Sitting of 31 January 1990

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

  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Object.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) intend to object to all the private Bills?
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do.

  SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (NO. 2) BILL
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered tomorrow.

  KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL
  Motion made,
  That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 121 (Quorum of committee on opposed bill), leave be given for the Committee on the King's Cross Railways Bill to proceed with a quorum of two.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Thursday 8 February at Seven o'clock.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    National Health Service
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent per head of the population in Scotland on Health Service care in 1989; and what was the figure for 1979.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): In 1979 Health Service expenditure in Scotland was £205 per person. In 1989 it was £552 per person. That is a rise of 34 per cent. in real spending power.
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that by any objective examination of the facts, the Scottish Health Service is unquestionably second to none? That is illustrated by the fact that my father is receiving quite outstanding care at the Royal Infirmary in Aberdeen and the service at that hospital is open to anyone in that area. It is also shown in the quite astonishing building programme that has occurred since 1979 under this Government during which time there have been 54 major hospital building programmes with another 32 in train. If that is not enough, there has been a 32 per cent, increase in qualified nursing staff to look after the additional patients which the expansion has occasioned. Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is far too long.
    Mr. Rifkind: While the National Health Service continues to have certain difficulties, it is right to draw attention to what has been achieved over the years. In Scotland, the number of in-patients has increased by more than 20 per cent, over the past 10 years while the number of out-patients has increased by 12 per cent, and the number of day cases treated by hospitals has increased by no less than 119 per cent. It is right that that side of the story should be emphasised.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Has the Secretary of State had time to study the press release issued by his junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, about the ambulance dispute yesterday in which the Under-secretary claimed that lives are put at risk? Given the amount of money that the Government are trying to claim that they have spent, exactly whose lives are put at risk? What is the Secretary of State doing about that?
    Mr. Rifkind: The concern to which the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) drew attention was that if there is not a proper response to 999 calls, and if ambulance officers do not accept the advice of their own unions in dealing with emergency cases, sadly there can be a risk to human life. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) would join me in urging ambulance workers to respond to emergency calls in a proper and responsible fashion.
    Mr. Sillars: Is not the pertinent measure the expenditure in relation to need at the present time? If that is the case and if the Secretary of State is so brilliant, why has the Greater Glasgow health board suffered a £12

    293
    million cut in its budget this year and faces a £16 million cut in its budget next year? Again if the Secretary of State is so brilliant, why have we managed to have a Health Service in which there are demoralised nurses, doctors, ambulance men and ancillary workers and a public who do not believe that the Health Service is any safer in the hands of the lady in Downing street than in the hands of the devil himself?
    Mr. Rifkind: I do not accept for a moment the figures that the hon. Gentleman has been gratuitously introducing into the House. However, he may like to reflect on the fact that in his constituency, the health board in the city of Glasgow is, and continues to be, the best funded health board in the United Kingdom. Had the hon. Gentleman wanted to be fair, he might have prefaced his remarks by at least recognising and welcoming that point.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we cannot really judge patient care in terms of statistics? It must be true that we have far more doctors, nurses and specialist care in Scotland than were available in 1979. Does he agree that the Health Service is safe in our hands and will be developed effectively in years to come?
    Mr. Rifkind: I do not question for a moment that there are still many things that the Health Service in Scotland would like to do but is unable to do even with the levels of funding that it has achieved. That goes without saying. The Health Service has continually been improving ever since it began in 1947. It is unfair that those who quite understandably call for even more improvements do not recognise the dramatic improvements that have taken place over the past 40 years or, indeed, over the past 10 years. Any fair debate on this subject should recognise that, as well as call for further improvements in the Health Service.
    Mr. Wilson: How many scarce resources belonging to the National Health Service in Scotland have now been used up in trying to defeat the ambulance men and women and in forcing them to give up their rightful claims by starving them into submission? Would the Secretary of State care to contemplate the newspaper headline that I am showing him as an acceptable face of the ambulance dispute? No matter how the soldiers and police try to perform the duties that have been thrust upon them, they are simply not able to do so because they lack the necessary equipment and training. Will the Secretary of State confirm that twice as much money has been spent on trying to defeat the ambulance men in Scotland, and elsewhere in the United Kingdom as would be required to settle their pay claim in full and give them the just settlement that every humane man, woman and child in Scotland wishes them to obtain?
    Mr. Rifkind: No one questions for a moment that the police cannot provide the same quality of service as the ambulance officers. If that is a matter of concern to the hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will join me in calling on ambulance officers to return to normal work. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are recognised negotiating structures. He knows also that the offer that has been made to ambulance officers is compatible with what the vast majority of other people who work in the National Health Service have already accepted. Therefore, he must appreciate that we must be fair to the National
    294
    Health Service as a whole. To give to ambulance workers, whose income has increased substantially over the past few
    years—
    Mr. Wilson: Rubbish.
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish." He should remember that an ambulance officer's income in 1979 was less than £3,000. If ambulance workers accept the offer that has been made, the figure will be more than £11,000. Even taking inflation into account, that is a major increase.
    By all means let these matters continue to be discussed and negotiated, but if the hon. Gentleman has patients' interests at heart, as I am sure that he has, he should urge ambulance workers to return to normal work so that the public should not suffer because ambulance workers have a pay disagreement with their employers.

    Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had regarding competitive tendering in the National Health Service in Scotland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Health boards have reported savings of £66 million, which have been used to recruit additional medical staff and improve facilities for the young, the elderly, the disabled and the mentally handicapped.
    Mr. Hogg: The Minister's answer is consistent with previous answers. Is he aware that, of the contracts that have been awarded in the Greater Glasgow health board area, three companies—Initial Health Services, Mediguard and Hospital Hygiene Services—figure very strongly? Is the Minister further aware that those companies have a dubious record and have either withdrawn from or been sacked in Bradford, West Leeds, Northampton, Merton and Sutton, North Warwickshire, Norwich, Nottingham, Pontefract, South Tees, York, East Birmingham, Manchester, Bromley, Canterbury, Gateshead and Oxfordshire? Why must we put up with the same in the Greater Glasgow health board? How much money must be spent on redundancy payments for real Health Service staff who have lost their jobs because of those private companies?
    Mr. Forsyth: In March last year, the saving available to improve patient care for the Health Service in Scotland as a result of competitive tendering was £5·5 million. The figure today is £66 million. The hon. Gentleman asked about redundancy payments. To date these amount to £5·2 million, compared with £66 million. Substantial additional resources are available for patient care.
    The hon. Gentleman complains about particular companies. Three quarters of both the contracts and the savings have been obtained, not by private contractors, but the in-house work force carrying out the same task in a different way. He also complained about the quality of services. I am sure that he will have seen the parliamentary answer that I gave the other day. An independent survey of standards of provision where private contractors have been brought in showed that the standards were at least as good as, if not better than, those achieved by the in-house work force.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that if Opposition Members were successful in campaigning against competitive tendering they would deprive patients of substantial additional resources for patient care? Will he confirm that every health board in Scotland has made savings and that in Greater Glasgow many extra staff have been made available? For example, is he aware that 74 extra staff for mental illness and handicap have been employed as a direct result of those savings?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Incidentally, I congratulate him on sporting the blue rose of Eastwood. He is right to draw attention to the substantial improvements in staffing and facilities in Greater Glasgow as a result of the competitive tendering programme. The public are entitled to ask why Opposition Members do everything possible to frustrate the Greater Glasgow health board in pursuing a policy that produces real, tangible and substantial benefits for patients, particularly those with mental handicap or illness.
    Mr. Dewar: Is it not sad that staff of the health boards who have spent years in the service of the NHS have to give up hard-earned terms and conditions in order to save their jobs? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the imposition of competitive tendering in areas that touch the core of the Health Service—such as diagnostic services, laboratories and radiography—is damaging? Does not the Minister realise that there is no public support for policies that threaten to turn those services into opportunities for private profit? In view of the contrived changes in the rules on VAT and redundancy, is he satisfied that competition has not been rigged?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman makes several points. His first was about people giving up hard-earned terms and conditions. For contracts that have been won in-house—that is the majority; three quarters—the terms and conditions remain the same. They are Whitley terms and conditions. However, restrictive practices and the business of paying double time when it is not necessary have ended. That is how savings have been made. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to complain about the way in which savings have been made, he should address his remarks to the trade union officials who co-operated in the process in the interests of the Health Service and of obtaining the best deal for the patients.
    The hon. Gentleman wrote about rigging to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who answered his question fully. I am surprised that he has raised the matter again. VAT is payable only where the cost of the outside contractor, inclusive of VAT, is less than the cost of the in-house service.
    Mr. Speaker: We are making slow progress this afternoon. Briefer supplementary questions may receive briefer answers.

    Public Expenditure
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the level of public expenditure per head in Scotland of programmes for which he is responsible.
    Mr. Rifkind: Scottish Office expenditure for the current year will be £1,771 for every man, woman and child. This will rise to £2,047 in 1992.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend lose no opportunity to remind the people who live in Scotland, of whatever race, that they benefit to a greater extent than anyone else in the United Kingdom in all programmes of expenditure and that if they were to consider anything as foolish as a Socialist Government, a convention, an assembly or independence, they would be deprived of the level of living that we uniquely enjoy in western Europe.
    Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with the sentiments behind my hon. and learned Friend's question. However, he is not entirely correct, because the level of expenditure in Northern Ireland is higher than that in Scotland. My hon. and learned Friend is certainly correct that public expenditure in Scotland is considerably higher per capita than that in England and Wales, which is a benefit which Scotland derives from the present constitutional arrangements.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recall that I wrote to him a couple of weeks ago to complain bitterly that while England and Wales has a substantial programme of cochlear implants, which are vital for deaf people, no announcement has been made in Scotland and we have no such programme of spending? When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reply positively and make that money available to the health boards in Scotland so that deaf people in Scotland can benefit substantially?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not scrutinised his newspapers carefully because we made a comparable announcement that similar provisions are to be introduced in Scotland and we are working on the details at present.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that such expenditure programmes could not possibly be sustained in the event of any fraudulent proposals being brought forward for a Scottish Assembly in Edinburgh? Does he further agree that we could not enjoy the same number of Members of Parliament and that we certainly could not expect English Members of Parliament to support such programmes?
    Mr. Rifkind: If a Scottish assembly were responsible for the matters that are currently the responsibility of the Scottish Office, and if it were required to raise funds for those matters from within Scotland, the present level of spending on education, health, housing and other measures could be maintained only by a dramatic increase in income tax which the people of Scotland, alone in the United Kingdom, would be required to pay.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Can the Secretary of State say whether a system of devolution in Scotland is likely to bring about increased public expenditure per capita?
    Mr. Rifkind: It would depend on the spending policies of such a Scottish assembly as might be created. The point that I have just been making is that even if a Scottish assembly did not wish to increase expenditure, but simply to maintain the present level of expenditure from the taxes raised in Scotland, it would have to level additional income tax that would not be paid by people elsewhere in Britain. That is why such proposals would be very much against the interests of the Scottish economy, employment in Scotland and the general welfare of the people of Scotland.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the need to involve the private sector as much as possible in public expenditure programmes? Scottish civil engineers have a high reputation abroad, but need to have experience at home if they are to make the most of the worldwide opportunities.
    Mr. Rifkind: That is the case, and that is why I am delighted that the recent surveys by the Fraser of Allander Institute and the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland have suggested that the Scottish economy will do even better than that of the rest of the United Kingdom over the next few years. They pointed particularly to manufacturing industry and exports. It is encouraging that only yesterday a prediction of increased exports from Scotland was made by Scotland's business men. I am sure that the whole House will be delighted to welcome that.

