead here again.
In my view, this calls for a new and urgent initiative leading to a clear and updated statement of strategy. As has already become apparent here today, there has been some discussion in recent years of re-activating the Harmel process and of making a similar kind of reassessment. Some experienced people do not favour this. I know that my noble

807
friend Lord Carrington is one of them. Who could be more authoritative on this point than my noble friend?
That formula may be inappropriate but I see advantages in a process of this kind. The Harmel Report is still relevant but it is 20 years old, since when there has been a vast change in the world scene. Alliance strategy ought to be re-thought and re-argued in the conditions that exist today. The intellectual process itself and the force of its conclusions would be valuable in maintaining unity, as was of course the Harmel Report itself. There is a need for fresh and positive thinking.
I see another advantage. Such an initiative would provide a powerful impetus to our continuing dialogue with our electorates. There is a need for some more ammunition designed for the much more complicated and sophisticated target we are aiming at. There is a need for more dynamism in our presentation, which seems rather flat today. Here, I have the whole alliance in mind, because in our country we are fortunate to have the best communicators on this issue. I refer to the Prime Minister herself, the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and my noble friend from the Ministry of Defence. I applaud what they say and wish only that their counterparts were half as good.
In this new era of Mr. Gorbachev, the alliance must continue to be relevant to our electorates and be seen by them as such. A new statement of the new realities and the possibilities open to the alliance and how the alliance is poised to take advantage of events, however they move, would help to revive that support, interest and enthusiasm among our electorates which is indispensible to our security. It would also increase confidence. All the points made in this general area by my noble friend Lord Home are very much a part of such a restatement. Events are moving fast everywhere and we must get ahead of events in thought and in preparedness.
The reforms in the Soviet Union and in the countries of Eastern Europe, which I have not mentioned because of time, are not the only major change taking place. The second area of change that I wish briefly to mention is equally significant and perhaps in the longer term is even more significant. It is the massive accretion of economic power built up by the Japanese and the scale of the United States' indebtedness. This is a change in the balance of power but its effects are not very apparent so far. The United States will of course continue to be a major economic power, but the centre of world economic power is, and has been for some time, moving gradually to the Far East.
This foreshadows a potentially big change in the balance of world power and the global context in which our alliance exists. It seems to be of particular relevance to this Motion because the effect of this shift upon by far the largest and most powerful member of the alliance is considerable. The growing economic and military strength of Japan poses uncomfortable problems and choices for our American allies, who defend the peace all over the world and not just in Europe. The United States has to weigh up risks, threats and options on a global
808
basis, whereas in Europe the vision for most countries is much narrower. In our country it tends to be wide but it is not so for most European countries.
The danger of transatlantic misunderstanding becoming greater seems to increase as time goes by. In my view, a prerequisite for a united alliance, which is what we are concerned with today, is a shared appreciation of the world scene and an understanding by Europe of what global responsibilities mean for the United States. The continued presence and support of the United States is indispensible to the security of Europe. I support wholeheartedly what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said on this point. Just as the Americans are supporting us in Europe, so ought we to be as supportive of them outside the NATO area as we possibly can be. Obviously there is a limit to this, but a self-centred European view will not make for a united alliance. Again, a new alliance-wide initiative would help to focus minds on the realities of the global situation which must be the starting point for alliance policy.
In the end it all comes down to political will. So long as the present Government are in power the United Kingdom will certainly have that; but by itself that is not enough. Our security depends upon the whole alliance playing its full part. It is to some of the basic issues underlying the achievement of this objective that I have spoken today.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Home, to whom we are all grateful for initiating this debate, I am all for the indefinite continuance of the North Atlantic Alliance, with the early negotiation of which, in April 1948, I had myself something to do. However, if it is to continue, the presence of United States troops in Europe, even if somewhat reduced in numbers, is essential. It is their presence, even more than the so-called "balance of terror", which has kept the peace during the past 40 years or so. Events have surely shown that the last thing the Russians want is war with America. Only in American absence might they be tempted, not so much to invade Western Europe, though that is possible, as to employ their great potential power for the purpose of neutralising the Federal Republic—probably without permitting the reunification of Germany.
This is all on the assumption that Russia remains a great power, if not a super power, which I suggest, on the whole, is probable. Of course, if Mr. Gorbachev does not succeed and the empire, and even the Union, breaks up, then an entirely new situation, and probably a dangerous one, will face the West. It is impossible to say now what our policy should be in completely changed circumstances.
If so, what should the Europeans do to ensure that the Americans stay? Well, they would probably be well advised to agree to take some of the financial burden of maintaining their troops off the shoulders of the Americans. Even if this were only a gesture it would have a good effect on Congress. But they should do much more—presumably now through the medium of the Western European Union—to

809
strengthen and streamline their own conventional defences. It is true that war with the Soviet Union is now to all intents and purposes out of the question, but if it ever did take place it would almost certainly be a non-nuclear war. That brings me on to what is, I think, the main danger to the alliance; namely, the apparent difference between the Americans, or the American Government, and many Europeans as to the real role of the nuclear weapon in European defence.
The fact is that the doctrine of flexible response, whatever exact form it might take, is no longer credible. The maintenance on both sides of enormous numbers of short range, tactical or battlefield weapons and nuclear artillery shells which would almost certainly never be used to repel an attack without involving the destruction of both East and West Germany, no longer makes any sense. Those weapons do not even deter a Soviet attack. The presence of American troops does that. Therefore, in my view, all those weapons should in principle be gradually negotiated away, subject of course to strict verification. That would naturally include both the short range weapons which the Russians are said recently to have modernised and the proposed replacement of the Lance missiles in Germany.
Such negotiations would be materially assisted if Mr. Gorbachev carries out not only the substantial force reductions he has already announced, and no doubt many more, but also the proposed reductions in arms production and in the whole Soviet Defence budget to which he referred in his Guildhall speech.
What, then, should be the role of the strategic nuclear arms, chiefly American, at the disposal of the alliance, including such weapons as submarine-launched Cruise missiles and stand-off bombers on fighter planes? Here, the same principle applies. Those weapons can never be used on a first strike. It is impossible to imagine that. The idea that one side or the other could ever, in any circumstances, attempt to knock out all the strategic missiles and aircraft of an adversary who is capable of even the smallest assured nuclear retaliation is a sort of "science fiction" nightmare. Even if almost all such land based missiles and aircraft were accounted for, a few would no doubt escape the attack and would be capable themselves of causing quite unacceptable damage. In any case, the submarine deterrent, which is for the most part indestructible, could destroy the adversary altogether. That applies to both sides.
The only factor which could invalidate that conclusion would be the construction by one side or the other of an impenetrable space shield such as the original scheme for SDI, which is now almost universally condemned by qualified experts as a useless waste of money.
Even making land-based nuclear missiles comparatively safe by their becoming mobile or by instituting some form of local ABM for them and for aircraft would, apart from being hideously expensive, not make much sense since a first strike by the adversary is out of the question. It is true that there have recently been some advances in ASW (anti-submarine warfare) but the day when it will be
810
possible to sink all the adversary's missile-carrying submarines at one fell swoop, which would obviously be necessary, should it ever come, is still very far away.
Nevertheless, it seems from all the official information I have read, including the brief for the President by the new chief of the National Security Council, Mr. Brent Scowcroft, that US policy is now based on the assumption that such a war may have to be fought if only for the reason that there is still a real possibility, or "danger", of a Soviet first strike against the United States. To guard against that, all three parts of the famous Triad, more especially the United States ICBMs, must be protected at enormous extra expense—and that at a moment when it is evident that the still huge American budget deficit will necessitate some reduction rather than an increase in general defence expenditure.
Such a policy flies in the face of all reason, more especially when the cold war is thawing and prospects for some major limitation of nuclear strategic armaments are quite encouraging.
What then should we do? I have made some suggestions, not all of which coincide with the present policy of NATO. However, there is one other suggestion which I should like to make. We should stop bullying the Germans about modernised weapons and rather seek to convince them that their destiny lies, not in trying to act as a sort of mediator between East and West, but in eventually becoming a full member of some sort of political union of Western Europe. However, that would mean a change of heart on the part of Her Majesty's Government and notably on the par: of the Prime Minister.
It must be admitted that, even if present tension is reduced by the limitation of the existing absurd superabundance of nuclear weapons together with some rectification of the present gross imbalance between Eastern and Western conventional forces, which perhaps need not be total, there may well still be a certain continuing tension between the United States, and indeed the United Kingdom and France, and the Soviet Union. That is more likely if all continue to be nuclear powers, which, pending some world disarmament agreement, we must unfortunately regard as probable.
In the coming years, it may be that all this will be modified by the probable emergence as world powers of China, perhaps in alliance with Japan, and perhaps even India, and a consequent change in the whole sytem of Great Power relationships. We need not fear such developments. A third world war is much less likely than Great Power co-operation to avoid some impending world ecological disaster.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords who have thanked my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel for initiating the debate. Having served under him for some time in the Foreign Office, 25 or more years ago, and having been a ministerial colleague of his when he later returned to the Foreign Office, I endorse with enormous enthusiasm what was said by my noble

811
friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter about his experience and quality, which were borne out by his speech today.
Understandably, every noble Lord who has so far spoken has referred to the remarkable changes which have taken place in the past three or four years under Mr. Gorbachev in the policies and attitude of the Soviet Union towards the West. Apart from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, every speaker has referred to those changes in somewhat complimentary terms. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, described them as being of historical significance. He also said that they involved the most significant events since the war. I agree with him. I much appreciated his speech. In many ways I should like to follow him.
Since 1985, Mr. Gorbachev has firmly and publicly rejected many of the old dogmas of Soviet domestic and foreign policy. At home in the Soviet Union, reform policies for major internal changes—economic, social and political—have been proposed and pursued. At Oxford last October when he gave the Cyril Foster lecture, my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary referred to those changes. He was endorsed today by my noble friend Lord Pym. My noble and learned friend said:
"These changes have been brought about because Gorbachev recognised that the domestic and foreign policies of his predecessors had failed, and the impulse to change is not out of idealism but out of stark necessity".
We could agree with that, but we should not allow it to detract from the importance of those changes or the widespread public welcome that is given to them. The immediate worry for Mr. Gorbachev at home is the growing gap between expectations and performance. There is no doubt that he is facing extremely difficult internal problems—indeed crises—but he appears to surmount them with great political dexterity.
As has been mentioned earlier, Sir Bryan Cartledge, our ambassador in Moscow, told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the other place that so far as he could see Mr. Gorbachev would be hard to dislodge. He expressed the view that there was no obvious successor. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, expressed the view that the changes that have taken place in Moscow are not irreversible. I thought that that was a pessimistic view. The half-way mark, which has been referred to, with regard to the irreversibility of Mr. Gorbachev's reform policies has now been passed. It would require a major, at present unforeseeable political upheaval within the Soviet Union, to change them. They amount to the most encouraging development in Soviet policy since 1917.
In four short years, Mr. Gorbachev has made a greater contribution to the relaxation of international tension than any other foreign leader this century. Things are moving fast. Over the past few months, the Soviets have demonstrated rapid changes. They confront NATO with a serious challenge. They include several announcements about unilateral cuts in Soviet and East European armed forces; details of Soviet withdrawals of forces from the GDR, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and
812
proposed cuts in Polish, Bulgarian and Czechoslovakian forces and defence budgets. The Soviets have also published data on the Warsaw Pact armed forces and given an assessment of the East/West balance.
It is a matter of interest that when we in the West were worrying as we did, about the imbalance in conventional weapons, NATO used to say that its estimate was that the Warsaw Pact countries had 51,500 tanks. The Soviet Union, in its recent data which it has given to the West, has given the figure as 59,470. That was a candour which was not only unexpected and surprising, it was one that caused not a little embarrassment.
There are real and important changes in Soviet behaviour. They should not be dismissed, or belittled, as, I regret to say, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, appeared to do. The Soviet Union is now advocating concepts, once foreign to it, but dear to the heart of the West—concepts of parity, verification, sufficiency and other similar ones.
Those cuts and promises of cuts, and the Soviet Union's restructuring ideas of changing defence industries into consumer industries must be acknowledged, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, did, as significant changes; and NATO must make the most of them.
It is right of course, as noble Lords have said, that one should be prudent and cautious and one should probe. It is right, for instance, that the West should ask questions such as: what is the defence budget that the Soviet Union claims to be cutting by 14.2 per cent.; what is the submarine procurement; what are the full details of the chemical weapons? All those questions need to be asked; but the public, in our free democratic West, is not impressed by extreme caution or grudging responses. It welcomes the new thinking and the obvious relaxation of tension. That is NATO's problem. A typical example, which was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn, Lord Mayhew and Lord Gladwyn, and my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, is the proposal to modernise the LANCE short-range nuclear missile.
We must not ignore the fact that that poses a major political problem for the West German Government, especially in the run up to the forthcoming elections. Recent opinion polls referred to in The Times show that 83 per cent. of West Germans trust Mr. Gorbachev, and only one in four perceives any threat from the Soviet Union.
As has been mentioned, Chancellor Kohl, supported by the Belgian Prime Minister and others, would like to see a decision on modernisation postponed until 1991–92. There are obvious difficulties about that for, although a modernised replacement for Lance does not need to be operational for several years, if it is ever to be effective research cannot be shelved. But nevertheless this is an issue which arouses considerable concern in Germany and it is one which requires handling with great sensitivity. I was relieved to hear my noble friend Lord Trefgarne say that within the conflicting views in the Western alliance there is a great deal of common ground. I think that his view is that the issue is a manageable one and I certainly hope so.

813
The new relationship between East and West is a challenging one. The new thinking of the Soviet Union demands new thinking and readjustment on the part of the alliance. The Motion calls attention to the importance of preserving the unity of the Western Alliance. It is of paramount importance. The unity of that alliance, which has preserved so many of our common interests over the years, is as vital today as ever. I am sure that in the lead up to the forthcoming crucial NATO summit Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to ensure that that unity is firmly preserved.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I apologise for some voice trouble but I shall try to be very short as some compensation. At the beginning of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that it is our efforts which for 40 years have guarded our security. Does he really believe that? Do his fellow Ministers really believe it? Will he not pay any tribute to Dame Fortune? Have we not been wonderfully lucky?
My mind goes back very much to the Lisbon conference which met as a consequence of the siege of Berlin to discover how we could meet this formidable threat by the Russians under arms in Europe. I remember the advice which was then given to us unanimously by the chiefs of staff: "The divisions have got at least to be doubled". The operational air force must be increased by at least two thirds, and, much more important still, our forces had to be placed and moved to positions in which they would be able to fight if attacked. They were then, and they still are, placed in fact by Herr Hitler who in his rearmament of Germany arranged the only available barracks for them to live in. The result is that for 40 years we have been and still are further from our deployment positions than the Russians who face us.
The deployment advised by the chiefs of staff was that NATO forces should be drawn back behind the Rhine and kept there so that they would be in a position to move after the Russians had disclosed their lines of advance, as they were quite incapable of defending themselves in their forward positions. We totally ignored the whole of the recommendations of the chiefs of staff. Not one of them did we obey or carry out. We did nothing and we got away with it. We have gone on doing nothing and we have gone on getting away with it. I think it is perhaps historically true that, whether it be a man or a nation, if one goes on being lucky long enough, one's luck must be ascribed to one's wisdom. I think that is the best way in which our Government can put their case. I think that we must acknowledge that we have been astonishingly lucky.
However, what really has given us this luck? It is a very serious proposition and one which I have not heard stated before. The simple fact is that even the dumbest of the Russian leaders, men like Mr. Brezhnev, have realised that it would not pay them to destroy NATO, or to march across NATO. They would only get to the Atlantic Ocean and then they would be marooned. They would not be able to get across; they would be facing the Americans who
814
would be able to get across. With complete control of the sea the Americans would be able to hit them anywhere. It would not pay the Russians to come, so they did not come. But that was not within our calculations; it was within our luck.
I want to say again—and I have promised to be very short—something on deterrence. I remember going to Los Angeles where the Americans were carrying out their strategic study examination and taking part in their examination of the level of nuclear attack necessary to destroy the major powers. I remember our ration as 11 medium nuclear bombs and in the decision of the conference that would reduce us to a position in which our intercommunications, domestic communications, would be so wrecked that we would be quite unable to act as a belligerent power. That was a testament for overlooking; that was what we were facing.
I think that the Russians have no fewer than 250 nuclear bombs which they can place absolutely anywhere on our map without resistance. It is a position in which, if anybody can ever be deterred, we are duly deterred. But deterrence has certain very formal rules. One of those rules is flatly this: the weaker must always give way to the stronger. It is not a game of poker which one can play; one has to give way. That applies all the way down the scale. It is not only we, who are perhaps a middle flea, who have to give way. There are many who must give way to us; particularly among those I mention the Ayatollah and Colonel Gaddafi. They are just as helpless before us as we would be in front of the Russians, if they came. In these days of terrorism, the little fleas are the terrorists. If we are to assert our power in a deterrence society it is necessary that people should see it used.
It is no use having a deterrent if one's only method is to run round saying that one would never dream of using it. That does not deter. The Ayatollah lives in a religious sector which is very largely inhabited by priests, and is segregated. The very smallest nuclear weapon would have an astonishing effect in that district. If one wanted to deter, one could have that district in one's pocket.
I think that the former President of America gave us a very good example of how to deter Colonel Gaddafi. He said, "Get on with it, and make it quite clear that our deterrent weapons are not to deter people who can so effectively deter us; they are to deter people who cannot deter us".
I shall now say a few words about South Africa. After all, she is our natural ally, who alone came across the oceans on two occasions when we were in need and fought beside us. I feel that duties in the great African world come in this order. The first duty is to feed one's people. Of the African nations, only one has achieved that object, and that is South Africa. Every other African nation has had famine problems during the past 10 years. The second most important duty is to provide one's people with employment. South Africa alone has provided full employment for her people, including her coloured people.
Finally, the third most important duty is to provide order. Until the really mischievous

815
intervention to stir up trouble under an anti-apartheid label was operated, South Africa kept admirable order. For us to proceed to search round to make life difficult for the South Africans and talk about—I have forgotten the word, but it does not much matter—what we are going to do to the South Africans, which our Prime Minister so wisely denounced as nonsense—
Noble Lords: Sanctions!
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I said I would be brief and brief I have been.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I shall not follow at this hour the agreeable flights of fancy of the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, because we have been summoned by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, to discuss a very important subject. I, like others, am deeply grateful to him. My gratitude is tempered by the fact that I think none of us—I do not hope to remedy the omission—has been able to give a concrete set of recommendations by which the Atlantic alliance can establish and maintain its unity of action in a situation which, unlike many others who have spoken in this debate, I regard not as one of hope but as perhaps one of the gravest crises we have faced over the period in which NATO has existed.
Change, and rapid change, in an international situation is bound to confront any individual country with the need to think or rethink its position. Some people feel, for instance, that the United States is taking a very long time about doing even that. We still do not know the pattern of thinking of the new American administration. But, if it is difficult for a single country, it must be much more difficult for what is not merely an alliance but a very unusual alliance in the extraordinary discrepancy between the position and the power of its components. That reveals itself, in turn, in their different reactions to what is going on.
I find what has been said about the changes in the Soviet Union, which are obviously central to our concerns, again somewhat disturbing. It is my view, and I have stated it before, that nothing would be better for Europe or for the world than for the Russian people to take their place again among the nations of Europe to which in past centuries they contributed so much in various fields of culture, above all in literature and in music. The separation of the Russian people from the destiny of the rest of Europe remains the major catastrophe of the deplorable events of 1917 and 1918. However, I do not feel, much as I would hope that this would come about, that the reunion of Russia with Europe has been much accelerated yet by what has gone on or is going on in the Soviet Union.
Things go through one's head as one tries to look at these grave issues. A rather familiar old song has been going through my head which runs like this: "Mother, may I go down to bathe? Yes, my darling daughter, hang your clothes on the hickory bush but don't go near the water". Hanging one's clothes on a hickory bush is quite a good expression of glasnost.
816
We have had a good deal of that. However, Mr. Gorbachev has so far not only kept away from the water, if we regard perestroika and making real changes as the water, but has built up for himself a series of barriers which make it impossible for him to succeed in any of his proclaimed objectives.
As other noble Lords have said, the main purpose of any Soviet ruler should be to raise the standard of living by major economic reforms. If we take the economic objective he has handicapped himself from the beginning by saying that any changes must be within the framework of socialism. But socialism as interpreted in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, whatever its interpretations may be in the West, simply means a centrally directed and controlled economy with the public ownership of all the major factors of production. That in itself is the explanation of Soviet difficulties. If that has to be adhered to, only on the fringes can much improvement be made. Khrushchev tried to give more incentives to managers to undertake a bit of decentralisation here and there, but we have already seen that in the agricultural sector there has been a fairly considerable retreat from the original hope of reviving a peasant economy. After all, people test their standard of living by the food that they can purchase.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and others referred to political reform. If we consider political reform, we can see that its object is to bring into play both new ideas and new personalities as the bearers of these ideas. If one says from the beginning that whatever happens in terms of political change the Communist Party must retain its pre-eminent position, and if one says as Mr. Gorbachev has said on at least one occasion, that talk of a plurality of parties in the Soviet Union is nonsense, then there is a barrier between what he professes to wish and what many people in the Soviet Union might wish to see and the possibility of attaining that goal.
Thirdly—and this point was referred to by several noble Lords—there is the important question of nationalities. Do we visualise threats to the system of central control by the Russians (who make up not much more than half the population) of a variety of other nations, the growth of whose self-consciousness appears to have been much accelerated by glasnost itself? It is clear that in the Baltic and in the Caucasus, and tomorrow perhaps in even more vital and less peripheral parts of the Soviet Union, that question is being asked. Those of us who have seen nationalist movements and their repercussions in other parts of the globe can well understand the anxieties which those movements present.
Again there appears to be no solution which can be proposed to those nationalities other than the acceptance of their previous subordination. People are sent to try to disentangle local situations, but it is clear that the map of the Soviet Union—even the boundaries of the republics as they were set over 60 years ago—must be taken for granted. I do not say that anyone could necessarily do better. We know ourselves from experience in other parts of the world that as soon as one nationality claims its rights, a smaller nationality, perhaps embodied within the same territory, will claim its own rights in return.

817
There is no definite and finite point to what can become a self-conscious national cause.
In any event, no one can say that what we see in the Soviet Union—and still less in Eastern Europe where in some cases change has been even more rapid than in the Soviet Union, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said, and in others much slower—is a period of stability. No one can say that there is a clear line ahead which the Soviet Government are likely to be able to follow and which will not present us at some point with the need to make up our minds rapidly as to how to react.
Whether or not Mr. Gorbachev remains in power is an interesting question, but I agree with those who deplore futurology. However, that is not the most interesting question. That question concerns the likely repercussions of those major internal problems upon external affairs. How far is it likely that the military, who have been less touched by change and whose support is even more required in the light of national disturbances, will come to play a role in Soviet society which has long been feared by some students of the Russian revolution and its consequences?
Therefore it is perhaps not surprising that when we look at the panoply of Soviet external actions there is a balance. There are hopeful signs, to which noble Lords have rightly referred: Angola and Afghanistan. But there is also the fact that the Soviet Union is quite unabashed in supplying lethal weapons to the two countries which are generally recognised in the West as the major supporters of international terrorism, namely Libya and Syria. It is hard to believe that a country whose main objective was to win the good will of the West would choose to support the military strength of those two countries.
It may or may not be that the visit to Cuba by Mr. Gorbachev was intended to rein in Soviet communist penetration into Latin America. It is too soon to say. Certainly the fact that, in a tight schedule, three days were spent in Cuba suggests an importance attached to an overseas satellite which makes one wonder what the purpose might be.
Several people have referred to a "sea change" in the Soviet Union. The major sea change is the growth of the Soviet navy. That is a sea change. Evidence of that was provided by the unfortunate accident off the coast of Norway not so long ago. One has therefore to ask how far is the military getting concessions in return for the possibility of budgetary reductions to assist economic betterment at home.
However, I believe that those considerations are secondary to the main problem which we face, which has been referred to. That problem is a changed or differential picture of the Soviet Union, and changes in Europe and the nature of the problems and threats it presents in different countries. After all, we now have to cope with the views and beliefs of a generation which has grown up under the total protection of NATO and which cannot remember a period before NATO existed. It is not surprising that in countries which have military conscription, which have large forces concentrated in them or exercising
818
noisily in their skies, people should say surely we can now get rid of those forces. Those views can be encouraged and exploited by people who do not have the same idealistic or youthful motives for taking a critical view of NATO but who believe that there is profit to be made out of it. There may be, and has been to some extent, an effort by various countries to say that that would provide their industries with new opportunities.
Among the many political errors of Maynard Keynes was his suggestion that after the First World War everything would be all right if the Germans were allowed to exploit the material resources of Russia. I do not believe that that view—which was taken up in rather different circumstances by Hitler, who was not a member of the Bloomsbury group—is a safe one for the world to take. If Russia is to achieve any kind of progress it is important that we should find ways of co-operating technically and economically. But it would be a grave danger if that were done competitively and if the Germans were to believe that it could also bring about national reunification.
In my view, we in the alliance therefore face grave problems in the understanding of the situation and the communication of that understanding to those who represent us, and in finding institutions, or a renewal of existing institutions, that would make certain the two things on which all of us have been agreed in this debate: namely, retaining the consistent interest of the United States in our defence and retaining our confidence in each other.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, after the contributions of so many influential and experienced speakers, it is difficult to make a constructive contribution to the debate at this stage in the afternoon, but I should like briefly to try to do so.
I believe that it would be difficult for any reasonable person, particularly someone who has lived through the past 50 years, to disagree with the basic proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, with unrivalled authority and characteristic timeliness, has put before the House. But we are all agreed that it is no longer right for the alliance to stand pat on its present positions. It is time for changes.
It is impossible to dispute that there is a new international situation which has arisen with dramatic suddenness from events in the Soviet Union and in Eastern and Central Europe. Few doubted that it would have to come, but few expected it to come so quickly and to be presented so persuasively by a Soviet leader who seems to be a natural member of the Western world, unlike some of his predecessors. That new situation holds out a promise of a relaxation of political tension and a consequent change in military stance. I use the word "stance" deliberately because I mean not only the numbers of weapons, but the positioning of troops in the continent of Europe. How far that new international situation will develop remains to be seen, but it has already developed in a way that makes it sensible, and indeed urgent, to consider a reassessment of the defence requirements of the alliance.

819
There is a case for saying, "Let's wait and see a little bit longer", but I believe that that attitude is wrong. Mr. Gorbachev claims that developments are irreversible. Some aspects certainly are, and to restore the status quo in the republics of the Soviet empire and in Poland and Hungary is clearly beyond the power of the old style Communist Party. However, the Berlin wall is still there, the KGB still operates domestically and overseas, and excessive armed forces remain virtually intact. The promised reductions lie largely in the future. Old fashioned communists still hold influential posts and, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointed out, the constitution is not much modified.
Nevertheless, it seems likely to me that a new military stance between the East and the West can eventually be assumed at a much lower level in men and machines than at present. In those circumstances, it is imperative, but not impossible, that the Atlantic allies reach an agreed position among themselves. I think that one or two noble Lords have exaggerated the difficulty of doing that, but the allies should seek it and I believe that they will achieve it. Then they should explore, with our potential enemies—if that is the right word—how far mutual defence adjustments can be made both in Europe and in the Far East. That is a formidable task, but I do not think that there is any need to hesitate. I hope that the allies will agree to set the pace in those negotiations. The pace should be cautious and our negotiators wary, but agreement sincerely sought to achieve a new military balance should be possible.
As the Prime Minister has rightly said, nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented. The justification for their retention in some form is reinforced by their increasing availability not only to the great powers, but to several countries and groups of people with whom it is not impossible to imagine confrontation. A significant reduction need not nullify their deterrent effect. Who can foretell what may happen over the next 50 years? Who foretold what has happened over the past 40 years? The history of chemical weapons is relevant in this respect. They were not used, but were held in reserve for more than 70 years. I believe that their abolition should be sought, but may not be possible. Nuclear weapons should not be abandoned before the chemical weapons problem has been settled much more effectively than at present.
If we are to succeed in the suggested negotiations, it requires a mammoth intellectual and diplomatic effort, greater than has been made at any time since the war. Exactly what can and should be sought will become apparent in the course of negotiations. Much responsibility depends on the experts and those who have knowledge of future scientific possibilities. This country played an honourable part in drawing up the peace settlements after the last war, in creating the United Nations and in encouraging trade and financial organisations to tackle global problems. I believe that we are well equipped to play a role as new opportunities open up following a relaxation of international tension, but the changes in the make-up of our national security cannot be made without public support. Disarmament and force reductions
820
are an extremely complex and technical matter. Few understand them in all their ramifications, but a greater effort must be made to explain their aspects to the general public. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pym, made that point.
There is no reason why that explanation cannot be made on a bi-partisan basis. Chatham House and the Institute for Strategic Studies do great work. The Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office have been more explicit than in the past, but there is room for much greater effort in the quality press and on television to give information to the public, who must be helped to understand those difficult questions. Unless the public can be more widely informed, progress will inevitably be hesitant. The British public's instincts in defence matters are usually sound but, understandably, people are susceptible to plausible offers from the East which have the attractions of surprise and novelty.
The final point that I wish to make concerns the cost of defence. Nobody who has listened to debates in this House over the past year can fail to have been haunted by the constant call for more resources for health, education, research, industrial developments, infrastructure and so on. Huge sums of money and some of our best brains and talents are absorbed by the demands of defence. We urgently need to apply these material and human resources to our industries, social services and civilian research. We must take no risks with our defence capability but we must be alert for the opportunity to free money and brains from defence demands and enable them to be used to raise our own standard of living and make this country more agreeable and safer to live in.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I should like to follow other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel for bringing this subject to the House for debate today and for the balanced and immensely authoritative speech with which he introduced it.
It seems to me that today we have as much need as we have ever had of a strong NATO, complete with the commitment of the United States to the defence of Europe and a policy of nuclear deterrence. For one thing, so far as developments in Soviet policy are concerned there are too many uncertainties, contradictions and even crises in the making. President Gorbachev has led us to believe that he has withdrawn from the sponsorship of world revolution. The era of aggressive ideological conflict is over, he implies. But in that case why does Cuba apparently continue to receive an annual subsidy which has been estimated at between 6 billion dollars and 8 billion dollars, which enables it to foment trouble and revolution abroad and continue to practise repression at home?
Why indeed have substantial steps not already been taken to dismantle the immense military machine which is perpetually poised, if called on, to invade Western Europe. Where is the reorganisation of forces for defensive purposes which President Gorbachev promised us? Unilateral cuts which still leave the Soviet Union with a vast preponderance of conventional forces hardly fit the description of