    Councillors (Allowances)
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the Government's plans to change the system of allowances for councillors in Scotland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): A number of representations have been received. The Government have agreed to defer the introduction of the new scheme for up to three months to allow the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities time to produce specific alternative proposals.
    Mr. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that the Government's initial proposals have united councillors of all parties, and of none, in Scotland in opposition? Does he accept that no one becomes a councillor in Scotland because he or she wants to profit from the attendance allowance? Is he aware that the sum of £10, which was fixed in 1974, should be not less than £40 at today's prices? In the settlement that the Government will eventually reach, will he undertake to ensure that proper account is taken of the commitment and responsibilities of councillors throughout the length and breath of Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's last point is yes, but I must stress that even under the consultative proposals that have been put forward, the sums available to councillors in Scotland would have been at least 80 per cent, more than those for councillors south of the border and up to 125 per cent, more for district councillors. Strong representations were made about distribution and we have recognised that some authorities have a much larger workload and larger electorates than others. We were conscious of those facts and responded to COSLA's recommendations to defer those matters. We look to COSLA to come back to us with what we hope will be a much fairer and more consistent approach. I should stress that the sums available to councillors next year will be no less than those available this year—the sum for Britain as a whole being increased from £37 million to £42 million.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: Will the Minister bear in mind that the vast majority of councillors do the job voluntarily? Often their home is inundated with people with serious problems and the family cannot enjoy a decent meal at night because of the phone calls that have to be attended
    298
    to immediately. This being the case, should not there be decent compensation for councillors who do a hard-working job?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I stress that I have been a councillor, so I am acutely conscious of the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. Council membership is based on the principle of voluntary public service and is not regarded as a salaried appointment. However, it is in the public interest that councillors should not suffer financial loss because of the public service that they perform.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that many people believe that local government, in Scotland and elsewhere, was better when councillors such as myself were unpaid volunteers, rather than, as under the present system, some at least being semi-salaried?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am aware of the activities of my hon. Friend, but I stress that chairmen and convenors sometimes have to give almost full-time service and the special responsibility allowance is appropriate in their cases, and will be forthcoming.

    Employment Training
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the performance of the employment training scheme in Scotland.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Since September 1988 when employment training first started in Scotland, my right hon. and learned Friend has received 190 representations about the operation of employment training in Scotland, and 66 were parliamentary questions.
    Mr. Wallace: The Minister will be aware that, under the employment training regulations, it is possible to give to single parents an allowance for child care while they are in training. How does he explain the selective approach to my constituents who are the wives of fishermen and who, when their husbands are at sea, are to all intents and purposes single-parent mothers and who wish to undertake training? Will the new local enterprise companies that are to be set up in Scotland and will have a training remit have the flexibility to allow payment to be made to such wives?
    Mr. Lang: It is part of our purpose that local enterprise companies should have as much flexibility as possible in the development and administration of training schemes. That is one of the important reasons why we are setting them up. At the same time, the existing arrangements take account of problems in different parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the administration of employment training in Orkney and Shetland, consideration is being given to awarding skill shortage status to that area, which will be of advantage to it.
    Mr. Worthington: Is the Minister aware of the report that has just been published by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations showing what the consequences for community care were of the transition from the community programme to the disastrous employment training scheme? That report has shown that over £17 million has been lost to community care, and that 50 per cent. of the care for the elderly and 62 per cent. of the care

    299
    for the disabled have been lost. The voluntary organisations warned the Minister that this would happen, but he could not have cared less. Will he now show some regret for the distress caused by the withdrawal of these services?
    Mr. Lang: One of the reasons for the loss of places was the lack of co-operation—indeed, the positive hostility—of many authorities. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations is heavily funded by the Government and it does a good job. However, it is important that it should realise that employment training is not another form of social care—which is already fully provided—but essentially an employment training scheme to help unemployed people into jobs. In that, it is doing much better than the community programme did, as it is now helping 59 per cent. of leavers into jobs or further training and education, compared with 42 per cent. on the community programme. We should encourage that trend.
    Mr. Lester: When my hon. Friend has the opportunity to make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he draw his attention to the following anomaly? Under the employment training scheme we quite properly support single mothers by allowing them to claim the costs of child care, but when they are trained and seeking a job there is no provision for looking after their children—a heavy premium for anyone seeking employment. Might there be an opportunity in the next Budget to do something about that?
    Mr. Lang: I understand that there are certain advantages at salaries of up to £8,500 a year, but I shall pass on my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on what might be in the Budget.

    Local Government Finance
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the level of the poll tax for 1990–91.
    Mr. Rifkind: There is a wide variation in community charge levels. Some authorities have reduced the community charge, while others have made large increases.
    Sir David Steel: Do not the figures released yesterday show an average increase over Scotland of 9·1 per cent., with many authorities showing increases of more than 15 per cent? In the light of that, how will the Government maintain the fiction to pensioners, ambulance men and others that the rise in the cost of living is 6·5 per cent?
    Mr. Rifkind: I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention that the two district councils in his constituency have reduced the community charge, or that the regional council has had a zero increase—perhaps it should have reduced its charge, too, given the grantt that it received. The increases in the community charge were less than the local authorities were predicting, and would have been much less if Labour-controlled authorities had not substantially increased the community charge by going for higher spending. It has been significant that a number of Labour local authorities receiving large increases in grant have used the money to increase spending rather than to reduce the charge.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Leaving aside the concept of averages or of the middle ground which is so favoured by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel)—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not expect this at Scottish questions.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Leaving aside the average concept or the middle ground so favoured by the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to lose no occasion to remind the people of Scotland and the people of England that if they want to have the money that they earn spent by Socialist authorities, they should vote Socialist? If they do not want that, they should vote Conservative.
    Mr. Rifkind: There is no doubt that Labour authorities appear incapable of maintaining services without huge increases in local taxation, while non-Socialist authorities appear more able to maintain the same level of services by means of better management and better value for money. The public clearly and rightly take that factor into account.
    Mr. Canavan: How can the Secretary of State possibly justify the Tory Government imposing this crippling tax system on the people of Scotland? In some areas the full poll tax will be more than £400, and even on maximum rebate people who depend on social security benefits and students who possibly have no grant will be expected to find more than £100 for the poll tax. Is it any wonder that at least half a million people throughout Scotland are refusing to pay the tax, or that many will continue their resistance until the Government come to their senses and abolish this iniquitous tax?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's rather unimpressive sympathy for people on low incomes would be slightly more persuasive if he, with a substantial income, were prepared to pay the tax that Parliament expects his constituents to pay. With his large income, the hon. Gentleman does not set an example of a sense of social responsibility and he cannot expect the House to treat his views with other than contempt.
    Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. An hon. Member used the word "cheat". Is not that unparliamentary?
    Mr. Speaker: I did not hear it, nor did I hear what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) was shouting a little earlier. We really ought to get on.

    Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill
    Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from the business community in Scotland about the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill.
    Mr. Lang: The business community in Scotland has warmly welcomed the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill and is enthusiastically participating in the groups bidding to become local enterprise companies throughout Scotland.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: My hon. Friend's reply confirms the impression I got last weekend when I visited Scotland for a family wedding, which was most enjoyable, and I saw for

    301
    myself the economic success created by this Conservative Government. Does not my hon. Friend agree that Scottish Enterprise will build on this development?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is because of the success of the Scottish economy in recent years that we are able to contemplate Scottish Enterprise, and it is because of the needs of the years ahead that we are now bringing it forward, combining the training role of the Training Agency with the economic development role of the Scottish Development Agency, and devolving it to local companies around Scotland. The enthusiastic involvement of the business community—we have now received 22 bids from groups of business men seeking to form local consortia—is very encouraging for the future of the Scottish economy.
    Mrs. Fyfe: How is the Minister responding to the views expressed by employment training trainees who have experienced grossly inadequate and irrelevant training schemes and schemes in which they have been treated as cheap labour?
    Mr. Lang: We always investigate such complaints. The hon. Lady will know that we have investigated such allegations as have come to our notice. The vast majority of such allegations have turned out to be ill founded, but where any minor deficiencies are discovered they will be dealt with in the appropriate way.

    Scottish Development Agency
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total expenditure by the Scottish Development Agency since May 1979.
    Mr. Lang: Since May 1979 the Scottish Development Agency has spent a total of £1,291 million.
    Mr. Knox: Can my hon. Friend say how much, on average, the agency has spent each year since the present Government came into office, and how that compares with the average amount spent under the previous Government each year?
    Mr. Lang: Perhaps I can best illustrate the figures by telling my hon. Friend that the budget for next year, at £180 million, is the largest that the agency has ever had—15 per cent. higher in real terms than in the last year of the last Labour Government.
    Mr. McKelvey: The Minister will be aware that precious little of that money ever went to Kilmarnock. For that matter, I should like to know how much went towards improving the environment. Will the Minister undertake, on his next journey up north, to put on his hiking boots and march from Tummel, through Loch Rannoch, by Lochaber? He can go along heather tracks with heaven in their wiles. Some of us might think that there was a braggart in his step amidst all that beauty. Will he stop and reconsider the fact that if he does not give local authorities enough money to neutralise the billions of tons of rubbish and poison being poured into our coastal waters, neither he nor any of us, will ever
    "smell the tangle o' the Isles"
    Mr. Lang: I know that this is the season of Burns—we have just had the Kilmarnock edition. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of environmental renewal. He is absolutely right. This year the agency is
    302
    spending about £54 million on environmental renewal projects. A total of 2,500 land renewal projects have been carried out in the last decade.

    Inner Cities
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policies for tackling the poverty in inner cities.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government have launched a major initiative to deal with deprivation in Scotland's peripheral housing schemes, working with local people, the private sector and other public bodies. Good progress is being made.
    Mr. Wray: When I look at the statistics and remember that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has not done a survey of child poverty since 1981, I fail to understand that reply. The present indicators, which are available on the data base of the statistical section of the Library, show that Glasgow has the highest average rate of poverty in the nation. I should like to know what the Minister, having frozen child benefit, imposed the poll tax and made cuts in other benefits, intends to do about it.
    Mr. Rifkind: No one doubts that for many years there have been serious problems of poverty in certain areas of Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that the renaissance that Glasgow is widely recognised to have enjoyed over the last 10 years has been for the benefit of all the people of Glasgow, including the hon. Gentleman's constituents. He should pay tribute to that development.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the urban aid programme has been a great success not only in the major and inner cities but in country towns such as Dumfries? Will he do all that he can to encourage urban aid, towards improving not only the quality of housing, but the quality of life in those areas?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes. We have provided for a massive increase in the urban programme this year and for a further major increase next year. The programme is a successful way of reaching those pockets of poverty that still exist in many of our towns and communities. Therefore, it is right to concentrate through the urban programme the kind of support that can help to transform people's lives, their housing and employment opportunities, and the quality of life that they quite properly wish to enjoy.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effect of changes in rebates for poll tax recently announced on the level of the poll tax in 1990–91.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Changes that have been made to the community charge, including the transitional relief scheme and the widening of the exemption for people who are severely mentally impaired, should have had virtually no effect on the community charge levels determined by local authorities for 1990–91.
    Mr. Douglas: No matter how much the Minister and the Government tinker with this charge—the poll tax—it represents an onerous and unfair burden on the poorer

    303
    sections of the population. Those of us who seek to stand by those people, by withholding our payments, represent a very respectable tradition in Scottish democracy. We are in the season of Burns and I should like to paraphrase the great man. I put to the Government: "They'd break our backs for Maggie's tax, Such a parcel of rogues in a nation." The Government's policy will destroy the Union because the people of Scotland will not accept this unfair, unjust and undemocratic tax for which they did not vote.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Robert Burns was an excise man and knew all about tax.
    Mr. Douglas rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. [Interruption.] The Minister was quite in order in what he said.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman complains about the warrant sales system. I stress to the House that when the reform of the law—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) must not barrack the Minister.
    Mr. Douglas rose—
    Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must sit down.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: When the law reforming warrant sales went through the House in the last Parliament, neither the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) nor any Opposition Member voted against that legislation which removed the most objectionable features of the system. The hon. Gentleman spoke about unfairness. It was monstrously unfair when only 40 per cent, paid rates and that system could not possibly endure. The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that well over 1 million people in Scotland are receiving rebates which are of great assistance to them. The reforms on transitional relief should in due course benefit up to 500,000 people.
    Mr. Gow: Is not the system of rebates for the community charge considerably more generous than the rebates for the old system of domestic rates?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Gow: Is my noble Friend aware that many of us would like him to answer questions more frequently than he does?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell my hon. Friend that those on income support receive 80 per cent, rebate and that their income support has been increased to take account of the fact that they have to pay the other 20 per cent. There have been reforms, and when anomalies arise we shall take steps to make sure that they are ironed out and removed, as we have done with difficulties arising for people with Alzheimer's disease.
    Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister confirm that the transitional relief scheme that the Government introduced with great publicity last year will help only 10 per cent. of poll tax payers in Scotland and that the average rate per qualifier will be £25 a year or 50p a week? Was it not all
    304
    just one massive con trick designed to delude the people of Scotland into believing that the poll tax was fair? Does he appreciate that the only way in which he can help the poor in Scotland is to get rid of the iniquitous 20 per cent. minimum payment as the first step towards getting rid of this grossly unfair tax?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The fact that up to 500,000 people will benefit is not something to be sneered at in any respect. Labour Members should set an example by paying the community charge rather than saying that they will defy the law.

    National Health Service (Staff)
    Mr. Leigh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many doctors, dentists and nurses were employed by the National Health Service in Scotland in (a) 1979 and (b) currently.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: There are at present 87,000 doctors, dentists and nurses in the National Health Service—9,000 more than when we took office in 1979.
    Mr. Leigh: Does the Minister agree that those figures show the success of the Conservatives in recruiting considerably more doctors, dentists and nurses due not least to the fact that we have increased nurses' pay by 43 per cent, over and above inflation and doctors' pay by 36 per cent, over and above inflation, compared with a cut of 21 per cent, in real terms under the last Labour Government? Does he further agree that that shows that we not only have the will to improve the NHS but that, unlike Labour Members, we provide the ways and means to ensure that it is improved?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree, and my hon. Friend is right to point out that there are more nurses and doctors in the Health Service. He is also right to point out that not only have we recruited more nurses and doctors and increased their pay over and above inflation, but we have reduced the working week for nurses and introduced a system of grading that ensures that nurses are able to pursue their careers while maintaining contact with the patient. That is a record of which to be proud and one which the Labour party cannot hold a candle to.
    Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that following the altercation that we had some moments ago, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) has now left the Chamber, having made use of the television cameras—[Interruption.] Is that not an abuse of the rules of the House—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the whole House had agreed that we should proceed without any thought being given to the television cameras.
    Mr. Watson: Now that the Minister has answered the shamefully planted question from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)—who has never seen the inside of a Scottish hospital in his life and is never likely to—may I ask the Minister to deal with the current issue? Will he comment on the fact that there is now no dietician at Gartnavel hospital in Glasgow to deal with diabetic patients as a result of the cuts that have been made in the NHS in Scotland? Will he address that problem, which is a day-to-day issue that my constituents are bringing to me?
    Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the position in a particular post, he should take that up with the general manager of the Greater Glasgow health board, who I am sure will be able to offer an explanation. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here when my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) pointed out that as a result of the programme of competitive tendering, which the hon. Gentleman opposed, Greater Glasgow health board is recruiting additional staff in precisely the areas concerned. The hon. Gentleman has received a copy of the report showing that that has been a success. There are more staff in the NHS as a result of the investment that we have made. From time to time there will be vacancies, but there are far more resources available than there ever were in the past.

    Health Boards (Expenditure)
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of health boards where annual expenditure is likely to exceed their budgeted expenditure in 1989–90.
    Mr. Rifkind: One health board has indicated that its actual expenditure could exceed budgeted expenditure in 1989–90.
    Mr. Darling: The Secretary of State will be aware that Lothian health board is one of the best funded in the country, yet its members—hand-picked by him, mainly because of their loyalty to the Conservative party—have said that they cannot make ends meet because they are so underfunded. Does not that show to the Secretary of State the dire straits that the Lothian health board and health boards generally are in? What does he intend to do about that? Does he further accept that the inquiry that he announced, being carried out by Mr. Cruickshank, is being viewed with some scepticism and that it would be better to have an independent inquiry to look at the health board funding rather than to have a public brawl between officials?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has confirmed that Lothian health board is one of the best funded in the country. Other boards that are less generously funded have maintained their expenditure within their budgets, so it is not unreasonable also to expect that of the Lothian health board.
    There has been an independent inquiry by an independent firm of accountants, which today reported to the chief executive. The report suggests that there have been serious failings in the board's management and reporting systems. We shall be discussing those matters with the board to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to rectify those problems. However, we must do so in a way that does not damage the interests of patients in Lothian, which I believe to be paramount.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that any service, such as the National Health Service, that is demand led must be managed efficiently, effectively and properly and devolved at local level—that is, regional health board level? If that does not happen, it will not be surprising if it runs into difficulties, because that is what happens in a demand led service.
    Mr. Rifkind: I have nothing but praise for the work of the health boards, including the Lothian health board. I
    306
    am sure that we are all concerned that, during the current year, certain problems appear to have led to the board's being unable to contain its expenditure within its budget. The priority must be to ensure that that failing does not lead to any damage to the interests of the patients. That will be the priority of the chief executive of the NHS in his discussions with members of the board and its staff.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the Secretary of State saying that the Lothian health board is guilty of financial mismanagement? Are not its members mainly his appointees? Is he aware that, despite what we have heard today about the great increase in nursing staff, I have received a letter from a constituent who works in the Princess Margaret Rose hospital claiming that nurses are worried that they may be made redundant soon because of closures within the hospital? Will nurses in the NHS in Lothian be made compulsorily redundant?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman on that matter. As I said last week, there is no question of hospitals being closed or of other crisis measures being taken because it has become apparent that there has been overspending within the Lothian health board area. We wish to discuss with the board, in a considered, sensible and sensitive way, how it can bring its expenditure under control. I have already given the assurance that no hospital, including the Princess Margaret Rose, is in danger of being shut because of the problems that have arisen.