821
a move to defensive defence. In Eastern Europe we are witness to what is, if anything, an even more startling contradiction. There the satellite countries are currently being allowed to choose their own way of responding to President Gorbachev's reformation. Apparently they may try to keep their populations immune from and even ignorant of what is happening in the Soviet Union.
Alternatively, if they choose they are being permitted to career at ever increasing speed along the road to democracy, with no evident heed being paid to what happens when this rolling stone runs up against the rock of membership of the Warsaw Pact and the obligation that that is deemed to entail towards the Soviet Union. Perhaps that is another of the barriers which my noble friend Lord Beloff has listed—barriers that President Gorbachev has erected or reinforced against himself or at least has done nothing to weaken and which stand in his way. In the Soviet Union itself we see everywhere perestroika stimulating an awakening of nationalism. Evidently it is not doing as much for the economy. The revelation a few days ago by the Soviet Trade Minister to the effect that the Soviet Union had just made an additional purchase of something up to 8 billion dollars' worth of razor blades and other consumer necessities was a depressing indication of a need to resort to economically unhelpful measures to buy time with the general public. For as long as there is such a gap between the announcement of what is intended and the facts that should follow and for as long as there are such unresolved contradictions, whatever the explanations, NATO should surely keep itself up to the mark.
As my noble friend Lord Pym pointed out, after all it was Western rearmament in the Reagan years that proved to the Soviet Union that it would have to change if it were to be able to keep up with the West in the long-term. Any weakening of NATO's resolve and commitment therefore does not help Mr. Gorbachev if indeed he sincerely wishes to transform the nature of the relationship between the East and West. It hinders him. It is Western weakness which is a provocation to the spirit of military adventure in the Soviet Union, not Western strength. It is only by maintaining NATO's strength that the Soviet Union can be convinced that the military struggle must be abandoned. I therefore regret that, owing to the recent backing-off from unpopular measures on defence by the West German Government, NATO is now being forced to postpone a commitment to proceed to modernise short-range nuclear weapons.
I suggest that it is essential that Europe is not denuclearised for the sake of the credibility of NATO's deterrence and for the maintenance of United States' troops in Europe. I suggest that NATO's leaders, including the Government of this country, should seek to persuade the German people that they are wrong to believe that they will be more secure without nuclear weapons and without the American commitment to defend Europe. Today the Germans enjoy unparalleled prosperity, which would be put at risk if they seek to banish from sight all reminders of their vulnerability— low flying aircraft, tanks at exercise, soldiers in uniform—and to embrace prematurely the vision, which they think
822
they see dangled before them, of peace and prosperity guaranteed by President Gorbachev.
Therefore it follows that there should be no negotiation with President Gorbachev on short-range nuclear weapons, notwithstanding numerical American superiority in this class, at least until Mr. Gorbachev abandons his aim to achieve a nuclear-free Europe. Mr. Gorbachev will not be encouraged to abandon this aim unless NATO itself keeps faith with it. I also think that it is unrealistic to expect NATO to offer further conventional force reductions below the cuts of 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. in its own forces which NATO already proposed the day after President Gorbachev made his announcement of his intended unilateral cuts. Any further cuts would jeopardise the strategy of NATO's forward defence.
Forward defence implies a commitment to defend equally the territory of all member states of the alliance. Any switch away from this policy would be a most serious matter involving all members of the alliance and could not possibly be changed from one day to the next. I believe that it is also important that economic aid in whatever form should not be lavishly made available without a reasonable belief that it will be well spent. I agree with the remarks of President Bush in his speech in Michigan on Monday, when announcing new loans to Poland. He said:
"We will not offer aid without requiring sound economic practices in return … Help from the West will come in concert with liberalisation".
So Western aid should be made available, first, to assist in the introduction of the market economy if this opportunity is given, and, secondly, to help cushion the blow of price rises to the consumer while that process is taking place. Aid on the wrong terms is surely worse than no aid at all.
It is not, I believe, a coincidence that the most obdurate and dangerous member of the Warsaw Pact is East Germany, whose economy has been massively supported for so little thanks by the Federal Republic of Germany, whose feelings of guilt are skilfully played on, and through West Germany by the European Community as a whole. So to me it seems that the message to NATO is that we need more of the same. The battle to maintain theatre nuclear weapons must continue. We are like opposing armies encamped opposite each other in the night. In the obscurity we can see that upheavals are taking place in the enemy camp. In the morning the enemy may have decamped, or it may still be there. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, put it in his most attractive speech, the decisions taken are reversible. Our duty is to remain alert while we sit it out. Nothing will be improved. Much will be put at risk if we fail to do so.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, like all noble Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Home not only for initiating this debate but for giving us the treat of such a splendid speech. Among such illustrious company, and coming after so many statesmanlike and brilliant speeches, I feel like an

823
undistinguished domestic cat finding herself opening her mouth among a pride of lions.
Without being too personal, I should hazard a guess that many noble Lords have already begun life having reached the age of 40. This magical age has also been attained by NATO. Forty years ago, on 4th April 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was born. It was four years after the end of the war. The dread bogey of Nazi Germany had gone. Indeed, how lucky that, unlike the late Lord Shinwell, Herr Schickelgruber did not attain his centenary tomorrow. In 1945 the war was ended; we had won. Our American allies retired over the Atlantic to their ivory skyscrapers leaving us to pick up the pieces. We were, as Eden feared, "alone in the cage with the bear".
The Russians were our allies and friends. Indeed, during the war my noble kinsmen and I had entertained Russian airmen to dinner at our home in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, once told me how, at the Potsdam Conference in the Cecilienhof he had been given a glass of champagne by Stalin. But the Russian system was based on the communist ideology and all too soon it became apparent how different this was from our own principles of freedom and democracy. However, as in the best fairy stories, there were good fairies about waiting to attend the future birth of NATO. Chief among these was our Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin—the "We, Ernest Bevin" so proudly inscribed on my first passport. Another was the United States Secretary of State, General George Marshall, who in June 1947 initiated Marshall Aid to Europe. But the bear was moving his icy paws of communism across Europe as curtain after curtain clanged shut. In March 1948 Norway joined the good fairies. France, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg were already assembled round the cradle and by 4th April NATO was born.
That was 40 years ago. Everyone in Western Europe born since then has been brought up under the strength of NATO's sheltering wings. There have been terrible wars all over the world since then but there has been no world war such as we in Europe faced in 1914 and 1939. This is because of the strength of our combined armed forces, because of the constant updating of weapons. NATO's life has been one of deterrence. It has preserved our lives, our homes, our democracy and our freedom.
With glasnost and perestroika there comes, we all hope, a lessening of tension and also a reduction in arms. At the moment the Warsaw Pact countries own 1,400 SS.21 missile launchers compared with NATO's 88 Lance missile launchers. Even the most elementary chess player knows—and the Russians are not that—that is is fatal to exchange pieces on an equal basis while your opponent has a preponderance. At this rate, we would soon be reduced to no missile launchers while the Warsaw Pact still had 1,312.
Until parity is reached, we cannot, much as we should like to, reduce our arms. Nor can we allow them to become obsolete. The Warsaw Pact weapons are constantly updated—indeed, they have been updated in the past five years. Ours have not been
824
updated since 1974. The Soviets also have a large stock of chemical weapons: the British have none. There is still a long way to go.
Forty years of NATO have gained us 40 years of life. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said at the concluding meeting of the Vienna Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe on 19th January,
"The right to live in peace and security is the most basic human right of all".
This is what we are all striving for. This is why on its birthday we wish NATO the most important birthday message of all: "Many peaceful and happy returns of the day".
6.35 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, just as Gorbachev established perestroika and glasnost as his motto, perhaps we would be well advised to adopt the advice of the noble Earl, Lord Home, to use "positive" and "prudent" as our motto.
The Soviet Union, as we have said before, is an empire. Power is its objective and security and survival are its main concern. The assumption that ideology rules in Moscow is dangerously misleading. Ideology serves the state and is changed and abandoned when it is counterproductive. It is merely a tool. It is not a religion. The party, helped from Lenin onwards, to establish and consolidate the empire. But Marshall Tito cracked the mould. He was the first to deviate. Mao Tse Tung followed and from then onwards the party failed to deliver the cohesion of the empire. The only other pillar of state that remained to do so was the army. Khrushchev realised that; he also realised the consequences of the communist rigid ideology as applied by bureaucracy to industry and the extent to which it weakened the economy. He therefore made the first attempt to hand over to the military from the party. Unfortunately he came across the vested interests, the nomenclature, the privileged hundreds of thousands of people in the Soviet Union, and they brought him down.
Andropov picked up the threat again, but he did not live long enough to pursue it. By the time Gorbachev came to power he learnt from Khrushchev's experience that the army will not willingly and easily obtain power. It will not be handed over to it without opposition and a fight from the party bureaucracy. Therefore the only way in which to establish the army's control in the Soviet Union would be to pull the carpet from underneath the party. That is the explanation for, first, discrediting Brezhnev, then Stalin, then the ideology, and I am sure that before long we shall see even Lenin and Marx discredited. In other words, when history judges Gorbachev from the Soviet or Russian point of view, his big contribution will have been to avoid a bloody confrontation between the established bureaucracy and the army. When the bureaucracy or the communist establishment is totally discredited the army will occupy the vacuum because it is only the army which can endure the cohesion of the Soviet Empire.
Recently in a speech Shevardnaze said that even the broadest river has banks. That was a clear

825
warning how far so-called freedom would be allowed to go. If the purpose of giving freedom is to destabilise, to shake the tree of state there is no evidence to show that democracy is, as we understand it, the ultimate purpose in Russia. In any event, free men are not appointed, they are bred. Russia has a history of 300 years or more of slavery. What Russia will accept quite happily is a dictatorship which it hopes will be benign. The country is against tyranny and arbitrary, whimsical, corrupt government.
We have read recently in the papers about what is going on in the Baltic states: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. After the 1918 war when Lithuania was established, for a short time it tried to copy the British model of democracy. Very soon afterwards, by 1925, a moderate, benign, firm-handed dictatorship was established which ran the country with the support of the people. The fact is that democracy, unless it is matched with discipline, turns into anarchy. It is not established simply by appointment.
To mistake the Soviet Union as an ideologically guided state is a fundamental mistake. Bolshevism has as much in common with Communism as the Inquisition had with Christianity. It was a most unequal state. It was a most privileged state. Incidentally, it is one of the few states where there is no progressive taxation. There is a 13 per cent. flat tax, if someone earns 1 million roubles or 70 roubles as a worker in the country.
How should one respond now to what the Soviets want? The Russians were always very good at one thing. They knew how to turn necessity into a virtue. It is not because of Mother Teresa's intervention that the Russians have moved out of Afghanistan. It is not a conversion to loving peace. It is a pragmatic move. What has changed fundamentally is that up to the middle 1950s the Soviet Union, or the powers in the Kremlin, still believed that they could go on expanding. But China, with the breakthrough in its relationship with America, became the threat and they went straight away onto the defensive and are still there. They are trying to de-couple Europe from the United States. I am afraid that they will be successful because although the Americans may love us, they do not need us. An offer from the Soviet Union to clear out of the Caribbean and hand over to the Americans undisputed control of South and North America and the Americans will send us Christmas cards, but they will not want to send us 350,000 soldiers or incur the expense of defence of Europe, which in their opinion we can well afford ourselves. They are fed up with Europe sitting on their knees. They want Europe to stand on its own two feet.
A united states of Europe would be a much more powerful economic entity than the United States is with 320 million people. Therefore, what will happen, I believe, is that Gorbachev will offer a division. He will call the Atlantic ocean our border. What is done on the other side will not be interfered with. "Please leave us here. We have no aggressive ambitions now because we cannot afford them. We shall be quite content if we are left in peace to develop our land. We want Europe to help us technologically. We shall be suppliers of raw materials and
826
we shall import technology". That is the Soviet Union's purpose at the moment. Thank you.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Home, for putting down this Motion and thus giving us the opportunity to discuss the global balance of power, in particular the importance of the western alliance. It is timely, coming just after the successful visit of President Gorbachev to London earlier in the month when the special relationship which he appears to have with the right honourable Member for Finchley was further cemented. Let me say how much I agreed with the weighty and imaginative speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pym.
I intend to detain your Lordships only briefly. I ask noble Lords to focus on three points. First, it is well to remember that, even while President Gorbachev and his wife were in this country on their highly successful visit and we were all talking about glasnost and perestroika, the Soviets were busy selling advanced bombers to Libya. It seems to me that actions speak louder than words. We should not lower our guard one whit unless the Soviets show by their actions that their intentions are indeed peaceful.
Secondly, according to the Leader of the Opposition, President Gorbachev repeated his belief that all nuclear weapons should be abolished by the year 2000. This will appeal to the anti-nuclear lobby, but as the Soviets have an enormous superiority in conventional weapons, there would have to be a major adjustment of conventional forces before the West could possibly agree to such a suggestion. How good it is, I say to myself, to have someone with the grit and vision of the Iron Lady in No. 10 on these occasions.
Finally, I should like to mention one further matter which concerns me. That is the possibility that some third world countries, if they do not already have nuclear and chemical weapons, may acquire them in the reasonably near future, either by making them or, perhaps more likely, by receiving them from a superpower or other third party. As some third world leaders could best be described as unbalanced in some cases and positively evil in others, does this not suggest a highly explosive and unstable balance which can only be overcome by united action to control the proliferation of these lethal weapons?
I should like to end by asking whether the Government have any plans to try to restrict nuclear and chemical weapons from spreading to third world countries.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, we are approaching the end of a most informative and useful debate for which, together with other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Home. I enjoyed his speech, although to begin with I thought that it would not be very good because he kept on throwing morsels to the dinosaurs on his own side. However, by the end his vision and knowledge showed and I thoroughly approved.