    National Health Service (Staff)
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many doctors, dentists and nurses are employed in the National Health Service in Scotland; and by how much their pay has increased since 1979.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: There are about 87,000 doctors, dentists and nurses in the Health Service in Scotland. That represents an increase of about 11 per cent. on the position in 1979. Nurses' pay has increased by 43 per cent. over and above inflation, and doctors and dentists' pay has increased by about one third.
    Mr. Hind: Is my hon. Friend aware that 23 per cent. more is spent on health care for each Scottish voter than for each English voter? Does he agree that the efficiencies that he has introduced and the Government's prudent management of the Health Service in Scotland—especially through the introduction of competitive tendering—have enabled 11 Scottish health boards to increase the number of doctors and nurses of all disciplines, including mental handicap and community nurses, thereby improving the standards of health care?
    Mr. Forsyth: We are endeavouring to improve the standard of health care in Scotland. There are a number of plans for new initiatives, some of which have been mentioned today, including cochlear ear implants, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). There is always a challenge in the NHS, and this Government have met that challenge. It would help us to meet the needs of patients if Opposition Members would accept the need for good efficiency measures in the Health Service, which are as much a part of patient care as is ensuring that there are the conditions and the resources required, which has been this Government's record.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Can the Minister tell us how doctors and nurses will continue to be employed in Oban unless he can explain what has happened about the new hospital which was first promised in 1972 by a Conservative Secretary of State, and promised again in 1986 by the Minister's predecessor? Is he aware that the people of Oban are fed up with promises that are not kept and with threadbare assurances that planning is going ahead when the site for the hospital has not even been purchased? Will he give a start date and a completion date?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady will be aware that I have given approval in principle to the establishment of a new hospital in her constituency in Oban. I should have thought that she would welcome that. If the hon. Lady is concerned about progress on the hospital, she is free to write to me or seek a meeting with me. In the period since the general election, when I have been health Minister, I do not recall her seeking a meeting to express concern on the matter. I assume that that is because she knows that in her constituency we have been prepared not only to invest in a new hospital in Oban but to make substantial investment in the facilities at Campbelltown, which is part of a major investment programme in the Health Service in Scotland as a whole.

    Scottish Economy
    Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend met the general council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 10 November 1989 when a number of matters affecting the Scottish economy were discussed.
    Mr. Graham: When will the Secretary of State stop squirming in Cabinet and fight for the steel industry of Scotland and for new investment? Will the Secretary of State assure the House and Scotland that he will fight for the jobs at Bishopton Royal Ordnance factory which the Government propose to move from Bishopton to another part of the country, involving the loss of 26 invaluable, highly skilled jobs in my constituency? The workers in that factory fought hard for their jobs and the Secretary of State should stand by them. If he is not prepared to fight for Scotland, I am.
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that as a result of the offer of Government assistance, some 500 jobs at the Royal Ordnance factory in his constituency were saved.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister discuss with the STUC the report prepared for the European Commission by the university of Louvain, which looks specifically at Strathclyde, among other areas, and which condemns the Government's lack of preparation for 1992 and draws attention in particular to our inadequate technological base? Against that background what possible defence is there for the ruthless cutting of regional preferential assistance for industry in Scotland, which, under the
    308
    Government, has fallen in real terms from £350 million to £150 million, a damaging decline which yesterday's public expenditure White Paper confirmed will continue?
    Mr. Lang: As usual, the Labour party judges the success of a policy simply by how much taxpayers' money is thrown at it. The reality is that Scottish industry is preparing for the single European market. Our exports into Europe have been increasing substantially. West Germany has now overtaken the United States as our biggest export market. Over half of Scottish exports go to Europe, and Scottish manufacturing exports per head exceed those of the rest of the United Kingdom by 28 per cent.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my hon. Friend tell the STUC when he next meets it that self-employment in Scotland has risen by 50 per cent. since 1981? Does not that figure give the lie to much of the nonsense that we hear from Opposition Members?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. That is a reflection of the increased confidence in the business community. Many more people are willing to set up in business for themselves.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the number of people who are in arrears with their poll tax payments.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: While no overall figure is yet available, it would appear that the proportion of people in arrears with their community charge payments is broadly the same as under the rating system last year.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the Secretary of State's insulting personal remarks about me, is the Minister aware that the reason why many people such as myself, who can afford to pay the poll tax, choose not to do so is because we are standing shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with people who have no choice, because they cannot afford to pay it? As there are about 500,000 of us throughout Scotland and only 200 sheriff officers, how does the Minister intend to enforce the collection of the Tory poll tax? Would it not be simpler for the Government to abolish it completely—and to abolish warrant sales while they are at it?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As a Scottish Member of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman is very well able to pay the community charge from his own earnings. It is for the council concerned to decide on the most appropriate method of collection, whether it be by arrestment or any other legitimate method. I see no reason to reform the warrant sales law, particularly as, when it went through Parliament, neither the hon. Gentleman nor any other Labour Member was prepared to vote against it. The hon. Gentleman's action in refusing to pay the community charge is grossly irresponsible. If enough people followed his example, either services would suffer or there would be redundancies among the local council's work force.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Leader of the House clarify the Government's intentions with respect to the exchanges in the Chamber that followed the Division at 7 o'clock last night? On behalf of the Opposition, I and a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends pressed for an urgent oral statement, by the Secretary of State for Defence in the first instance, about the Colin Wallace scandal and the information released yesterday by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces that the House and right hon. and hon. Members had been misled both in parliamentary answers and in correspondence. No statement has been made today, and it is important that we know now from the Leader of the House what are the Government's intentions.
I make it clear to the Leader of the House that, although in the first place a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence may be appropriate, this sordid affair has wider implications than simply matters concerning the Ministry of Defence. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the integrity of the House and of hon. Members, and clearly we need an opportunity to debate also those much more serious and wider implications.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I should call the Leader of the House first.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): In the light of the exchanges that took place in the House last night, the matter has been further considered. As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) points out, the background extends over a long time. In the light of that consideration, I am able to tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make a statement to the House tomorrow afternoon. I shall say nothing beyond that today.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for hon. Members to question the Leader of the House by way of a point of order. I call Dr. Cunningham first.
Dr. Cunningham: The announcement made by the Leader of the House will be welcomed by all right hon. and hon. Members. I ask him to consider and to discuss through the usual channels how the House may proceed. I reiterate that, although in the first place we expected and welcome the decision that the Secretary of State for Defence should make a statement about the implications for his Department and its responsibilities in the matter, the House should have an opportunity to debate also the wider issues involved.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I must make plain what I should have made plain before. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is currently in Washington,
310
and he will be making his statement tomorrow at the first opportunity. I cannot indicate the scope of his statement, or how the points raised by the hon. Gentleman may be dealt with. The House must wait until my right hon. Friend's statement has been made.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a former Law Officer, the deputy Prime Minister will certainly appreciate the role of the Law Officers. May I ask whether Mr. David Calcutt's inquiry will benefit from the services of outside lawyers, or whether it will be dependent on "internal" civil servants from the Ministry of Defence? Could he clarify—[Interruption.] Anyone who knows about the matter knows that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have all heard what the Leader of the House has said: a statement is to be made tomorrow. It is difficult for him to give definitive answers about such matters before he has heard the statement.
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on this matter? Is it for me or for the Leader of the House?
Mr. Leigh: It is for you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Very well.
Mr. Leigh: As you know, Mr. Speaker, today is an Opposition day and a number of hon. Members wish to speak in important debates. We have received the clearest possible assurance that a full statement will be made tomorrow, at the earliest opportunity. Can we now move on? Opposition Members are trying to extend the discussion on the wrong occasion.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman only repeated what I have just said.
Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for saying that the Secretary of State for Defence is to make a statement tomorrow, but I urge him to recognise that the issue is much wider than it appears. It affects Members of Parliament—including me, as it happens—and the parliamentary Labour party has expressed grave concern about the current developments. Can the Leader of the House say what procedure may be used to enable the matter to be more fully investigated in the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot anticipate all the questions that may or may not be put to my right hon. Friend or to others, and I certainly cannot at this stage answer questions such as that asked by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme).
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a matter for points of order. It has not been raised with me; it was raised last night in the House, and the Leader of the House said then that he would tell the House today what he proposed to do. It is perfectly legitimate for hon. Members to seek further clarification, but let me repeat what was said by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh): until we have heard the definitive statement it would be extremely difficult, if not wrong, to ask the Leader of the House to give detailed replies.
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Leader of the House aware that the issue being put to him now does not concern the Ministry of Defence statement, which is an internal disciplinary matter between Mr. Wallace and his former Department? It is a constitutional question, which I touched on last night and about which I wrote to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. For more than 20 years disinformation has been issuing from Government—
Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Members: "Sit down."
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Benn: The Government have now admitted, for the first time ever, the existence of disinformation that has branded and blackened the reputations of the right hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), two former Prime Ministers—Wilson and Callaghan—my right hon. Friends the Members for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), and for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Colin Wallace should be brought before a Committee here, just as Colonel Oliver North was brought before Congress, to give evidence free from the threat of prosecution under the new official secrets legislation.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: For the avoidance of doubt, I responded to a point of order raised in the House last night, and returned to the House this afternoon to respond to a point of order raised by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Because I had given no notice of a business statement, I intended to respond to remarks that I understood would be raised as a point of order, and I have intervened on a point of order to tell the House that which follows from the undertaking that I gave last night. There will be a statement tomorrow afternoon.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. By no stretch of the imagination can a matter such as this be the subject of points of order; to me they are not matters for the Chair.
Mr. Tony Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order for me?
Mr. Favell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Many Conservative Members are fed up to the back teeth with the bogus points of order raised by the Opposition. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has already said that there will be a statement tomorrow. That is the time to raise questions. In the meantime, is it not about time that you, Mr. Speaker, laid down the rules—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the whole House that when the Leader of the House makes a statement which in effect announces a change of business hon. Members have a right to question him.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Further to the business statement made by the—[Interruption.]
312
You informed us that it was a business statement, Mr. Speaker. If it is not a business statement, I cannot ask my question.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat that the Leader of the House has made a statement about a change of business tomorrow. As it is a matter of grave concern to both sides of the House, it is legitimate for right hon. and hon. Members to put questions to the Leader of the House about matters that he can answer, but not about the statement, which he does not know about.
Mr. Rees: When Ministers do not seem to understand what the Leader of the House has done, it is very difficult for us to act on it. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Defence is to make a statement on this important issue tomorrow and we look forward to it. However, it has implications for the Northern Ireland Office which do not seem to matter to some people. There are also implications for other Departments. When one aspect is dealt with tomorrow, other Secretaries of State should be present because there are other issues to be raised.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called those hon. Members who are directly concerned with the matter because they were involved. [Interruption.] Order. I think we should now move on.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a totally different point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you prior notice. On 12 June last year the House agreed the Select Committee report on televising the proceedings of the House. By agreeing that, we agreed to a degree of flexibility, provided that any variations were consistent with the reasonable assumptions which were made at the time the experiment was authorised. At the end of the main text there is a summary of conclusions and resolutions. In essence, those resolutions are the licence for broadcasters and the Select Committee. There are 87 such recommendations and conclusions. No. 31 states:
"Panning shots along the Benches should not be used."'
You may have noticed in the news media today—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Question No. 214 on the Order Paper today in the name of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) is on this very matter. There is a Select Committee on the Televising of the House. If the hon. Gentleman has any complaints about the way in which the televising of the House is being operated, he should put them to the Select Committee. I cannot deal with them.
Mr. Marlow: You, Mr. Speaker, will have seen that we have had advance notice of the answer to that question. The advance notice says that the cameras shall be allowed to roam. If so, that is a degree of flexibility beyond the reasonable assumptions in the report, one of which states that panning shots should not be allowed.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me; it is strictly a matter for the Select Committee on the televising of our proceedings. The hon. Gentleman would get a better answer from that Committee than he could possibly have from me, because I have no responsibility for it.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: In response to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), may I say that the report of the

313
Select Committee which was approved by the House last year emphasised the rules that were issued for guidance were
"for the start of the experiment. They might need to be modified in the light of experience during the course of the trial period."
It was made clear that it would
"fall to the Select Committee to adjudicate …over the interpretation of the guidelines and to consider any reasonable modification which may prove necessary during the course of the experiment."
As the House would wish, the Select Committee has had the matter under continuous review. On Monday it reached some conclusions about certain modifications which were the subject of an answer to a written question on today's Order Paper.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North that the request for panning—one of the requests made by the forum—was not a request to which we acceded. If my hon. Friend studies the reply, he will discover the modifications that the Select Committee has approved and which I have reported to the House as soon as possible, consistent with the original report.
Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I do not see how it is possible to have a further point of order on that subject. The hon. Gentleman has been answered by the Leader of the House.
Mr. Stuart Randall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to bring to the attention of the House a very important matter relating to the proceedings in a Committee upstairs this morning with regard to the Official Secrets Act 1986 and the prescribing of certain organisations.
The Minister of State told me during the debate in Committee that the Comptroller and Auditor General, who as you know, Mr. Speaker, is an Officer of the House, would not have his status changed to that of a Crown servant. The importance of the point is that, if the Comptroller and Auditor General becomes a Crown servant under the order that was debated in Committee this morning, we would be hampering seriously the Public Accounts Committee. I know that that would be a matter of serious concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Therefore, I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to look into the status of the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to the order this morning and the Official Secrets Act 1986.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help hon. Members by saying that I will certainly look into the matter.
Mr. David Harris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was a member of the Standing Committee to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hill, West (Mr. Randall) referred. I am afraid to say that his account of the proceedings was not in accordance with what the Minister said. I am sure that that will be perfectly clear to you, Mr. Speaker, when you examine the matter.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order arising from Scottish Question Time. During Scottish questions, which you may
314
recall took place a short time ago, I, my hon. Friends, the Members for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and others tried to raise issues of vital concern to our constituents relating to questions that we tabled two weeks ago. I wanted to raise the matter of the Stranraer to Euston sleeper. I tried to raise the matter on suitable questions earlier, but I was not called, as is your right, Mr. Speaker, and we did not reach my question No. 21.
Scottish Question Time is my only opportunity to raise constituency matters on the Floor of the House. However, a large number of Conservative Members from south of the border with no constituency interests asked questions. I realise that this is a United Kingdom Parliament, but you have a responsibility to allow us an opportunity to ask constituency questions. I am not suggesting a language test, but I hope that you will bear this matter in mind when you call hon. Members during Scottish Question Time.
Mr. Speaker: I am aware of the desire in the House to make quicker progress at Question Time. However, that inevitably means fewer supplementaries and, so far as the Chair is concerned, this is constrained with the number of Front-Bench spokesmen. I do not criticise that, but I must bear it in mind in the interests of Back Benchers.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I will take Mr. Winnick. I hope that it is not on the point that we have already dealt with.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like your guidance. As you know, the Secretary of State for Defence is to make a statement tomorrow. Many hon. Members would like the opportunity at that time to deal with allegations that have been made about the way in which the Security Service had been and perhaps remains out of control. The Minister who will respond tomorrow is not the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary. Allegations and substantial smears have been made, and they must be answered. Will you ensure that we will be able to widen the issue of allegations about the Security Service? If not, the Home Secretary, or the Prime Minister, who is the head of the Security Service, should be on the Front Bench to answer questions.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can give guidance to the whole House on this matter. Tomorrow there will be an opportunity not only to question the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time but to question the Leader of the House during business questions. Of course, there will then be the statement itself. There will also be Northern Ireland questions. There will be plenty of opportunities to deal with this matter.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not answering any further points of order on that issue.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on another matter?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, following the Christmas recess, I returned to the House and raised the matter of the commercial interests and directorships of Conservative Members of Parliament. Since that date, which is almost a month ago,

315
I have sat through every Question Time and almost every statement in the Commons, and I have risen in my place on more than 300 occasions to be called on supplementary questions. It is being said in my constituency that it appears that the Speaker is carrying out sanctions against me by refusing to call me on supplementary questions—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is an unworthy charge to make against the Chair; the whole House will accept that. I do not think that, in general, the hon. Member is deprived in any way. He is regularly in the Chamber, and he has every opportunity to participate in our debates and at Question Time. He needs only to see his computer print-out, which I will gladly send him.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Jonathan Aitken.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My constituents want to know why I am not being called—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not carry out sanctions against anyone.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: You have not told me yet, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Jonathan Aitken.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Through you, I raise with the Leader of the House, the fundamental question whether the Secretary of State for Defence is the correct Minister to make the statement tomorrow. I draw to your attention the fact that a briefing that was given by the Prime Minister's press secretary to journalists today indicated that the Prime Minister herself might have been misled by previous statements made to her by civil servants as a result of which a parliamentary answer was given.
First, if that is correct, and if the security services are involved, as seems to be the general assumption, are you aware that in the Security Service Act 1989 there is no ministerial responsibility for the security services on the part of the Secretary of State for Defence? Therefore, why is the Secretary of State for Defence to make the statement? Secondly, if a wrong parliamentary answer was given by the Prime Minister herself, surely it is not necessarily within the ambit of the Ministry of Defence for the statement to be made. It seems to raise far wider constitutional questions. The Leader of the House should at least consider whether a different Minister should answer these questions tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. The whole House accepts that it is a serious matter which will need careful consideration. Let us leave it until tomorrow.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order on that subject.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a matter of which I have given you notice—the great anxiety about the future of Kashmir and the danger of civil war there. You will know better than most hon. Members that tens of thousands of British citizens are of Kashmiri origin and that thousands more have settled here and have lived here
316
for many years. They are extremely anxious about the safety of their relatives and friends and are desperately worried about the future of Kashmir.
I should like your advice, Mr. Speaker, on how you can be given authority to write to the Speakers of the Indian and Pakistani Parliaments expressing the hope of British citizens of Kashmiri origin and your belief that every effort should be made to bring about a peaceful solution and to secure the future of Kashmir. How can the House give you authority to send such a message?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that in such matters I am the servant of the House. It is not for me to initiate actions such as he suggests, although I share his anxiety.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that it is your job as Speaker to examine breaches of privilege in the House and that they are no longer raised on the Floor of the House but are put in writing to you for a judgment on whether such a breach has occurred? There may be breaches of privilege in the statement tomorrow. I ask you to bear that in mind because, if there are, I and, I believe, several other hon. Members will write to you.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that if a breach of privilege is alleged he should write to me. No doubt that will happen. Indeed, I have already received one letter on the matter.
Mr. Marlow: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. He drew attention to paragraph 98 of the Select Committee report, which is part of the subsidiary text of the report. Within the report various items have been highlighted and transferred to the summary of conclusions and recommendations.
The Leader of the House spoke about the powers of the Select Committee, which are subject to the will of the House. The House agreed fundamentally with the summary of conclusions and recommendations, which takes precedence over paragraph 98. It says:
"Panning shots along the Benches should not be used."
On behalf of the House, will you look carefully at the report and the proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend and give the House your advice on the matter tomorrow? I submit that the Select Committee seeks to exceed its powers.
Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly look carefully at the report. We all have our views on the impact of television on our proceedings. The hon. Member heard the reply of the Leader of the House. He should take up the matter with the Select Committee or during business questions tomorrow..
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened carefully to what you said about the way in which the televising of the House is being changed. You have to keep an eye on it. You have had more than a little difficulty today. I think that there is a way out of it. You could kill two birds with one stone by allowing the cameras to zoom in close on the Prime Minister so that she can make a statement to clarify how she was misled in the Colin Wallace affair and we can ask her questions.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is ingenious, but that is not ingenious enough. We should move on because we have a heavy day before us.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. To start our proceedings every day with—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to sit down.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. Heffer: It is about—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member to sit down while I am on my feet.
Mr. Heffer rose—
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman please sit down? I am on my feet.
I must advise the House that it disfigures our proceedings to start every day with half an hour of points of order—[Interruption.] Order. These are not matters of order. They are matters of disagreement across the Chamber. They are not matters on which I can give any opinion.
Mr. Heffer: Yes, you can, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take only those matters that are my responsibility. I cannot take any others.
Mr. Heffer: My point is about the list, Mr. Speaker. You have a right in relation to that because you are the one person who can speak in our name. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) talked about the "panning" of the House. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I was not in favour of any of it, but if we are to have the panning of the Floor of the House, we should not allow that panning to go only as far as the Gangway because, if that is the case, none of us below the Gangway will ever be seen.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can give the hon. Gentleman some very good news. I now perforce watch television at breakfast time and frequently see the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that he need worry.
Mr. William Ross: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Earlier this afternoon you told the House that it would be possible to have the Colin Wallace affair fully ventilated during the statement tomorrow. However, it is already clear from the exchanges in the House that not only the present Government but previous Governments over the past 20 years have been deceived and misled and that when they have come to the House to advise the House, they have misled the House.
How on earth can the House and the country believe that this whole affair can be fully ventilated by restricting our deliberations on it to a statement of one hour made by the Secretary of State for Defence, who is not completely responsible because the matter also concerns Northern Ireland? Surely we should have a full and detailed debate on this matter at the earliest opportunity, and it should be referred to a Select Committee of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I have no idea about how this will proceed tomorrow—[Interruption.] Well, until we hear the statement it is impossible to say what may happen in the future.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: I have received a letter from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces which tells me that the allegations that I raised in the House about the forging of CIA documents and about the use of Army officers to plant hoax bombs are now true. I understand that there is to be a statement tomorrow from the Secretary of State for Defence. That is not good enough. I raised this issue with the Prime Minister and I have received denials from the Prime Minister. I know from my own research that an entire dossier, listing every one of the allegations, was delivered to the Prime Minister on behalf of Colin Wallace in November 1984. The House will want to know why that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite likely that the House will want to know—and I shall probably want to know—but what is the point of order for me?
Mr. Livingstone: I am trying to ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, that we have the Prime Minister here to answer our questions because she is the main beneficiary of this treason and she has been the main architect of the cover-up.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make allegations of that kind.
Mr. Livingstone: It is true.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Mullin.
Mr. Chris Mullin: It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that on 6 May 1987 the Prime Minister made a statement to the House in which she denied categorically every one of the allegations that have now been confirmed in yesterday's answer by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. May I reinforce the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) to the effect that the Prime Minister should be the person at the Dispatch Box answering questions on this subject? Would it be in order for you, Mr. Speaker, to use your good offices in a way that I am sure you could to ensure that the Prime Minister is here to address us specifically on that subject?
Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me, but I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said has been heard.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Let us move on.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    HARBOURS, DOCKS AND PIERS CLAUSES ACT 1847 (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Michael Shersby, supported by Mr. Barry Sheerman, Sir Bernard Braine, Sir John Wheeler, Mr. Steve Norris, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. John Cartwright and Dr. John Blackburn, presented a Bill to repeal sections 79 and 80 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 March and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Ordered,
  That European Community Document No. 9934/89 relating to health rules for products of animal origin be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  Mr. Michael Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Is it about a completely different matter?
  Mr. Marshall: No, it is not, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Well, then, I cannot hear it.
  Mr. Marshall: I believe that it would be helpful, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Well, if it would be helpful—
  Mr. Marshall: I have listened to the exchanges this afternoon and wish to say simply that Mr. Colin Wallace is my constituent. It is essential that we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence tomorrow. I believe that that is a step that we need to consider before we look at other matters. I wish to put that on the record, having been involved for the past seven and a half years in making representations on behalf of my constituent.
  Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I did not realise that Colin Wallace was his constituent.