827
Many arguments were put forward by Members from the other side for viewing the whole process with immense suspicion. That is in spite of notable speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and my noble friend Lord Gladwyn. I also appreciated the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir. That comment may not do him any good with his own side, but I thought that his speech was admirable.
The arguments appear to be that nothing has changed in Russia or the Soviet Union, that from Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible there has been no change and that in some respects it is still an evil empire though it had to be admitted that there might be a slight change. I find that to be extraordinary in view of the fact that the changes are apparent to everyone and they are deep and real. Speakers from the government side have admitted that they come from real causes. They come from the fact that the present leadership in Russia and the Soviet Union is deeply dissatisfied with the progress it has made in all kinds of fields, particularly in the economic field. That is also true of its total lack of success against the curiously paranoid policy which was pursued since the end of the war, including the Brezhnev period. The changes are enormous.
The history of the Soviet Union goes from the Trotsky period of world revolution to Stalin's concept of socialism in a country which must be prepared to defend itself against the inevitable war. There was then the peaceful co-existence and now there is a natural progression towards the present common sense being shown by an entirely new race of Russian people led by Mr. Gorbachev.
I do not believe that Mr. Gorbachev is an angel but he is a man of enormous good sense. The changes are real and I believe—and there is good reason for doing so—that they are irreversible. I do not believe that one can introduce such extraordinary measures for people who have lived under an authoritarian regime and ever expect them to return to that regime. If Mr. Gorbachev is ever replaced, it is more likely that he will be replaced by someone more radical than himself than by the return to a dictatorship.
However, it must be agreed that we must be cautious. There is no question that it would be foolish not to preserve the alliance. I wholly agree with the terms of the Motion in that the alliance is essential to the peace of the world and that it has held the peace for 40 years. Although I am a little tired of hearing that phrase, it is perfectly true and the peace must be maintained. In spite of arguments over a number of policies, it is now in good shape.
We must therefore take advantage of the situation which to many people—even to the Government—appears to be moderately promising. However, to other people there appears to be genuine change which we must do our best to pursue and encourage. Almost without exception every speaker from the party opposite has revealed an extraordinary suspicion. It is supposed to be the party of business. However, I find to be extraordinary the fact that, when a competitor with whom one has been in conflict in business for some time and against whom one has taken steps to guard oneself suddenly
828
becomes a person with whom one can do business, one catalogues in public his past mistakes. That has been done by eminent persons in the Government and it is an appalling mistake. One cannot do business with someone if one is constantly reminding them that in the past they were the most frightful crooks. That is being done by certain members of the Government at the present time and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was tonight as guilty of that mistake as anyone.
The question of the way in which the alliance approaches the issue is of supreme importance. I agree entirely with anyone who says that and with the mover of the Motion. But I believe that the way to do so is to put honestly the hope that here is a chance for making the world a more peaceful place. One is more likely to obtain public support in doing so rather than in continuing to remind the public of the past of the Soviet Union.
It is evident to many people that the Government are being childish. Today several speakers have said that we should welcome with open arms the proposals of the Soviet Union to back previous proposals of the alliance. Certainly we should not continue to tell the public that we must be suspicious of the Russians. They will not believe that and public opinion polls in Germany and elsewhere show that to be true.
The terms of the Motion are unexceptional. I believe that it is essential towards the progress we wish to make and to the Warsaw Pact that NATO should be held together. Given the desire to advance, the practical proposals made by the West in the Vienna talks will receive a reasonable response from the Soviet Union. I believe that we should reconsider the modernisation of our nuclear short-range weapons. We have time to do so and it is the kind of gesture which may make more possible a genuine reduction on the other side.
I believe that if we in the West tell the people that there is hope and if we genuinely demonstrate to the Russian people that we believe that they wish for peace and that their proposals are reasonable and acceptable, we shall have a chance of obtaining agreement and retaining in power the peace movement in Russia—for that is what it is—instead of fulfilling the fears which are expressed too much from the Benches opposite.
7 P.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to join other speakers in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Home, for giving us this timely opportunity to debate this particular subject. I was happy that the noble Lord took the opportunity to measure the chance that has occurred in this area since his previous debates. In presenting his Motion he took the two major questions: what should be the response of the West to the present Soviet policies and can Europe work together to deal with that present position?
The response from other speakers has covered a wide spectrum. I am happy to be following the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, because, as the speeches went on, I myself became worried about the general note of despondency rather than hope that seemed to come out of so many of them.

829
Although the Minister gave a comprehensive speech, I too felt that there was a general note of mistrust in what he said, rather than the mixture of caution and hope that I should have liked to hear from the Government.
In the wide range of thinking that emerged I think everybody might agree that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was at one extreme, because he showed a total distrust of the motives of the Soviet leader.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, would the noble Baroness give way? This is the way that myths are created. I never said that I had a mistrust of the Soviet leadership. What I said was that they had motives of their own and that they might fail. I never used the word "mistrust", nor did I indicate it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am glad to hear that from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I must have misunderstood him, because I felt that his general tone rather conveyed a sense of unease—I put it no stronger than that—about what the Soviet leadership was doing. I would say that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, ended his speech on an interesting theme, where I completely agreed with him. He hoped to see the emergence of a pluralist Eastern bloc, and I think that this is what we may well see happening, but perhaps he and I saw a different way for that to come about.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, spoke of the crisis that the Soviet reforms are bringing about. That is true, and I agreed with him when he asked how far the Soviet leaders would go in the reassessment of socialism. He felt that economic and political reforms could therefore only happen on the very fringe, which was an important point to make. We then moved towards an interesting speech, which I enjoyed, from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He asked how one assessed Mr. Gorbachev's approach. Indeed it is difficult to assess. He said, quite rightly, that both extremes in the way that we look at it and try to assess what he is doing were wrong. I agreed with him when he said that the bonding of Germany and France was central to the Western alliance. I think it would be right to say that we have the founding fathers of the new European Community to thank for that. That is one of the reasons why we see the European Community as such a vital mechanism for peace.
The noble Lords, Lord Pym and Lord Greenhill, both wished to see us in a more positive position vis-à-vis the Soviets, and wished that we should take the lead in defence decisions. They also made the important point that the Government should explain to the electorate the policy that is being pursued and try to enrol our support for what is being done.
The most hopeful of all the speeches that I have heard came from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I was happy to hear him say that he felt that the Soviet changes are historic and that they should be encouraged by the West. He believes that the arms reductions are significant and the Gorbachev changes are, in his view, irreversible. I think that perhaps he was the only speaker who was quite certain that they are irreversible.
830
For my part, perhaps I may make a few brief points. My noble friend Lord Stewart spoke of the examples of the visible changes in East/West relations that we have all seen. That reminded me of the interesting and memorable morning that I spent in the Guildhall a few weeks ago when I heard the Soviet leader speak. I believe that what he said had a great relevance to this debate. I should like to make some comment on how the West is responding to the policies he described in his speech that day.
He told us in simple terms of the progress of perestroika. I remember that it was in his speech last year to the United Nations that he made the necessity of perestroika clear. He said:
"The world economy is becoming a simple organism and no state, whatever its social system or economic status, can develop normally outside it."
I do not think there would be any argument about that. At the Guildhall he said:
"Perestroika takes time, patience, perseverance and creative effort. We are aware that tests and trials are still ahead for us. We are faced with problems resulting from a lack of political culture and the imperfection of mechanisms that safeguard democracy, and protect it against destructive, anti-social activities."
How has the West responded to these new economic policies? There is little doubt that, led by the Prime Minister, we all applaud the Soviet leader for his courage and wish him success in his reforms. But it could be said that there is some disparity between the Government's vocal support for perestroika and what they are doing to help Mr. Gorbachev succeed.
As other noble Lords have done, I should like to mention here the report recently published by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, many of whose proposals we on these Benches strongly support. One of its recommendations was for the Government to give the Soviet Union the technical expertise it needs to help introduce a market-based economy. It also recommended proposals for enhancing trade with the Eastern bloc, and for supporting Soviet efforts to improve the environment.
The report calls for Britain to exert its voice and influence in the European Community, NATO, and the Western European Union, and in particular within European political co-operation. It adds that we need to use such organisations in order to develop common strategies for security, arms control, and economic and trade agreements. In particular, the report picks out the role of the British Council and the BBC World Service in improving relations and co-operation. That is something we strongly support. It is a thoughtful and important report that has come from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and I should be interested to hear from the noble Baroness when she replies the Government's view of the report.
Mr. Gorbachev then moved to the part of his speech that concerned defence. He mentioned the failure of the philosophy of confrontation. He said:
"reliance on force is a dangerous approach which leads to an impasse [and] the decade of the Cold War has cost too dearly both to East and West."
He was at some pains to express his point as strongly as possible.

831
The response of the West towards the Soviet proposals on defence is as follows. First, it must be said that the response from the White House and its new administration has not been very audible. But the same cannot be said about the response from Britain and her EC partners. The British Prime Minister has made her position clear. While welcoming all that Mr. Gorbachev had to say about the need for arms reduction, she nevertheless wishes the West to keep on its guard. The Prime Minister was impatient for a decision to be made in favour of modernising short-range nuclear weapons even before NATO has assessed the progress of the new round of conventional arms reduction talks in Vienna. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, went into that point in great depth.
Since then, as the Minister told us this evening, the Government have relented over requiring an immediate decision. We welcome that postponement, as there is no doubt that this new position is again more in line with what the Foreign Affairs Select Committee wanted; namely, to hold early negotiations and reduce short-range nuclear forces while at the same time seeking success in conventional arms negotiations. The committee stressed the importance of these two processes going on simultaneously.
However, we should note that the Warsaw Pact goes even further and, as Mr. Gorbachev has done, proposes not just a reduction in these systems but their elimination. Indeed, so do the West German Foreign Minister, Mr. Genscher, the SDP opposition in Germany and, indeed, many ordinary Germans who have grown tired of living in a potential nuclear battlefield. The negotiations offered by the pact are not conditional on prior agreement to seek complete abolition but according to the Foreign Affairs Committees' own logic that if enough progress is made in conventional reductions they might head in that direction.
In a debate of this nature about the unity of the Western alliance one cannot put enough emphasis on what is at present happening in Germany. Indeed, it is central to the Western alliance, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said. The fact that the Germans are concerned not only about defence issues but also, most fundamentally, about their own position vis-à-vis the Eastern bloc and, indeed, their own future as a nation surely must lie at the centre of the whole question of the cohesion of the Western alliance. However, there seems to be some reluctance, or lack of haste, to discuss Germany's delicate internal situation and to try to work out alternatives to the present position.
Finally, as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said, the Labour Party supports strong and effective defence for Britain within NATO but the guidelines within which NATO operates perhaps need looking at and readjusting. We recognise that, while the justifiable doubt about the eventual success of Gorbachev's reforms, and indeed his own survival, persist, the West must remain on its guard. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, in the Government's wish to attain a balance between prudence and action there is a danger that they may err towards an excess of prudence. We feel that we
832
have not sufficiently registered the significant change in East-West relations and the sign of hope for peace that this most definitely gives. Even the vocabulary that we sometimes use contains cold war jargon. The Motion before us presupposes that Russian aggression is on the cards. However, when contemplating the problems that the Soviet leader is facing in his own back yard—Armenia, Georgia and Afghanistan—one might well believe that his hands are full for the present.
It would, of course, be naive to assume that there are no threats to world peace, but the West needs to analyse exactly what that threat now is and adjust its policies of the 1960s and 1970s to meet it. Indeed, it is in direct contrast to the Foreign Secretary's sombre reference to the Russian bear in a recent speech. Surely there are opportunities here for East and West to bury old prejudices and the cold war for ever. Mr. Gorbachev and Mrs. Thatcher have both spoken of a common European house. That is an attractive concept, and one from which I believe a great dialogue could ensue. The Soviet leader sees his new order with great clarity and it is worth attention. The time is now right to articulate our vision and proclaim it, too.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have had a valuable debate. Your Lordships have raised important points and made contributions based on long experience of the issues. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne has already stated the Government's case and in winding up I shall endeavour to respond to some of the points that have been raised. However, before I do so I should like briefly to refer to the context of NATO and what it has already achieved.
My noble friend Lord Home, in so eloquently opening the debate, and my noble friend Lady Strange, so enjoyably, reminded us that this year is an important anniversary. It is hard for us to remember what Europe was like in 1949: exhausted, discouraged, overshadowed by the menacing military power of the Soviet Union. Its economies were in ruins, its instincts for political co-operation stunned. Yet, within very few years from the signing of the Washington treaty, 40 years and two weeks ago, our vitality had revived; our sense of a common political destiny was firmly established and our common defence was assured. That is no coincidence.
From the beginning NATO was more than just a security arrangement. It provided the means of expression of a common purpose and a common political vision; it established a community of values which—and this is a fundamental point—brought together both the North Americans and the Europeans. It is a tribute, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, reminded us, to the enduring success of that community of values, that transatlantic link, that we are debating NATO's unity today after 40 years in which the world has changed dramatically—and we are all agreed that we are seeing important changes. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, gave us an optimistic picture which was re-emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in his own words, gave us the worst case.

833
My noble friend Lord Home said at the outset that he was putting these questions to see whether Europe could work together for a prudent response to Mr. Gorbachev's initiative. Most of your Lordships have addressed that point extremely appositely. I think we are all agreed that we must make the most of the new atmosphere. We would be most unwise, however, to plan on the assumption that Gorbachev's changes are not reversible. Much as we all hope that they become permanent, and indeed that they will be further developed, many of your Lordships have referred to the great economic problems facing the Soviet Union. There is the nationalities problem and the long way to go before anything approaching democracy or human rights, as we know them, become permanent features of Soviet society. Of course let us hope for the continuation of reform and help in any way that we can; but the alliance has never based its plans on hope in the past so it would be unwise to do so in the future.
A particularly striking point in Mr. Gorbachev's Guildhall speech and his conversation with the Prime Minister was the emphasis he placed on his continuing commitment to the process of reform. He is clearly under no illusions about the difficulties that lie ahead. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that Gorbachev therefore appears, to some extent, to agree with this side of the House. Equally, he is in no doubt that change is essential. It is in all our interests that he should succeed. However, may I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that it is not mistrust on the Government's side, it is caution. After all Gorbachev is a man with whom we have done business. In President Reagan's words let us, "trust, but verify".
In this context, perhaps I may say how grateful I am to those, including my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Reay, who reminded us of the importance of perestroika in the Warsaw Pact countries and particularly the fact that economic assistance to the Eastern bloc countries must be on right but not soft terms. As my noble friend Lord Trefgarne said earlier, for the alliance the underlying approach of the Harmel Report is as valid today as it was in 1967. I ask my noble friend Lord Pym: if Mr. Gorbachev is beginning to accept Harmel I for adequate defence and dialogue, is it wise for the alliance to try to construct Harmel II? My noble friend Lord Trefgarne also welcomed the Select Committee report on which the noble Baroness asked for a further response. The Government have not yet made their detailed response.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, among others, asked how NATO is responding to the Gorbachev initiative. He also asked whether NATO had the right vision. No multilateral alliance in modern times has kept the peace so effectively and for so long. The prospects for the development of our values, security, freedom and prosperity throughout Europe and across the world are better than they have ever been. NATO has set the agenda. Reasonable sufficiency in defence, now espoused by Mr. Gorbachev, is a Western concept. The INF Treaty resulted from a Eastern proposal. The bases for discussion in the START, chemical and conventional arms control negotiations are all of Western
834
origin. NATO will carry its winning agenda into the 1990s. Its overall aims in security will remain to make military aggression in Europe or North America an option that no government could rationally contemplate or hope successfully to undertake; its aim politically is to guarantee the human rights of every individual and in every state the principles of political and economic freedom of choice without which there can be no genuine and stable peace.
NATO will therefore clearly remain guarantor of our security for the foreseeable future. But there is no immutable logic which decrees that the balance between American and European obligations should never change. As Europe grows comparatively richer it seems likely that the future balance will shift towards a more Eurocentric structure. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said we should not be seduced by the concept of the common European home. We agree on the importance of the United States' commitment and the need to remain on the alert so that the alliance is not weakened, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter enjoined us. It is Western Europe, and in particular the EC, that has constructed the most successful common structure in Europe.
It is some of those countries who are most eloquent about Europe's vocation in defence which are nevertheless those whose forces will soon be affected by what is euphemistically known as structural disarmament. If the trend of static or declining defence spending is not reversed, that static structural disarmament will take place. In this context, I take note of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, concerning the cost of defence. Can a coherent European defence be plausibly advocated by countries which do not participate in the alliance's integrated command arrangements? Governments will also need to provide a procurement framework in which genuinely competitive forms can thrive and prosper. We must try to bring down the barriers and restrictive practices within and throughout Europe.
A number of your Lordships addressed themselves to the question of deterrence. Though my noble friend Lord Trefgarne dealt with this earlier, all 16 NATO allies agree that for the foreseeable future there is no alternative to the alliance strategy of deterrence based on an appropriate mix of effective and up-to-date nuclear and conventional forces, only the nuclear element of which can confront a potential aggressor with an unacceptable risk. My noble friend Lord Home said that defence is a business we must all be in. We must therefore be up to date. As my noble friend Lord Trefgarne made clear, there is much common ground in the alliance on the question of modernisation. We and Germany are opposed to the elimination of short-range missiles. We agree that the present missile, Lance, will become obsolete in the mid-1990s. The question is really one of timing of the necesary decisions. I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, the deterrent as opposed to the war-fighting role which some believe that the present short-range nuclear systems have.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, suggested that a flexible response strategy was no longer credible. On this matter I disagree and so does every alliance

835
government, not least that of the United States, which would surely be unlikely to keep its troops in Europe if, as the noble Lord suggested, all theatre nuclear weapons were to be negotiated away. My noble friend, Lord Ashbourne raised a specific question as regards the Government's plans to restrict the spread of chemical and nuclear weapons to third world countries. The answer is yes, we do have a plan. We are working with a number of Western countries to control the spread of missile technology and of nuclear and chemical weapons. We take all these issues very seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, also asked a specific question concerning the verification of chemical weapons and whether we are nearer any solution. In that respect there are still complex problems to overcome. However, the Government are active in the work of verification in Geneva and will continue to be so. To continue to apply its successful formula, NATO will need to be able to continue to rely on the support of public opinion in its member countries. Again, I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, who asked that more effort should be made to explain NATO policies to the public. That is why debates of this kind are important because they help to make clear that NATO still has a role as it approaches the period which in human terms would be called middle age. I hope there is nobody in your Lordships' House today who is in any doubt that NATO still has work to do and an essential role to play, and perhaps we may even say that life does begin at 40.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, events have conspired to ensure that this debate is topical. I am very grateful to your Lordships who have taken advantage of it and who have made so many very informative and interesting speeches. In particular perhaps I may say how happy I was that the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, felt able to take part. One can sum up the debate by saying that it has revealed a strong wish for the continuance of NATO as an effective alliance. That has been combined with the desire that the Western democracies should be able carefully and with prudence to adapt themselves to change. I hope that the ideas that have come up in the course of the afternoon are helpful to the Government. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Welsh-speaking Communities
7.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to strengthen the social fabric of Welsh-speaking communities in the face of the effects of the influx of population.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have tabled this Unstarred Question because the high and rising tide of inward migration, overwhelmingly from beyond Offa's Dyke, into the Welsh-speaking rural
836
communities of the North, Mid and West Wales which have been the strongholds of the Welsh language for fifteen hundred years has far reaching implications for our native tongue. I know that there are also rural parts of England and Scotland where inward migration presents severe problems. I would expect that some of the policies which could be applied to strengthen the fabric of the Welsh-speaking rural communities would be in large measure relevant to them too and would be welcomed by those who wish to preserve the character of rural life.
At the outset I should also acknowledge that inward migration is at work in combination with depopulation. Outward migration, which had slowed down in the 1960s and 1970s, is still a continuing feature. There is a substantial exodus of young people between the ages of 15 and 25, many being impelled to leave in search of employment and housing that they can afford to buy. I shall return to depopulation later on as it is a related issue which must also be addressed.
It may be argued that inward migration can be a fertilising element within a society. It can be an enrichment in small doses. Indeed it has been happening in Wales for a very long time. But it is blindingly obvious that the transfer of population into Welsh-speaking rural areas has now reached a stage where the local community cannot assimilate the newcomers into its society. It is causing problems in very many communities, threatening their character and cohesion and eroding the Welsh language, which has been their mode of expression since at least the sixth century AD.
The broad picture is documented in the memorandum called Language, Planning and Housing in Gwynedd, submitted to the Secretary of State in July last by the Gwynedd county council and three district councils. The population data that is available is interpreted in two recent public lectures by no less a person than Professor Harold Carter, a distinguished former president of the Institute of British Geographers. I could also refer to a recent and compelling lecture by Mr. Graham Day of the Department of Economics at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth. I note too that the Welsh Committee of the Countryside Commission is alive to the issue.
The changes we are witnessing in the Welsh-speaking rural communities are not events of merely local significance. These changes at work in about 300 villages and hamlets, when linked together, show that the Welsh language is reaching a decisive turning point. One could give many examples to illustrate the rapid erosion of the language in its core areas. I shall cite only four. Between 1971 and 1981 the percentage of Welsh speakers in Pentraeth in Ynys Môn fell from 73.19 per cent. to 54.9 per cent. In Brithdir, at the foot of Cader Idris, it fell from 65.91 per cent. to 54.45 per cent. In Cellan near Lampeter in Dyfed it fell from 71.43 per cent. to 52.77 per cent. Thus in those three core areas there had been over a 10-year period a convincing move from about 70 per cent. Welsh to a 50-50 balance, while in the Capel Curig core area of Eryri it had fallen from 45.7 per cent. to a mere 28.6 per cent. Local surveys

837
since 1981 show that there has been a substantial further fall in the Welsh-speaking proportions in the core areas and that it is continuing apace.
According to the Valuation Office for Wales, one-third of all residential properties sold in Gwynedd during the six months ending last October were sold to purchasers from England. According to a recent projection made by the Gwynedd county council, if present trends continue unchecked, by the year 2001 Welsh will be spoken by 75 per cent. of the population in only 18 villages or hamlets in the whole of that country, and in only one village in the whole of Meirionnyd, compared with 173 in 1971 and 144 in 1981. That is the scale of the projected erosion.
This takes me to the point that if the Welsh language is devastated in the rural communities of Gwynedd, Dyfed and West Powys, it is virtually certain that not long thereafter it will cease to be a living language throughout the whole of the Principality. It is this change, sadly observed Professor Harold Carter in his BBC Wales annual radio lecture delivered on 18th January last,
"which has induced the present crisis of the language for the reservoir which continually renewed it is in danger of drying up".
In Wales many of us are paying heed to his words.
Sadly, there is every reason to fear that the inward and outward migration will get worse unless there are new government policies. It is feared that it will worsen with the completion of the upgrading of the A55 along the North Wales coastal belt and the second crossing of the Severn, which will bring the Welsh rural areas even closer to the commuter, even closer to younger people in the urban centres who seek a different lifestyle for themselves and their dependent children and even closer to the retired population. It is feared that it will get worse with a further shedding of labour from agriculture which still remains crucially important for these areas as a source of employment. It could worsen unless the current EC National Programme of Community Interest for the counties of Gwynedd, Dyfed and Powys is extended and converted in 1991–92 into an integrated operations programme.
There is an economic case for strengthening the social fabric of rural Wales. That case was handsomely acknowledged by a Welsh Office civil servant when she gave evidence on 28th February 1988 to your Lordships' Select Committee on European Communities, Sub-Committee A. However powerful the economic argument is, the case for government investment in the Welsh-speaking rural communities is broader, stronger and overwhelmingly more important than the purely economic arguments would indicate. We are concerned with far more than economic arguments. We are concerned with the survival in Wales of our national heritage. The disappearance of the Welsh language communities would more than impoverish Welsh life. It would amount to a national loss which could never be repaired or recovered.
Of course we recognise that we cannot preserve like a museum piece the rural Welsh-speaking community which existed in the past. That is the kind of work which is very well done by the National
838
Folk Museum of Wales near Cardiff. We do not seek to preseve a relic of a bygone age. We want to sustain a local community which offers opportunities for its members to live a full life in a stable society which is building its future on the heritage which is there and which has gradually developed over 15 centuries.
I have a feeling that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he comes to reply will seek to assure the House that the Government have every sympathy with the efforts made by dedicated men and women who are working very hard to strengthen the Welsh language. He may well refer to the financial support given by this Government to the Welsh Eisteddfod and other relevant institutions. He may well refer to the enhanced status given to the Welsh language in the school curriculum which we discussed in your Lordships' House a year ago and to the setting up last year of the Advisory Welsh Language Board. No doubt he will refer to the planning circular issued on 20th December last. We appreciate all that and in the context: of this debate I appreciate the potential of the planning circular to halt some large-scale developments which are injurious to the Welsh-speaking communities.
Nevertheless, that is not enough. Additional measures are required which are designed to control within the next few years the inward and outward migration. Indeed one could comment that to seek to strengthen the Welsh language in the more Anglicised parts of Wales—and I support that effort—while allowing its erosion to proceed apace in its traditional heartland, would be extraordinary and a paradox.
It is difficult to do full justice to the background of this very important debate in my allotted time. I could elaborate further. However, having described the essential problem as best I can, I must now move on to the questions which I wish to put to the Government to see what solutions they consider are possible. Of course, I have given due notice to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, of the matters which I am about to raise.
In preparation for this short debate I came to realise that much of the information available is not up to date. I believe that there is a gap here. Given the importance of the subject, can the Welsh Office arrange for all the relevant statistics to be collected annually, to be analysed and to be made easily and promptly available? That must include the close monitoring of what is going on in schools. The inward migration makes a powerful impact on the rural schools. New pupils from English urban centres arrive unannounced any day, any week, any month with no knowledge of the Welsh language or even of Welsh history. Inadequately resourced teachers struggle to assimilate the newcomers into the life of the school and to promote bilingualism among a mix of Welsh-speaking and non Welsh-speaking pupils. I hear of immense problems facing the teachers, who are inadequately resourced.
The Welsh Office should also monitor what becomes of the school-leavers: how many stay in their home areas and how many are impelled to go away in search of employment or housing. Again, can we be assured that the Welsh Office will monitor

839
the implementation and effectiveness of the planning circular of 20th December?
Many of us would wish to know what assumptions the Welsh Office is making about the population position in the Welsh-speaking rural areas in five and 10 years' time. Can we be assured that those assumptions fully take into account the inward migration of the past few years? Again, can the Welsh Office tell us in broad terms how many jobs are needed to arrest depopulation by the end of the century and what will be the cost of providing the new jobs necessary at 1989 prices?
I should like to know whether the Government are prepared to consider introducing specific measures designed substantially to slow down the pace of inward migration. Is the Welsh Office prepared seriously to examine the suggestion put forward in the February catalogue of the William Ricketts Partnership—a very well known firm of chartered accountants—that the Secretary of State should be empowered to designate areas which are vulnerable to language erosion and a distorted residential property market because of the influx of outsiders and to introduce special measures which could be appropriately applied within the designated areas? I appreciate that that could involve an encroachment on individual liberty and that could be difficult. On the other hand, we are here concerned with the vital interests of the community as a whole, indeed with the survival of an organic community. Therefore, if I may echo the words of the late Lord Butler, it is a matter of striking a just balance between opposing interests. I believe that there is wide support among those who wish to see the survival of the Welsh language for the underlying principal of the William Ricketts' suggestion.
Perhaps I may mention another possibility. Are the Government willing to contemplate introducing a local authority interest free, top-up secured loan to enable a local person to buy a house suitable to his needs in his local community which is far above his reach in competition with the well-to-do incomers? Such a scheme would make a valuable contribution. It has been noted that the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 3rd February last in another place that English planning authorities will be empowered to enter into agreements with developers under Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 restricting the occupancy of new houses to local people. That is a helpful and significant development. Now that the Department of the Environment has given that lead, is it too much to urge the Welsh Office to follow it?
Looking further afield, we know that several Western European countries are faced with problems which are not dissimilar. Are the Government prepared to look to other European countries to see what lessons might be learnt?
The Welsh language is the oldest spoken language of these islands and possibly of Europe. It is a living part of the European heritage. For those reasons, I am encouraged to ask whether this Conservative Government are considering how many of the 69 undertakings of the Charter for European Minority Languages, adopted by the Council of Europe in
840
October last, will be applied in Welsh speaking communities to conserve a living part of the European heritage which is in our possession?
I invite the Minister to assure the House that the Government have grasped the nature and the gravity of the language crisis that I have described, and that they have the political will to find solutions which will reach the heart of the problem. The Minister's speech, as recorded in Hansard, will be studied closely in Wales. I would be pleased if the next debate in your Lordships' House on this important subject were to be an early one on a Welsh Office document reviewing the issues and options available, including employment, education and housing aspects, so that the Secretary of State can formulate a coherent policy.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, of Aberpennar, is still feeling the after-effects of a fall that he sustained last weekend; but, as he requested, I supplied him with a copy of my speech. His response was:
"I gladly accept as it were my own the plea you propose making on behalf of our native Cymraeg. It raises no point of law, indeed it is both beyond and more important than any mere matter of law. Above all it is an SOS for the preservation of the living language which constitutes the life blood of our native way of life".
Your Lordships will know that that is the judgment of one of the country's most eminent lawyers. The noble and learned Lord was too kind to me when he added:
"May your sterling appeal move all men and women of goodwill as much as it has moved me".
I want to thank all Members of your Lordships' House who are kindly taking part in this short debate. They will add their own assessments and suggestions. I also want to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones for his steadfast support, and my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, who is also sitting alongside me, for his resolute support at all times for efforts to find solutions to our problems.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, having taken part in the previous debate, I have been sitting on these Benches, almost without break, since 3 o'clock and so I know that your Lordships will be relieved to know that I do not intend to occupy your time for long. I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, on having dealt with what could be an extremely difficult and delicate little matter with such dexterity and sensitivity.
We all know that once we introduce a debate that says what a danger to our communities inward migration from across the border is, we are entering into an extremely difficult and delicate subject. The noble Lord was right when he said that one can frequently speak about the enrichment resulting from inward migration. Many of us who have lived in Wales know how true that is. There are parts of North Wales, as he knows only too well, which have been considerably enriched by the migration of English people from Liverpool and Manchester. In Gwynedd alone places such as Llandudno, Deganwy and others along that coast have been greatly enriched by migration from across the border.