Newly Qualified Drivers
4.4 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose restrictions, in respect of cars with engines of over 1000 cc, upon drivers for a period of 12 months after they have passed the test for the full driving licence; and for connected purposes.
In the past 20 years, there has been a revolution in motoring. Improved living standards have ensured that there is a far wider car ownership. Instead of one car per family being the norm, it is now more likely that two or even three cars are owned by one family. Furthermore, advances in technology, design and engine power ensure that cars are far more sophisticated and powerful than they were then. The driving test has failed to keep pace with the times. Noticeably there is no provision in the driving test for motorway driving. There is also no written examination, which many might consider to be beneficial and an improvement. There is also a belief that, as in certain European countries, a number of hours of driving should be completed before drivers are eligible to take the test.
In Great Britain, more than 28 million people have licences to drive motor cars. The figures for the latest available year, 1988, show that 1,039,000 people passed their driving test. Of those, 73 per cent, were aged between 17 and 25, 21 per cent, between 26 and 40, 5 per cent, between 41 and 60 and 0·3 per cent, over 60. In the same year, 184,000 motor car accidents involving personal injuries occurred. On top of those figures, one can add the 3,427 people who were killed in accidents involving lorries, motorcycles, and mobile and stationary objects.
To put the problem into perspective, overall, in 1988, 5,000 people were killed and more than 300,000 injured in road accidents of all types. In the under-25-year-old age group, there were almost 1,000 deaths and 60,000 injuries. If my mathematics are correct, in that single year nearly 500 of the constituents of every hon. Member were either killed or injured as a result of motor accidents.
The social cost of these horrific figures is in excess of £4 billion. I am reassured that the Department of Transport is extremely concerned about this and is constantly taking action to help to ensure that our roads are safer, with a plethora of positive initiatives and actions. However, my proposed Bill would add to the Department's initiatives and open thé debate on what more can be done.
Part of the problem emanates from the fact that inexperienced drivers are given, as soon as they have passed their driving test, the same privileges and rights as someone who has held a licence for over 20 years and gained experience through driving over the years. That is a mistake. In theory, a 17-year-old can, on his 17th birthday, pass his driving test, leave the test centre and drive away in a Porsche or a series 7 BMW. This is crazy, because it is obvious that such a time scale gives nobody the experience or understanding of driving a car with such a high performance. If such a youth got into difficulties, he would not be able to cope. The first purpose of my Bill is to restrict all newly qualified drivers to driving cars of only 1,000 cc for the first 12 months after passing a test so that they can build up the required confidence and experience when driving. Secondly, my Bill would seek to make all newly qualified drivers, up to 12 months after passing their tests, drive with plates marked R for restricted or N for

321
novice—similar to plates used in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Other drivers would then be aware of their relative inexperience.
I understand from press reports in the past few days that the Department of Transport is considering this proposal and introducing a P plate. I do not want to quibble with the Secretary of State for Transport about different letters of the alphabet. Any relevant letter should be used to attract the attention of other drivers.
Thirdly, there has been a serious problem of boy racers showing off on joy rides. They pile their cars full of passengers and race up and down the roads. That has led to far too many accidents involving death and personal injury. The third part of my Bill would go some way towards alleviating that problem by restricting the number of passengers whom they can take in their cars to two, of whom one must be a fully qualified driver in his own right.
Fourthly, my Bill would effect something that I know my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is considering as a matter of urgency—the banning of newly qualified drivers from sitting in cars with learner drivers, thereby allowing the learners to drive on the highway. They are not mature or experienced enough to take on such responsibilities.
The last two parts of my Bill include constructive ways of ending these tragedies and the activities of boy racers.
I do not pretend that my Bill will reach the statute book by the end of this Session, but I believe that, if it draws attention to the problems and raises the level of discussion so that people bring in new ideas to reduce the injuries and deaths on our roads and to produce an improvement on the past two decades, it will have been worth while. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. David Porter, Mr. David Evans, Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. William Hague, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Bob Dunn and Mr. Douglas French.

Newly Qualified Drivers
  NEWLY QUALIFIED DRIVERS
  Mr. Simon Burns accordingly presented a Bill to impose restrictions, in respect of cars with engines of over 1000 cc, upon drivers for a period of 12 months after they have passed the test for the full driving licence; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 March and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
Orders of the Day
  OPPOSITION DAY
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  OPPOSITION DAY

    EC and Eastern Europe
    [Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 9090/89 on aid to Poland and Hungary, 10788/89 on medium-term financial assistance for Hungary, 9716/89 on economic aid to Hungary and Poland, 8879/89 on Commission indemnities to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans to Hungary and Poland, 9127/89 and the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 10th November 1989 on extension of the Generalised System of Preferences to Poland and Hungary and the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 10th November 1989 on levy reliefs on certain agricultural products.]
    Mr. Speaker: We now come to the first of the Social and Liberal Democrat motions, that on the European Community and developments in eastern Europe. A considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members want to participate in this important debate, and I ask them all to keep their speeches brief in the interests of the whole House.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that a number of European Community documents are listed on the Order Paper. I understand that they have not been requested for this Opposition day, although they may well be convenient for it. I seek your assurance, Mr. Speaker—I hope that the Minister will respond to this point—that the Government are not attempting to use time allocated to the Opposition to put down what are essentially Government documents so that they can then say that they have been considered and there is no need to debate them in Government time. That would be an abuse of Opposition time.
    Mr. Speaker: I am sure that that will have been heard by the Minister.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, it was not at the initiative of the Government that the documents were added to the motion for debate.
    Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we should restrict our debate to the motion on the Order Paper.
    4.14 pm
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for raising that important issue. It would indeed amount to contempt of this House, or at least contempt of the procedures of the House, if this debate were to be used for a discussion of European Community documents. I shall look into the question of who asked that these items be put on the Order Paper, but my understanding is that it certainly was not my party or, indeed, any of the other Opposition parties.
    I beg to move,