841
The noble Lord is absolutely right. The problem of what is called a community under threat is widespread throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. One can think of places in Suffolk and Surrey which not so long ago were real little rural communities. They have been totally changed by people who commute to them or who have retired there. That has changed the whole community spirit. There is a great deal of complaint about it, but, nevertheless, having said that, this is something different, because here one is dealing not just with what is called the community feeling and spirit, but with something which is of enormous importance to the majority of people in Wales; namely, the Welsh language. It is of course in those communities, some of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, that one had a high percentage of people who spoke the Welsh language and therefore followed what is known as the Welsh culture. That is something which is held near and dear to Welsh people.
I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving me an article which referred to what is happening in some of those communities as a threat to Welsh nationalism, pride and culture. It is interesting to note that the words "Welsh nationalism" were used. One knows that nationalism has been described as a machine which inexorably leads to tragedy, anger and hatred; but nationalism in Wales is different. It crosses party boundaries. People of practically every party in Wales talk about their nationalistic feeling. It means that they know that Wales is a nation with a real living language of its own. There are immigrants in Wales who feel the same.
I remember when I was a Member of Parliament in Wales Megan Lloyd-George was taking round a petition in favour of a parliament for Wales. In Penrhyn Bay in my constituency, which is well known to several noble Lords here. I think 90 per cent. of the population were English immigrants. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, will correct me if I am wrong. About 70 per cent. of them were on Megan Lloyd-George's petition. When at that time I inquired of these people, many of whom were my supporters, why they had signed it, they said, "Well, it's only right, isn't it, because Wales is a nation?" They had wholly accepted the suggestion that Wales was a nation and that it had to be treated differently. They lived there and they were perfectly happy to be considered nationalists.
Therefore the noble Lord was quite right to introduce this debate and to spell out, as he has so eloquently and effectively, the problems that we face. He mentioned places which I know well such as Dolwyddelan and he has given me a Welsh paper mentioning that village which I knew as a child. I used to stay there; relations of mine had a farm just outside the village. In Dolwyddelan there are now 37 children in the school, only 12 of whom come from Welsh families.
Then there is Penmachno which of course I know well, having represented it for many years. Out of 73 children there only 19 come from Wales. When we look at those two places we see exactly why. Cwm Penmachno was once dependent on quarries which
842
have gone and therefore there is no work for the people; the little houses have been sold for holiday homes. Great co-operation has been given by people so that that can happen. Dolwyddelan again was a quarrying town; these are either quarrying or farming places. Now the quarrying has gone and Dolwyddelan is in one of the most beautiful parts of North Wales, a great tourist area. Therefore we have people coming in, one sees that.
However as regards one of the problems, the impetus behind much of what the noble Lord has complained of has been good Government activity over the years. He mentioned for instance the A.55. When I was Secretary of State for Wales that road was of major importance. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked question after question about when we were going to have the main road coming through from Chester right across and over the Conwy so that Anglesey could be properly served. But that has brought problems. In the same way we find in different parts of Wales that the introduction of industry and the improvement of roads have brought the problem and given the impetus to what the noble Lord has complained about.
This is what I say to him. He asked about the solutions and he has very cleverly tried to put some forward as well as asking one or two questions of my noble friend the Minister. We can think of only two solutions. One is to give increasing stimulation to the Welsh language and that has been done by successive governments over the years. It is not just in the rural areas that the Welsh language will be fostered; at the moment its use is increasing in places like Cardiff and other parts of Wales. It should not just be left to the small rural areas, in the hope that they will look after the Welsh language for us for ever. All we shall get in the small rural parts of Wales, if we are to have Government help to keep people in Welsh-speaking areas, is a lot of little ghettos. I should be opposed to that.
Practical efforts in regard to housing are also needed. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister three questions. First, what about housing association activities? I believe that Housing for Wales has just been introduced and over £70 million has been given to its first year development programme for the provision of social housing in Wales. Is it intended to give particular attention to rural areas?
Secondly, I understand that the Secretary of State has recently announced that during 1989-90 an extra capital allocation of £1 million will be available to help councils to buy houses which might become second homes. I believe that Aberconwy, in which I have a particular interest, has made an application. I do not know whether my noble friend is in a position to say what that allocation might be.
The third question is this. I believe that the local authorities already have wide powers to restrict the growth of second homes. I refer to Section 157 of the Housing Act 1985. Are local, authorities, in particular those in rural areas, making full use of their powers? I apologise to the House for spending much longer than I intended on my feet. I am grateful to noble Lords for their indulgence and kindness.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, on initiating this debate. The noble Lord and I were fellow students and I remember that he then hailed from the village of Llanegryn in Merionethshire and has lived most of his adult life in industrial Wales—Pontypridd. So he has knowledge of both sides of Welsh life, rural and industrial. However, throughout his life he has always been a stalwart fighter for the rights of Wales and for the Welsh language and culture.
I think we ought to examine the whole problem in a broader context at the commencement. The crisis on minority cultures is not confined to Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to it as also extending to other parts of the United Kingdom, but it is a universal problem today. At this time in history it seems that every advantage lies with the large and the dominant. In fact we see that the processes of glasnost and perestroika within the Soviet Union have revealed parallel problems to those which have been described here. It probably also lies at the root of the return to Islamic fundamentalism where the scale of the reaction against the dominant Western values makes it perhaps effective at least temporarily.
It is obvious that the attempt to roll back cultural change, even if it is unacceptable and debasing change, is immensely difficult. It can happen as we saw, for example, in the adoption of the Hebrew language by migrants to the modern state of Israel. I know full well that economic well-being and economic success are as important in Welsh Wales as elsewhere. In my own area I have seen the change from depopulation to increased population and the introduction of greater prosperity. But it is generally done by enlarging communities, building more and more houses and factories. The support for economic measures was hardly ever—indeed it never was—matched by support for social and cultural measures. The language has suffered accordingly.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to that remarkable BBC Wales annual radio lecture last year. I have a copy of the published lecture in my hand by the eminent geographer, Professor Harold Carter, entitled Culture, Language and Territory. I draw heavily on the facts that he stated and the views he expressed in that lecture. He reviewed three phases in the history of Wales from the 11th century and pointed out the significant language shift during the industrialisation of Wales in the 19th century; the era of economic and cultural imperialism. However, as late as 1961, he points out that two eminent scholars were able to write:
"There is a predominantly Welsh Wales, fairly sharply divided from a highly anglicised area, and yielding territorially only reluctantly to the small peripheral advances of the latter".
That was in 1961. But the latest phase he refers to has occurred in our own last decade or so; that is the growth of service industries. This has led to even greater stress being laid upon the common language of commerce in which information is relayed internationally.
844
Then, in our day, there is much greater personal mobility. There is the motor car, the aeroplane, and now the helicopter. There is the development of the two home syndrome. So there is seasonal suburbanisation. There is also the emergence of rural retreat or counter-urbanisation. There are the lifestyles of the yuppies and the dinkies. In addition, there are those who reject the values of modern society in any respect. After the sale of property in the South-East at inflated prices, they settle in a more congenial environment at retirement age or indeed well below it. They find such an environment in rural Welsh-speaking Wales.
There is, undoubtedly, the challenging characteristic of electronic communication. "Dallas" and "Dynasty" are shown in Welsh cottages and farmhouses. There is the rural depopulation arising from far more efficient agriculture. These developments have given rise to a crucial contrast with the situation as it was in 1961. That is why it is so apt that the noble Lord has raised this Question today. The crisis is infinitely deeper now. The crisis of language now arises because there is no longer a Welsh language frontier which was very slowly and gradually moving westwards. But now every little village and every rural area in the Welsh core areas are threatened simultaneously. That is the extent of the crisis.
I believe there is a necessity for a very strong new policy initiative by the Government. There should be a general recognition by this Government, which has responsibility for a minority culture in Wales, of the fragility of minority cultures and lesser used languages in the present world environment. It is perhaps a sad comment on the nature of our times that it is relatively easy to persuade the Government to advance funds to enable woodlands to be preserved, to enable areas of scientific interest like bogs to be preserved, to preserve and restore hedges, to preserve communities of badgers, and to safeguard archaeological remains, yet it is relatively difficult to persuade them to advance money to preserve and strengthen the Welsh-speaking community in Wales. I am sure that it is equally difficult to persuade the Government to help the Gaelic speaking community in Scotland.
It is very important that we put this in the right perspective; yet, when one reflects on it, here we are not talking about a badger community, an area of bog or a displaced hedge but a language, a literature and a culture which have come down for at least 14 or 15 centuries. It is interesting that if one looks in the Oxford Book of English Verse, one finds that the first poems which appear there were written in the 14th century. If one looks in the Oxford Book of Welsh Verse, one finds the first poems that appear there were written in the 7th century.
I quote the conclusion of Professor Carter who said in reflecting on the problems:
"But in spite of these dangers and the conflicts that necessarily arise, perhaps because of them, I firmly believe that the great variety of cultures, of the diversity of the ways in which human kind responds to the environment, is one of the great glories of the world. I conclude in a more limited way by urging the adoption of structures to promote the interests of minorities against the trends to uniformity in a metropolitan world and the demands for conformity from sovereign states".

845
If the Government really wish to help to create—here I choose my words carefully—the framework in which the Welsh nation can help itself, which it should do, and bearing in mind the six questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, at the conclusion of his speech, may I suggest that the Government could take the following steps immediately. One of the prime needs is to have movements of population in and out of the Welsh-speaking areas monitored properly, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, suggested. One of the things the Secretary of State could do immediately—and the first thing I think he should do—is to provide funds to set up a small unit under somebody like Professor Harold Carter, to have effective and efficient monitoring of the movements of in-migration and out-migration, so we know the scale of the problem. On a BBC programme not so long ago I heard the in-migration figure put at 80,000 per annum; but it was not made clear whether that applied to rural Wales or to Wales generally.
The second thing that needs to be done is to make proper education provision in the core Welsh-speaking areas. That is vital. I do not think the Government appreciate the immensity of the problem. When I first became the MP for Montgomeryshire, the school at Llanbrynmair in Montgomeryshire was entirely Welsh speaking. Partially due to economic success in the area, and partially due to in-migration, all kinds of problems have arisen in the schools there. Some parents think there is too much teaching of Welsh and others think there is insufficient teaching of Welsh. Some move into the area with children of the age of eight or nine. Those people find their children are in a Welsh-speaking school. They had not contemplated that situation beforehand. It is quite natural for parents to think that their children are not receiving the kind of education that they want. These problems can only be resolved by far greater help.
It is vital to have more teachers who can teach in Welsh. It is necessary to have much more sophisticated Welsh video language teaching and facilities. There needs to be much research and development in that area. I have always believed that the French, German, Russian and Italian language teaching programmes on the BBC are much better and more sophisticated than the equivalent Welsh language programmes. Much more financial help is needed for those local authorities who have these intense linguistic problems in some schools.
I shall now turn to adult education. I know Poles and Italians in Wales who speak Welsh fluently. Plenty of English people have learnt Welsh. Many Welsh and non-Welsh immigrants are anxious to learn the language, history and traditions of Wales. But here again more financial help is needed. We need one small, central co-ordinating body to co-ordinate such activities as are carried out now by such bodies as the extra-mural faculties of the university colleges, the education authorities and such voluntary establishments as Nantgwytheyrn in Caernarvonshire.
As regards economic help, the Welsh Development Corporation and the mid-Wales Development
846
Corporation should acknowledge a special need to introduce some small factories and to promote some small businesses within the core Welsh speaking areas. They should consider paying inducement premiums to them to follow special procedures to safeguard and promote the language. Some companies try to do that voluntarily. I happen to be associated with a company which has always tried to do that. However, I think it is very difficult with a large company because it employs a large body of people.
Tourism in the core Welsh areas should be dealt with much more sensitively. We should ensure that tourist developments within core areas are small and low key and are dispersed throughout the community so the community can absorb the tourists and the benefits that the tourist developments bring can accrue to a much wider area. We should be more discriminating in the tourist market that we aim for.
The fourth matter which I believe the Government should consider is a clear and definite use of planning provisions. I have argued, on behalf of developers for example, that until very recently the protection and fostering of the Welsh language was not a planning matter and that planning was solely a matter of the physical development and use of land. However, the Welsh Office circular to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has referred, Circular 53/88 issued on 28th December, clarified the position of the Welsh language in relation to development plans. It is now put forward as a consideration in planning control. In other words, the needs and interests of the Welsh language have been made a proper planning consideration which developers and everyone else can assess and take into account.
I have considered the plans of a number of planning authorities. I particularly commend the approach of the Glyndwr District Council on this matter. In its local plan for 1986 it states that its fourth local plan objective is:
"to safeguard as far as possible the special, social, cultural and linguistic character and identity of the District".
So far as I can see, that is the most sophisticated approach of any planning authority in Wales. I suggest that every planning authority should set up at least one area of special cultural identity where special steps are taken to apply social, economic and cultural policies in a way which directly influences the linguistic pattern of the area.
In the 1951 census it was disclosed that there were 50,000 monoglot Welsh speakers in the Principality. That was just 38 years ago. I doubt whether there are now any. The late Saunders Lewis, the great advocate of survival by struggle and strife against the dominant power, argued that a bilingual Wales would soon become a monoglot Wales but English rather than Welsh monoglot. He is the prophet of the revolutionary forces in Wales. In respect of those views Professor Carter concluded:
"These views on struggle [are] therefore at root essentially anarchic and an old-fashioned romanticism dressed in the garb of contemporary sociological jargon".
I agree with that view.
I should like to conclude by saying that the late Goronwy Rees, the enfant terrible of Welsh education, who was for a short time 1he principal of

847
University College, Aberystwyth, in a broadcast in 1953 said:
"yet one cannot help contrasting the immense protectiveness of the Welsh people in the 19th century in creating their own characteristically Welsh institutions, and what seems to me today to be an inability either to create new institutions or to adapt existing institutions to the changed conditions of the present time".
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has referred to the changed conditions and the urbanisation of Wales. Where do the bright children from the countryside go? They are well educated. The greatest export of the Welsh rural areas these days are genes, bright genes. Those young people tend to go to the larger conurbations.
We need to consider the significance of the gradual shift of the power base for Wales from the South-East of England into the South-East of Wales. It is slowly happening—politically, commercially and economically. That poses great challenges and brings great opportunities for the Welsh language.
I believe that for the moment the Government can protect the seed corn. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, it is from the core Welsh-speaking areas that the outward migration takes place. More and more the migration will tend to be towards South-East Wales, or perhaps to North-East Wales. There is great scope there for the Welsh language movement, which has been so beneficial. I believe that the Government need to create the framework in which the Welsh nation can save itself by its own exertions. The Government cannot do that for the Welsh people, but what the Government can do is to give every help and build the kind of framework in the difficult conditions of the modern world in which the Welsh people can safeguard their own language and culture.
8.25 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies tabled his question for debate tonight even he can hardly have supposed that Welsh affairs would occupy quite so much of the newspaper headlines or be so politically topical as they have proved to be.
In his comments last week on certain economic deficiencies in government policies, the Secretary of State for Wales, Mr. Peter Walker, did not go quite so far as to suggest that the empress had no clothes. However, he pointed out that she and her political consort, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were somewhat inadequately clad. How right he was. Only the less intelligent Conservative Back-Benchers in another place failed to realise that Mr. Walker's intervention might give their party (although I doubt it) the only chance to hold on to the Vale of Glamorgan seat in the forthcoming by-election. I do not believe that his intervention was as innocent as some people supposed it to be. However, we are not here tonight to discuss the merits or demerits of the Secretary of State for Wales, although I believe that the majority of the Welsh people would say that as long as they have to have a Conservative Secretary of State for Wales they would rather have Mr. Walker than anyone else currently available.
848
This debate is primarily about the Welsh language and more particularly the rural areas of the Principality. I think that we should look at the matter rather more widely than on the basis of language alone, although I have considerable sympathy with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that we should ensure the adequate economic and social development of Wales so that the Welsh people can look after the language for themselves.
I sympathise greatly with the concerns expressed by the three noble Lords who have already spoken, particularly with regard to housing and the provision of rural schools and Welsh teachers in the schools. There are considerable difficulties in some areas in recruiting an adequate number of sufficiently well-trained teachers in Welsh. I believe that that particular issue will be strongly supported by all Members of the House. I hope that the Minister in his reply will say something about both housing and education. Both are problems in rural Wales.
I was a little surprised that neither my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies nor the other noble Lords who have spoken made any reference to the study of rural Wales initiated by the Institute of Welsh Affairs. Many of the statistical and demographic data with which my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies was concerned are extremely well recorded and dealt with in that study. That study was particularly the concern of Mr. John Tudor, who was chairman of the institute's rural affairs group. If neither of the noble Lords who referred to demographic matters has seen the report I shall be glad to show it to them. I have to admit that I have a borrowed copy, because I cannot really afford the 10 to purchase one.
I commend the report to anyone who is concerned with inward and outward migration in Wales, with the position of the Welsh language and the opinions expressed in a very thorough sociological study carried out by the institute. I very much hope that the study on rural Wales will have as stimulating an effect on the Welsh Office as did the first study of the Institute of Welsh Affairs, published in January 1988, on the South Wales valleys. As we know, the Secretary of State for Wales has pursued his valleys initiative with great vigour and, one may fairly say, with panache.
However, that means that there are other areas of Wales which may legitimately have felt that the concentration on the valleys, important though it is, has to some degree been at their expense. If one reads the Hansard report of the Welsh affairs debate in another place on St. David's Day of this year, one finds that there is little substantial reference to the areas in Wales with which we are most concerned tonight. There is a great deal about the efforts that are being made in the industrial areas, particularly in the South Wales valleys, but also to some extent in North-East Wales and the whole coastal area of South Wales, but there is very little about Mid-Wales, including for this purpose Ceredigion, Meirionnydd and Powys, and about the Welsh-speaking areas of Gwynedd. I very much hope that, given the interest of a great many of us in the rural areas and the acute problems, which will not grow less in the next few years, in our farming areas, we

849
shall see a certain shift in emphasis in the Welsh Office to the benefit of the areas that we are discussing tonight.
The need for a dynamic regional policy and insistence on constructive government intervention applies just as much to Mid-Wales as to North or South Wales. It is encouraging to note that, in the two instruments for economic development—the Welsh Development Agency and Mid-Wales Development—we have two relatively young and very vigorous Welsh chairmen; namely, Dr. Gwyn Jones and Mr. Glyn Davies, who has just taken over the direction of Mid-Wales Development. His vigorous and encouraging speech is recorded in today's Welsh papers.
The initiative will depend a great deal on the indigenous efforts of rural Wales and particularly of the Mid-Wales area, which is apt to be neglected because it is neither north nor south. We must rely on that initiative for the vigorous society that can sustain the language as well as economic development. I believe that we have made considerable progress in the Mid-Wales area. In his speech, Mr. Glyn Davies gave an encouraging report of progress, confirmed by other sources, saying that there has been a quite remarkable industrial surge in parts of Mid-Wales. Newtown is enjoying a much better employment percentage than most areas of Wales and there have been some striking industrial initiatives there. I speak not only of that great and important firm of Laura Ashley, although I am sorry to see that it intends to move its administration headquarters from Mid-Wales. There have been other exciting developments on the Mid-Wales industrial scene; for example, Control Techniques at Newtown and the Welshpool printing firm which is not very much publicised in North or South Wales, but is known throughout the rest of Britain as one of the best graphics enterprises in the entire country. Examples of that kind should encourage us to tackle our own domestic problems and to maintain our language rather than discourage us.
I was very much in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said about the need to encourage tourist development into appropriate parts of Wales through sympathic development. That is one of the matters which worries many of us very much. Unless we have some constructive government intervention, with some of the necessary infrastructure, it will be difficult to avoid the influx of the kinds of commercial tourism which I believe most of us would find unacceptable. We have shown that rejection of a planning application for an obtrusive, tasteless development on a site which would have been quite suitable for a sympathic, more modest enterprise.
I do not believe that we wish to have in any part of Wales the candyfloss or casinos that are proposed by some of those merchants or the overcrowded tourist rabbit hutches they want to erect in large numbers. That is not the kind of development we need. However, in some areas it is difficult to find any kind of entrepreneur who is willing to come in and invest. They say that there is not the necessary initial infrastructure.
850
We have had difficulties with certain developments, including the Clogan gold mine. I do not expect the Minister to comment because the matter is sub judice at the moment. There is the possibility of resuscitating what was an industrial area on the Mawddach estuary. If it was sympathetically developed, it would be very appropriate as a tourist attraction, but it is not suitable because the promoters of the enterprise say it cannot proceed unless they can be certain that at least a quarter of a million people will visit it during each summer season. The congestion on that road near Dolgellau would be intolerable. I am sure that everyone here knows that road well. That is the kind of development that we cannot easily sustain.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, will be interested to know, although he may not be entirely in sympathy, that fortuitously this very afternoon a petition was presented at the Welsh Office by Mr. Alex Carlile, the Member of Parliament for Montgomery, with more than 12,000 signatures. It requested the Secretary of State to think again about some constructive intervention on what I believe is one of the most interesting possibilities for tourist investment in Mid-Wales; namely, the Montgomery Canal. The noble Lord might not be interested in that matter unless it reached as far as Llanidloes, which is improbable in the near future. I do not suggest that the former scheme, which did not find favour with the Welsh Office, should be resuscitated in detail, but one constructive public intervention in Montgomeryshire by the Welsh Office and one in Shropshire could open the way to a development which is fully appropriate and which could then be safely left to private enterprise. Without that intervention, private enterprise will not carry out the initiatives that we would welcome.
So there are many problems that need to be solved if we are to maintain both progress and a balance in our rural areas. The debate has been extremely valuable, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, rightly stressed in particular the cultural and language aspects of the position in Wales. However, I hope that we can marry our concern for our cultural needs and aspirations with the right kind of economic development, including something more imaginative than what has been seen so far for farming policy in Wales. We can then sustain the kind of society which I think all of us wish to see.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked the Government a very pertinent and indeed sensitive question. In the first instance I hope that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will agree that it is vitally important not to destroy rural communities. If he does not, then I think the sooner I jump off the South. Stack into the Irish Sea the better.
Last Saturday I had the pleasure of speaking to the Anglesey Antiquarian Society on the evils perpetrated by my family in Anglesey over the past 250 years. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is laughing and I have a certain guilty conscience today which perhaps comes from my Welsh blood. The problem is how we can achieve our aim of not

851
destroying our rural communities. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will agree with me that one does not do that by trying to prevent young people from moving out. My Welsh Owen ancestress did just that 250 years ago and many other Welsh people have done so since. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, does not mind my mentioning that he has moved from Merionethshire to the city of Cardiff.
Secondly, we do not preserve this community by preventing new blood from coming in, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, certainly said that, although I did find myself a little muddled afterwards with regard to some of his remarks. If new blood is prevented from coming in, as he said, the village will be ossified. I am hesitant about speaking about Anglesey when the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is present, but Newborough has suffered serious in-breeding through being forced by their English conquerers (if I may say that) to follow an isolationist policy.
In that context I should like to correct an impression that is held, sadly and quite wrongly, by the media; namely, that the Welsh do not welcome strangers. That is absolute nonsense. They certainly welcome people; it is in their nature to do so. The Welsh want to be nice and they like to help people. They welcomed my family 250 years ago when a Stanley seduced and married a very beautiful and, I may say, rich and talented Miss Owen. I still experience that welcome as a mongrel Welshmancum-mongrel everything else. I hope that my family falls into the category of beneficial immigrants about which my noble friend Lord Thomas spoke.
However, those villages and areas which are Welsh-speaking, particularly those in Gwynedd, must not experience a massive influx of newcomers which would swamp the rural culture. One has seen that happen in England. I shall not name the village for that would be naughty, but one has seen it near Manchester and I have seen it near Oxfordshire. That applies to villages throughout the United Kingdom, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson.
It can only be prevented by granting permission for a limited number of new houses under existing planning law. It is perfectly simple. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will confirm that this view is held by the Secretary of State. Moreover, although I am not against the purchase of council houses, there must be enough rented accommodation available for young local people to live in when they cannot afford a first mortgage. Housing associations—and I do not understand a great deal about them—have a very big part to play in this. I hope that Plaid Cymru will give them the funds.
With something of a chip on my shoulder I must here agree with the noble Baroness, Lady White, in that sometimes I feel that the Secretary of State forgets that there is an area called North Wales and Gwynedd. I shall not pursue that line in case my noble friend thinks that I shall come to the health authority and a certain hospital in Holyhead.
However, so far as concerns our richer cousins from the South who come up and buy property in
852
Welsh villages, perhaps I am naive (and indeed I always was) but I do not see that as a great problem in Anglesey. It is certainly not the problem that it is made out to be. Many of the properties that I have seen bought up were derelict and sited away from any village. They were not really wanted by anybody local. I must say that I prefer to see a derelict house being renovated and not falling to pieces.
There is also the benefit that money comes into the area. I believe that I am the only Member of the House speaking tonight who works in Gwynedd. I know how desperate is the need to obtain more money. It certainly helps my neighbouring farmers repair such houses.
Baroness White: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord if by any chance he happened to listen to "Farming Week" last weekend and to the Gwynedd Welsh-speaking farmer who was talking about Friday night commuters who loaded up their cars before coming down for the weekend. As he said, they do not even help the village shop, let alone village life.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I did not watch the programme. So far as concerns people with caravans I accept that that certainly happens, and it is sad. For those who probably own houses in the area, it is less of a problem. The point I was making is that the neighbours I know, who are part-time farmers, are not providing the food but are providing slates, bricks and mortar, which brings in a very welcome extra income.
I hesitate to talk about the Welsh language as my family fought over it one way or another for over 200 years. However, I certainly know that if the Government continue to crucify the farming industry, particularly in Wales, they will also destroy the Welsh language. It is the farming community almost if not entirely alone that speaks Welsh in its day-to-day conversation, in business and most important of all in the home. Added to that it is the farmer who is the most likely person with entrepreneurial skills who will want to remain in the area if he can possibly do so.
Despite everything, farming is still a way of life. I would not do it otherwise, because I am not now making any money. There are many smaller farmers, who are usually owner-occupiers, certainly in Anglesey, who are taking up part-time work, as I say often as builders doing up those derelict houses which have been bought by newcomers to the area. I hope that my noble friend will take that fact on board and remind the Secretary of State and the Government that there is still a need for a profitable farming industry, particularly in Gwynedd. However, unless measures are taken, in particular sensible planning, which I believe every noble Lord has mentioned tonight, and farmers being allowed to farm, there soon will be no rural communities. Those who come into the country to get away from suburbia—I am sorry to use that word—will in fact destroy it. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, knows, that has happened in the conservation scene, where Snowdon and parts of the long distance paths are in danger of being walked away.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I hope that it is not too much of an intrusion for one who is not a Welshman to intervene on this occasion. However, my noble friend has so often risen from that Bench a couple of rows in front of me to plead eloquently in the interests of my own country, Ireland, that I wish to rise briefly to support him when for once he is raising a matter of such importance to his own country, Wales, which is also part of the Celtic fringe. This is perhaps the more appropriate because the question of a national language is much involved and the languages of our two countries, though quite distinct, and not at all as similar as those of Ireland and Scotland, are related. Both spring from the same fount, although I had better not go into that now.
A significant difference is that in Wales it is only in relatively recent times that the language, and hence the culture, have become seriously under threat. In Ireland the process of erosion has been continuing over at least the past three centuries, some would say much longer, through the incursion of wave upon succeeding wave—as now in Wales—of invaders from England, among whom I must admit my own family must be counted, although at least they went there as merchants, not as conquerors. In the case of Ireland, many also came from Scotland. The English-speaking colonists brought with them to Ireland an alien language, religion and culture which inevitably permeated, to an ever-increasing extent, the minds and souls of the Irish-speaking majority, as it then was.
At the same time, both Wales and Ireland have suffered in just the same way from the easy proximity of the same wealthy country—England. It is so easy and tempting for the young, the eager, the ambitious in both countries, to slip away from their backward home towns to seek employment and affluence here; and the far lower house prices, and the peace and beauty of both nearby countries provide strong magnets for outsiders from the rich neighbour seeking sites for holiday homes.
Today's colonisers of Wales are not military adventurers, as for the most part they were in Ireland, who impose their presence by military force, seek to subjugate the people, and steal their lands and property. But the long-term effects of their pacific invasion of Wales could be the same. The present position is ironic. Wales has practically no political independence, being lumped together with England for just about all practical purposes. Yet its language remains alive as the language of the fireside; the language of normal preferred use over much of the Principality.
Ireland has been an independent state for over 60 years and is now of course a republic. Yet such had been the damage done by the time independence came, despite the enormous efforts of succeeding governments to restore it to prevalence, that the Irish language has continued its seemingly ineluctable way towards total extinction except in the ever dwindling Gaeltacht areas. I have never once heard it used by ordinary people as their usual means of communication.
854
Independence came a century too late for Ireland. But perhaps it is not too late for Wales. I have often heard Welsh spoken as a first language, not only in my infrequent visits to Wales but even here in your Lordships' House; often one has only to take a stroll around the Library. However, it is late enough. Welsh is still a living language but it needs a blood transfusion, I suggest, in the form of strong government support.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has already mentioned the corrupting effect of television. I know that that has been of great significance in the decline of the Irish language in Ireland. I feel that it can well be so in Wales and that an all-Welsh language channel must be established offering programmes that can at least begin to challenge their English-speaking rivals.
In all other matters I support my noble friends and other noble Lords who have spoken. I believe that the destiny of a national identity cannot be left at the mercy of market forces.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, earlier today I had the privilege of addressing your Lordships on the Western alliance. It occurs to me—not without some help from other quarters of your Lordships' House —that this evening we are considering a very much earlier western alliance which, as several noble Lords have said, goes back some 15 centuries.
Your Lordships will be grateful for the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has provided for us to discuss a topic that I know is giving rise to concern in some parts of rural Wales. I am grateful for this opportunity to set out ways in which the Government intend to help the language and provide for the needs of the local communities in Welsh-speaking areas of Wales.
However, let me say at the outset that the answer does not lie in creating no-go areas or insular communities within the United Kingdom. I welcome the denunciation on all sides of criminal activities in this direction which are deplorable. However, we are quite clear that positive action by the communities themselves is required, as well as by government. I hope that I can persuade your Lordships that the Government are indeed doing a great deal.
First, and foremost to sustain our local communities is the need for a sound economic base. The availability of jobs is clearly an important factor in maintaining the integrity of communities in Wales and retaining their population.
It is the aim therefore of the Government, through agencies such as the WDA and Mid-Wales Development to help create a thriving and self-sustaining economy in Wales. In particular Mid-Wales Development, in those areas for which it is responsible, is working hard to halt the outward flow of people which has for so long been regarded as inevitable. While it is too early to say that the tide has been fully turned, recent population trends have been encouraging.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was particularly concerned about this matter. I have a number of statistics here which are drawn from the