    323
    That this House welcomes recent progress towards liberal democracy in the countries of eastern and central Europe; endorses progress towards the political and economic integration of the European Community; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government urgently to recognise that this country's future depends on Britain playing a full and wholehearted role in the development of the new democratic Europe.
    I am bound, at the start, to say that I am somewhat surprised that the Government have not been able to find sufficient agreement—in the Conservative party, I presume—to put down an amendment to this motion, even though many parts of it are entirely contrary to what we understand to be Government policy. Indeed, I hear that there is a possibility that the Government will not even seek to vote against it—again, presumably on the grounds that they cannot find any agreement about their policy on these vital matters. I hope, in case the Government should argue that their policies are in accordance with the motion, to demonstrate that the facts speak entirely to the contrary.
    This motion is designed to encompass two factors. The first factor concerns the developments in eastern Europe; the second, and essential, factor is Britain's relationship to the new developments in western Europe—the movement towards closer economic, monetary, political and social integration. Hon. Members will not be fulfilling the terms of the motion—certainly not its terms—or its spirit if they merely use this debate as a chance to expatiate grand visions about eastern Europe. Those have to be set in a context, and that context is our approach to Europe itself.
    We on the Liberal Democrat Bench make no apologies for bringing to this, the oldest and, many believe, the most introverted of the democratic parliaments of Europe the issue of the new democratic Europe that is now emerging before our very eyes. Naturally, people will be concerned to discuss their view and their vision of Europe, but I want at the outset to establish that this is a matter of the deepest practical importance to every citizen of this country. It is not just a matter for visions; it is a matter of practical politics.
    On the environmental front, we know only too well that the European dimension is what has forced this Government to face up to the problems that now confront us as a part of Europe and, on the question of emission controls, has led the way in creating a cleaner atmosphere, often actually obstructed by this Government. On North sea pollution, it is the same story.
    The Berlaymont in Brussels has exposed this Government's failure—in the case of water, for instance—to take the necessary action to create a cleaner environment. We know also that it is through concerted European action that we shall begin to tackle the huge environmental problems with which Europe as a whole will be confronted as a result of the moves in eastern Europe and the extraordinary levels of pollution that have to be coped with there.
    We know too that, when it comes to the liberties of the individual, time and again it is the European Court that has had to be resorted to to defend the rights of British citizens, for whose protection our courts were too feeble, and for whom the lack of a Bill of Rights has meant an inadequate framewpork to secure civil liberties.
    When it come to business, we know that small businesses and enterprises are, day by day, paying the price of high interest rates, because this Government have failed to address the advantages to Britain that would accrue
    324
    from joining the European exchange rate mechanism of the EMS. We know that it is Brussels, and will increasingly be Brussels, that will tackle the issue of creating a free market—tackling monopolies and, indeed, exposing Government subsidies. Finally, we know that—crucially, in relation to 1992—it will be this country's ability to sink or swim in the open markets of Europe that will determine whether our nation and its industry and its economic base prosper or decline in the years to come.
    We believe that Britain must join in the march towards European unity, towards closer economic, social and political integration, because that is the only way to ensure the long-term future of Britain's best interests. The failure of the Tory party and the Labour party to come to terms with the new Europe that is now emerging marks them both as parties of the past rather than parties of the future. The attitude of both parties is marked by confusion and division because they are equally uncertain about how to address the new moves in western Europe and how those will relate to the new moves in eastern Europe. They are equally split on that crucial issue.
    This weekend, in what I can only describe as a masterpiece of euphemism, the Foreign Secretary tried to describe the split in the Conservative party as
    "honest and friendly disagreements about details of our policy."
    Was it "honest and friendly disagreement" about details of policy that caused the Chancellor of the Exchequer to resign on the issue of the exchange rate mechanism and the European monetary system? Was it "honest and friendly disagreement" that caused the former Foreign Secretary to be sacked because his views were dangerously pro-European and ran counter to the Prime Minister's personal antipathy towards all things European—or, as she would see it, all things foreign? Is it "honest and friendly disagreement" that has now led to a state of almost open war between the Prime Minister and Conservative Members of the European Parliament?
    If that split in the Conservative party were confined to the nasty element—one might even say the Chingford element—of the Conservative party, I might be able to understand the Foreign Secretary's complacency in this matter. Of course, that is not the case, because the split runs right into the heart of the Conservative party, right into the Cabinet. We saw that clearly in the most eloquent and powerful resignation speech by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Of course, Members on the Opposition Front Bench are no different. The difference between the hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who speaks on Treasury matters for the Labour party in Europe, and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) is as wide as the differences between Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street in the era when the Prime Minister was going through so much difficulty with the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. The splits in both the Labour and Conservative parties have robbed Britain of a coherent policy on Europe. They are robbing this country of an influence on the development of European events and will rob it of the opportunities to benefit from the tremendous chances that are now opening up in Europe.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is easy to be consistent if one is totally naive, and easy for a party to be united in total naivety. Given an institution that has inflicted so much damage on the real economy of this

    325
    country, there is bound to be division in major parties about whether to go further and faster or whether to hold back. That is realism.
    Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Labour party, and therefore knows the real meaning of splits and naivety because they seem to have been almost a characteristic of his party over the past five or six years. The hon. Gentleman says that I am being naive and that what I am saying has nothing to do with real politics. We hear, do we not, that there are three reasons why the Conservative party and the Labour party regard it as important that Britain should stay in a minority of one out of 12 in Europe? First, there is the question of sovereignty. They are attached to an old-fashioned idea of the unitary sovereignty of the nation state. Neither of them realises the essential importance in the age in which we are moving of the concept of pooled sovereignty.
    At least we are told that sovereignty is the reason. When one looks deeper, one wonders how on earth those parties can hold that position. In defence—nothing can be more crucial in terms of sovereignty—we have become quite accustomed over the past 40 years to the concepts of pooled sovereignty. We have also become accustomed to the idea that, by combining with other nations in NATO, Britain will have a better defence. We have become used to the idea that that is the very basis of the multilateralism that the Prime Minister consistently tells us is so important—not that that removes from her the capacity to be in a minority, even in NATO, on issues such as the modernisation of nuclear weapons.
    For some time we have had pooled decision-making in foreign affairs. Yet in no way does that stop the Prime Minister from being isolated from our European partners from time to time on questions such as the way in which we should deal with South Africa.
    The heart of the case advanced by the Labour and Tory parties seems to be that the single issue of economic sovereignty is the area where we may not in any way diminish the extraordinary sovereignty held by this nation and House over economic affairs. To what, then, would they wish us to return—to the sovereignty that the Labour party enjoyed in the 1970s when it had to go cap in hand to the IMF to bail it out, or the sovereignty that the Conservative party currently enjoys when it goes cap in hand daily to the speculators of the money markets to ensure that its economic policies can stand?
    Is that the kind of sovereignty about which they are talking? Or is it the economic sovereignty which, in the 1960s and 1970s, made us prey to every small tremor of decision by what were then known as the gnomes of Zurich? Or is it the kind of sovereignty that the British Government enjoyed last October when, instead of observing the gnomes of Zurich, we had to stand on the edge of our chairs to await the decision of the faceless men of the Bundesbank? What an extraordinary degree of economic sovereignty is that.
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am fascinated by much of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I wish to recall to him the history of his party. He must have read about the great conflict between Lloyd George and others.
    326
    Great divisions occurred in the Liberal party because of the reality of political power and the need to make decisions.
    Those who have had to make decisions know that decision making is not always a simple matter. One is faced with a series of choices. Sometimes one makes the right choice, sometimes the wrong one, but either way one must make a decision. The reality of power rests precisely on that point. Much as I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman says, it is about time that the Liberals lived in the real world instead of in some fantasy world.
    Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman makes his point with characteristic pungency. Four times in the last 40 years Britain has been invited to make a real choice on Europe, and three times, whether under Labour or Tory Governments, the wrong choice was made. This country has suffered greatly as a result of those wrong choices. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue that that is naivety, or that we were living in some stratospheric world in which those choices did not matter.
    Our failure to join Europe is one of the fundamental reasons for the underlying economic weakness of this nation. Heaven forbid—if the hon. Member for Walton is talking about real politics—that Britain should, for the fourth time, make the wrong choice and be left behind, because I do not believe that our economy, industry and society could tolerate another wrong choice on Europe.
    Mr. John Gorst: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in foreign affairs it is highly desirable that we in this country have a bipartisan approach? He rightly points out that there is a spectrum of opinion on both sides of the House, and no doubt he believes that his party sits fair and square in the middle of politics—or at least that claim might be made. Does he think that it would be preferable to bridge the gap between the parties rather than try to extend it even more? Will he in the rest of his speech be suggesting how we can have a bipartisan approach?
    Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about bipartisan approaches. I agree that they are to be commended, except when a bipartisan approach is, as in this case, wrong. The hon. Gentleman is also wrong to suggest that we are in the middle of the Conservative and Labour parties. We are not: we are out ahead of them, where we have been consistently for the last 40 years on Europe. What my party and its predecessors have said about Europe has become reality. We are talking of a political agenda which we currently occupy, but I predict that the Labour and Conservative parties will have to move to it in the coming year or two, or Britain will pay an ever higher price in the future.
    Mr. George Foulkes: I want to make it absolutely clear that the policy that the right hon. Gentleman is attempting to criticise in no way represents the reality of Labour party policy. As he speaks with the support of about 4 per cent, of the electorate, I wonder whether he can confirm that he also speaks with the support of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) who, on a number of previous occasions, has disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Ashdown: My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) will make his own points. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

    327
    (Mr. Foulkes) cannot even get many of his Back Benchers to go along with the Labour party's incredibly flimsy line on the exchange rate mechanism.
    Sir Cyril Smith: I have been sitting here, listening quietly and behaving myself, which I always do. Suddenly, I hear that I disagree with everything that my right hon. Friend the leader of my party has said, and that I have done so on numerous occasions.
    I challenge the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to produce any statement or speech that I have ever made in which I have disagreed with my party's stance on Europe. I have disagreed with my party on many other matters, but that is not what the hon. Gentleman alleged. He said that I disagreed with my party's stance on Europe, European affairs and the European monetary system. That is not true. I agree with every word that my leader has said today.
    Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his clearly expressed support. If the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley had the slightest drop of integrity, he would withdraw his accusation. However, no doubt I and the House will have to wait in vain for that.
    The second objection of the Labour and Conservative parties relates to the creation of a European super-state. I agree that that is a danger, but it is my view and that of every other member state that we must struggle towards a new political distribution of power. Part of that is the concept of pooled sovereignty in Europe, but the other and most essential part is the passing of power back to our communities, and the establishment of Parliaments in Wales and in Scotland is an essential part of that distribution of power. Of all the European nations, West Germany is the most devolved. It has no difficulties with the idea of pooling some of its sovereignty at European level. Why should we?
    The third objection of the two main parties is that they do not want to give power to the Eurocrats in Brussels. Again, if that were a reality rather than a myth, I would agree with it. I want the establishment of an accountable bureaucracy at the Berlaymont in Brussels. How do we do that? We do it not through the Council of Ministers, but through strengthening the powers of the European Parliament and making it accountable to our elected representatives in Europe. With extraordinary, breathtaking contradiction, both the Labour and Tory parties say that they are afraid of being part of the European Eurocracy and opposed to increasing the powers of the European Parliament.
    It was with a lifting heart that I read in paragraph 10 of the Socialist manifesto the wonderful words, with which I could not disagree:
    "The more important the Community becomes, the stronger the European Parliament will be. The continuation of Europe must not be left in the hands of the bureaucrats and Ministers alone: it must be a people's Europe."
    Amen to that. However, there is a footnote: '
    "The British Labour Party disagrees and does not accept paragraph 10."
    I hope that, when the spokesman for the Labour party in due course catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be good enough to explain to the House why the Labour party wants to keep power in the secret Council of Ministers, with the bureaucrats in Brussels, and not hand it out to the citizens of Europe as a whole.
    The importance of addressing the question now being put on economic and monetary union and the Delors
    328
    committee report is vital. Therefore, when I went to Brussels last week I was alarmed at the derision in which everyone in Brussels holds the extraordinary Treasury plan to accomplish economic and monetary union by a process of 10 competing currencies. As we move to the intergovernmental conference in December, it is clear to most of us who observe the scene that, if by that stage Britain has not joined the European exchange rate mechanism, or at least stated a date on which it intends to join, we may wave goodbye to any influence by the Government in the work of the IGC over the next year.
    The irony is that the Treasury scheme, the spatchcock arrangement of 10 competing currencies, is no more than an extension of the exchange rate mechanism that the Government have so far refused to join. The double irony is that that system, rather than the economic and monetary union proposed by Delors, would lead to the very domination of the deutschmark which the Government say they are most afraid of.
    My party does not believe every word of the Delors report. We take the position that there is a need for monetary union in Europe but agree along with every other nation except Britain, and most of the private views expressed in the Commission as well, that there is no case for the economic straitjacket which the Delors report proposes. But that is a matter of argument about the detail, not the principle. At all events, we shall be left behind in the discussion. There can be no question about the fact that we accept the need for monetary union.
    Central to that issue is the question of a central bank. Again, neither I nor my party has any difficulty in accepting the concept of a central bank in Europe, constructed along approximately the same lines as the Bundesbank. The United Kingdom is isolated on that issue too: we know that both the Tory and the Labour parties are opposed to the idea of a central bank. Why? Because they will do anything to maintain in their own hands the power to fiddle the economy before an election so as to win votes. It was the Prime Minister's capacity to debauch the British economy before the last election which has been the fundamental cause of many of our economic problems today.
    In making that statement about the importance of a central bank, I am not alone, because it was the view expressed in the House by the last Chancellor of the Exchequer. He believes, as I do, that we have nothing to fear from the concept of a central bank and a good deal to gain if it gets politicians' sticky hands off the capacity to distort the economy just before an election to win votes, leaving the country to pay the price later.
    Another former Minister, a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Sir Leon Brittan, said in a speech in Reading on 19 January that he believed that European monetary union and the central bank, which is at the heart of that proposal, provide
    "a rock of low inflation and sound money at the heart of Europe."
    When it comes to the choice between low inflation and sound money that the Prime Minister is always telling us about, we note that, if there is any possibility of her power being taken away, that power must come first and the proper management of inflation and the creation of a sound economy come second.
    The truth is that this spurious concept of economic sovereignty is at best specious and anachronistic, and only