855
Digest of Welsh Statistics, which is available in the Library, and the National Health Service Central Register relating to country areas in Wales. The figures, although more recent than those quoted by the noble Lord, do not give much indication of the ability of the people counted to speak Welsh. Perhaps if I am able to add to what I have said I may write to the noble Lord with some detailed figures. The thrust of the figures is that the net migration out of the rural areas in Wales seems to have been reversed. There is a positive increase in the number of people in these areas. However, I am not clear that that positive increase represents new numbers of Welsh speakers.
There are many examples of companies establishing in Mid-Wales and over a short period of time becoming major employers and, in some instances, household names. Here I have in mind Laura Ashley. I too noticed the announcement that was made recently, to which the noble Baroness, Lady White, referred, about the departure of some of the management functions of Laura Ashley to Cardiff. However, I understand that all the other functions of the company and jobs that go with them will be staying in Mid-Wales, mainly in and around the town of Carno.
In furtherance of its aims Mid-Wales Development continues to improve the conditions for private enterprise to flourish with consequent benefits in terms of job creation, reduction in unemployment, growth in population and higher incomes. Since its inception in 1977 it has provided 1.8 million sq. ft. of factory floorspace, creating 7,500 jobs. Assistance of £3.6 million under the Mid-Wales Development grant scheme has levered £34 million of investment from the private sector, creating or safeguarding 4,000 jobs. Net government assistance of just over £12.4 million in 1989–90 will enable the board to spend almost £19.4 million in total to the benefit of those in Mid-Wales. That their policies are proving successful is shown by the record demand for their factories and heavy demand for financial assistance from private businesses wishing to invest in Mid-Wales. This activity is a positive factor in maintaining the quality of life and traditions of rural Wales.
Within this broad umbrella the board does much that is specifically designed to encourage local enterprise as well as the social fabric of society. The Menter a Busnes initiative, jointly funded by the WDA and Mid-Wales Development, is designed to increase the economic activity of Welsh speakers and develop enterprise and business as a positive factor in Welsh language life. Each agency is contributing £25,000 a year for three years towards core administrative costs. In addition to those Welsh speakers taking business courses in Welsh, almost 2,000 people sought advice on starting their own businesses in 1987–88, of whom 611 attended "Getting into Business" training courses, which is a record number. It is estimated that over 600 jobs were provided during that year from new businesses originating in Mid-Wales.
Rural areas of Wales also benefit from the full range of WDA services to businesses. Through
856
schemes such as DRIVE, rural conversion grants and rural loans, the WDA aims to strengthen the economic base of rural communities by providing new employment opportunities. Not only that, but the WDA is also committed to working closely with others—local authorities, the private sector and other local bodies—to ensure that a full range of services (housing, social, community and recreational) are available to rural communities. Welsh speakers in these areas are bound to benefit from these agencies' efforts. The activities therefore play a key role in perpetuating the economic viability and hence social cohesion of Welsh—and hence Welsh speaking communities.
I am aware that Mid-Wales Development is sometimes criticised for encouraging industry to move into rural Wales, with it being suggested that this threatens the indigenous population.
I suggest that that is a fallacy; a misunderstanding both of the long-term problems which led to the establishment of the board and its efforts to resolve those problems. The creation of jobs is crucial to providing career opportunities which will allow young people to remain in rural Wales, using their talents to the full and to the wider benefit of their community. Let us consider how much better this is than the long-standing phenomenon of the young and talented leaving Mid-Wales to seek fame and fortune elsewhere, and so depriving rural Wales of their ability and their contribution.
I emphatically reject any suggestion that the board acts as an immigration agency for English people. The provision of key worker housing, for example, is specifically to assist in the establishment of firms in rural Wales and, therefore, the secure provision of jobs for local people. These initiatives show a body that is concerned about the Welsh language and the people of its area.
The Wales Tourist Board, the government agency charged with promoting tourism in the Principality, also fully recognises the need to sustain and promote Welsh culture, language and heritage. Tourism can also help to sustain local economies and create jobs for the indigenous population, who might otherwise be tempted to move away. To help ensure that its policies are compatible with, rather than threaten, Welsh culture, the board last year commissioned independent research into tourism's socio-cultural impact and will draw on the analysis and recommendations as appropriate in discharging its functions in the future.
With regard to the language itself, the Government can point to a record of positive achievements with regard to a number of the provisions of the European Charter on Minority Languages (Welsh Language Board; Support for the Welsh Nursery School Movement; Support for the National Eisteddfod, etc.) However, while the Government have every sympathy with the principles of the charter, they cannot agree with it in total. The Government have therefore reserved their position on whether they will accede to the charter, when it becomes a convention, in respect of Welsh and the other minority languages spoken in the United Kingdom.

857
Nevertheless, the Government are of course prepared to learn from the experience of other European countries and the measures they have adopted to promote minority languages. I judge however that in a number of respects the measures being taken in Wales to protect and promote the Welsh language compare very favourably with policies elsewhere.
The Welsh Fourth Channel S4C is rightly regarded with envy in other parts of Europe. The Government made it clear in the recent White Paper on broadcasting that we believe that the channel has been a considerable success and that we want it to continue to pursue its distinctive remit.
The Welsh Language Board was established last year to consider the position of Welsh in all aspects of public life in Wales. The board is conducting a thorough investigation of the current position and will in due course come forward with the guidelines relating to the use of the language in both the public and the private sector.
The Government's proposals for Welsh in the national curriculum represent perhaps an even more significant boost to the position of the language in the longer term. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and I discussed these matters at length during the passage of the education Bill last year. The teaching of Welsh in schools must surely be the key to a healthy future for the language so that the requirement of the Education Reform Act that it be taught in all schools in Wales will I am sure be welcomed as perhaps the largest single boost that the Welsh language has ever received from government.
Fourthly, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has this year made available £4.6 million of grant support to promote the language and to encourage developments in bilingual education. This money includes a contribution towards the cost of local education authority reception classes that provide intensive language coaching for non-Welsh speaking children moving into traditionally Welsh medium schools. Overall these Welsh language grants provide an effective means of promoting the use of Welsh in an ever-widening range of situations in Wales. The fact that this year's figure represents a £1.2 million increase on the sums available last year is an indication of the Government's commitment in this area.
Housing for local people is a further key element in sustaining the local communities and therefore in helping the language. Local authorities have considerable powers to provide homes for local people and have discretion over how they use their resources to do this. For example, they can themselves acquire properties for rent or for resale without needing the special consent of the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to the importance of houses being made available to rent for those unable to take out a mortgage. That applies in particular to young people.
Where consent is required, for example, to acquire properties which might otherwise become second homes to add to their stock to rent to local people, my right honourable friend is prepared to consider
858
such requests sympathetically. Indeed over the last three years special additional allocations have been given to borough councils for this purpose. The Secretary of State is also willing to consider sympathetically requests by local authorities for further designations under Section 157 of the Housing Act 1985.
In the current financial year the Secretary of State has set aside a reserve of £1 million to provide additional help to local authorities to house local people. Officials are discussing with local authorities how this will be allocated, but the Government propose that it will be used to address the needs of people who wish to own their own homes in rural communities as well as to rent their homes.
My noble friend Lord Thomas asked about the application from Aberconway. It is one of the authorities which sought an application under that provision and officials are currently discussing that matter with it. I hope that an agreement will be reached shortly.
The establishment of Housing for Wales (Tai Cymru) in the Housing Act 1988 will also help local communities. Its predecessor, the Housing Corporation in Wales, traditionally invested year on year some 25 per cent. of its growing development programme in housing association schemes in rural areas; last year the gross programme reached a record level of nearly £66 million.
Housing for Wales will ensure that housing association activity is even more responsive to local needs. Under the new body a North Wales regional office is being established for the first time to enhance its response to needs in this area. The Secretary of State has asked Housing for Wales to continue to undertake the same levels of investment in rural areas as in the past—in the current year from a new record gross programme of over £70 million. In planning the programme Housing for Wales and associations will take account of the impact of last year's house price rises. I am pleased to say that the market now appears to have stabilised. We have asked Housing for Wales to give careful consideration to increasing the volume of low cost homes to buy available in rural areas and my right honourable friend is looking positively at how the planning system can be developed to ensure that these homes may be kept available for people in the local communities.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned the possibility of Section 52 agreements. That is the issue which my right honourable friend is currently considering most carefully. This too will provide a mechanism to direct housing subsidy to those who need it to enter into owner-occupation without the complicated arrangements which would be needed, for example, to operate a system of interest free top-up loans by local authorities, and without stoking inflationary pressures on house prices, particularly so at a time when building societies are willing to lend on such purposes.
That matter was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. We are not in favour of top-up loans for the reasons that I have described—principally their inflationary effect on house prices

859
—but we believe that the alternative arrangements which we are putting in place will be at least as good.
Nor are we neglecting the needs of other owner-occupiers. The latest Welsh House Condition Survey confirms that the massive investment the Government have provided towards the problems of Wales's older housing stock has found its mark and that there has been considerable progress.
There remain problems to be addressed and some of these are as much in evidence in some parts of rural Wales as they are in the urban areas of the Principality, and indeed in England.
The answer, however, is not simply a matter of resources. It is especially important for local authorities in rural areas to adopt strategies relevant to their particular problems. Just as enveloping and block schemes, for example, have been successful in some urban areas, they are also relevant in rural areas, as demonstrated by the very real progress in area such as Ynys Mon and Carmarthen. I apologise for my poor pronunciation which I see reflected in the anguish in the faces opposite.
The Government are determined to tackle these issues and the current proposals of the Local Government and Housing Bill will do much to assist in this respect. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this adds up to a formidable array of measures to help the local communities in Welsh-speaking areas. My right honourable friend has also expressed his willingness to meet a deputation from local authorities to discuss further proposals set out in the latest Gwynedd memorandum; but I am sure that your Lordships will agree that we cannot have the inappropriate and unworkable measures, such as migration controls within the United Kingdom, which some have put forward.
Perhaps I may turn now to some of the other points raised by noble Lords during the course of this debate. I think I have already covered most of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, during his opening remarks. He referred to the William Ricketts' paper. It is not government policy to create areas of discrimination within the United Kingdom, but the Government will address the issue through the other housing policies to which I have already referred. I cannot,
860
I fear, forecast the jobs needed to arrest depopulation by the year 2000, one of the thoughts in the mind of the noble Lord; but I hope again that what I have been saying about the job creation activities generally will be of some reassurance to the noble Lord.
My noble friend Lord Thomas asked particularly about the activities of housing associations. I have already made some reference to that; but it certainly is intended to help rural areas as well as urban areas, and I hope that my noble friend will be reassured to that extent. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to planning matters, as did one or two other speakers. I can confirm the Welsh Office circular of 20th December to which he referred, and of which I have a copy here.
I do not know whether there is a copy in the Library or your Lordships' House, but it is rather an important document and if there is not a copy there I shall see to it that one is put there. That was an important circular and provides for language to be a consideration in these matters in appropriate cases. As for areas of special cultural identity, which the noble Lord suggested, that is rather an interesting suggestion, but I think it is a matter for local authorities to consider in the first instance.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, referred to the valleys initiative. That is not an initiative meant to be at the expense of other parts of the Principality. Certainly not, my Lords. Substantial investment certainly continues in the rural areas, not least, for example, 25 per cent. of the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales allocations, as I said during my earlier remarks. I reassured the noble Baroness about the management functions of Laura Ashley which are being moved to Cardiff, as was announced the other day.
I am coming to the end of my remarks, but I think I can claim that the Government are doing their part to maintain the culture and heritage of Wales and assist in the provision of those facilities such as language education, jobs and homes, which will help the Welsh-speaking communities not only to sustain themselves but to develop and grow. These are devoutly to be desired and I hope will be achieved.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past nine o'clock.

  LAMPUNG, SUMATRA: ALLEGED MASSACRE
  LAMPUNG, SUMATRA: ALLEGED MASSACRE
  INDONESIA: KILLINGS
  INDONESIA: KILLINGS
  HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS: TENANTED STOCK PURCHASE GUIDELINES
  HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS: TENANTED STOCK PURCHASE GUIDELINES
  COAL IMPORTS
  COAL IMPORTS