    329
    a crude front for the Government to express their anti-European ideas and for the Labour party to express its equally isolated and out-of-date policy.
    Labour is now telling us that it is in favour of the exchange rate mechanism and wants to move towards it. Labour has done a good job of persuading the British people that it has a more positive attitude to Europe, but its conditions for joining the ERM vary only slightly from those of the Government. The Government argue that we cannot join the ERM until inflation is down to something like West Germany's level, while Labour argues that we must first ask West Germany to inflate its economy and risk its inflation increasing to our level. The truth of the matter is that there is no difference between the two—they are both clever and rather erudite ways of saying no.
    There is a severe danger that Britain will be left behind and isolated in the process of monetary union. There is a will among the 11 other nations of Europe—though whether it will endure for a whole year's intergovernmental conferences is another matter—to go ahead without Britain. The establishment of monetary union will raise the whole question of a democratic deficit, which my party is committed to tackling by increasing the established powers of the European Parliament.
    As to the social charter, it is interesting that Labour has now found something with which it is prepared to agree. I often think that Labour only decided that it was in favour of Europe when it realised that the Government were against it. Nevertheless, the Opposition now ascribe at least to this aspect of the European concept, perhaps in the hope that they will be able to get legislation through Brussels that they would never get through this House.
    I think that they have the wrong end of the stick, because the social charter, or plan for action, is based only on broad principles. I would like to see the social charter developed into a citizen's charter. Our nation would face considerable danger if we allowed the establishment in Europe to operate the kind of corporate statism that ran Britain in the 1960s and 1970s. It is a Government's job to ensure a quality of delivery to the citizen. The social charter should be about defining the citizens' basic entitlements under that system, not be concerned with handing down blueprints for every individual country to implement.
    We must not allow the social charter to lead us back to the bad old days of the corporate states. We should approach the task through a series of definitions, broad principles and entitlements, and leave national Governments with the flexibility to enact them.
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends agree with some of the right hon. Gentleman's propositions, such as those concerning the social charter and the exchange rate mechanism. There had been divisions in all the major political parties over the years over our involvement in Europe. However, the right hon. Gentleman's speech is otherwise disappointing. Huge changes are occurring on our continent that require a visionary approach for the future, not a look back to the past. The right hon. Gentleman's petty party politicking speech does him a disservice and gives no honour to this House, which
    330
    should look forward to the new Europe that is now being born—not argue and be divisive about the events of the past.
    Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman may recall that I began my speech by emphasising that one cannot approach the problems of eastern Europe unless one sets them in the context of developing integration in western Europe. The hon. Gentleman brings me to the related issues of eastern Europe. Incidentally, I hope that we shall soon start to call it central Europe.
    The extraordinary events of recent months, which unleashed the power of the free citizen and overturned even the most brutal tyrannies and dictatorships of eastern Europe, place upon western Europe a necessity to continue with its own integration. I shall tell the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) why that is so. People such as the Prime Minister, who argue that Britain should backtrack and undo the whole process of integration and convergence in western Europe, are unwise and propose a policy that is positively dangerous. No other voice in eastern or western Europe expresses the view that is taken by the Prime Minister—and, by implication, by Labour—that the right thing to do now is to halt the process of integration.
    Every other voice in the established capitals of western Europe and the new voices of eastern Europe believes that western Europe's growing integration is essential in tackling the problems ahead. The argument as to whether we should widen or deepen the European Community is nonsense. The two are not contradictory but complementary. It is only within the framework of a more closely integrated western Europe that we shall be able to overcome some of the problems unleashed in eastern Europe.
    Further, in the fact of the collapsing economies of the emerging democracies in central Europe and the rocketing inflation that they face, and in the light of the power vacuums being created as the eastern European empire recedes, it takes a mind extraordinarily ignorant of history and peculiarly steeped in the illusions of British power to propose a return to a variation of the competing nationalism that afflicted Europe in the 1930s.
    Central Europe is escaping from Socialism, but it is not aspiring to Conservatism. Certainly it is not aspiring to Thatcherism and to the new materialism that it breeds. I have not heard on the lips of a single person who has come through the Berlin Wall from East Germany the word "Conservative". The words I hear time and time again are "liberal" and "democracy". Those are the words on the lips of the people now seeking freedom, who want a system of politics that is built on human and political rights, the value of community, and a properly representative Government. As they call for those things, so will our nation have to answer a similar call. We must look to our own reforms to deliver the same.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: As I understand the Liberal Democrats' defence policy, if the right hon. Gentleman's party inherited Trident as a fait accompli, it would retain it to use in nuclear disarmament bargaining. If that is so, which of the central European cities would the Liberal Democrats target with Trident? Will they include President Haval's Prague or Warsaw—or Moscow, given that Boris Yeltsin achieved such a convincing majority in the recent elections there? The right

    331
    hon. Gentleman's views on Trident have undergone a process of development, but I think that they have developed in the wrong direction.
    Mr. Ashdown: I shall refer later to matters of security.
    How can we assist the process of reform? We must acknowledge that along with the huge opportunities it presents come immense dangers. It will require great imagination, a good deal of forward thinking, and enormous sensitivity to achieve stability out of profound change. It is important to acknowledge also that each of the emerging central European democracies is different, and that none of them can be treated the same.
    The model that we should look to is that of a western Europe deepening its unity—strengthening its integration—to create an increasingly powerful magnetic pull, drawing the emerging democracies of central Europe—each adopting its own pace and a path of its own choosing—to a destiny that brings them much closer to the European Community. Some will be part of the Community; some may stay separate from it for some time to come.
    This is a time for pragmatism. It is not a time for grand designs or for the handing down of blueprints, but a time at which we should use all the organisations available to us, and all the possible routes—trading agreements, articles of association and perhaps the establishment of a model such as that used by the European Free Trade Association—to bring about a closer relationship with the Community. Perhaps the European Council in Strasbourg put it best when it stated that the Community's job was to become
    "the cornerstone of a new European architecture, and in its will to openness a mooring for a future European equilibrium".
    We in western Europe face a tripartite task. The first part is the provision of short-term aid—and I am bound to say that both the Government and the EEC have acted with commendable urgency in responding to a pressing need. The second is the development of long-term assistance to increase the economic prosperity of the nations concerned: that will involve key elements such as lines of credit and managerial assistance, of which both the Government and the EEC seem well aware. The task is so great, and the sums involved so massive, that Governments should not be the sole providers; we must try to create a climate in which private industry will begin to invest.
    We shall need a broad framework in the West within which that can take place, along with democratic economic stability in the East. The third part of the task is to assist democratisation, which—at first sight, and a very short time after its initiation—seems to be developing effectively.
    I turn now to security matters. The peace of Europe in the past 40 years has been assured by two huge standing armies—armed to the nuclear teeth, eyeball to eyeball, on the brink of war and daring each other to flinch. All that appears to be over, thank God: we should now start to work with some urgency towards establishing a new means of securing the peace of what will be a Europe with a new shape.
    We must accept the likelihood that that new shape, when it finally emerges, may well not include the stationing of United States and Soviet troops on what is currently described as the territory of Europe east and west. The task before us is nothing less than the rebuilding of the
    332
    edifice of collective and common security in Europe, and the setting up of what may come to be known as a European regional security agreement.
    Let me emphasise that the process should not—must not—include the precipitate dismantling of either NATO or, in so far as we have any influence over events, the Warsaw pact. This is not a time for unilateral action, but a time for working in concert with our European partners. I believe that—at least during the transitional phase, which may last for some time—the structure of NATO and, in so far as it holds together, that of the Warsaw pact will be vital.
    First, they will form the medium through which we execute the agreements on multilateral disarmament that will be the precursors of the new shape of European security. Secondly, they will provide the one fixed point in an otherwise fast-moving world, from which we can develop economic and political integration with the nations of the East. Without that security backdrop, the process would be much more difficult.
    Thirdly, the two structures will provide an essential superstructure behind which we shall have to construct the new European security arrangements. As I have said, the precipitate dismantling of that superstructure would destabilise an already difficult and delicate process.
    Dr. David Owen: Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that the Hungarians, who were invaded by Soviet troops in 1956, and, the Czechoslovakians, who were invaded by Soviet troops in 1968, are not right to ask for those troops to be withdrawn? Does it not constitute a natural expression of the public rejection of Communist ideology—particularly Soviet Communist ideology—for the symbols of that ideology to be withdrawn? In those circumstances, of course the Warsaw pact will change.
    Mr. Ashdown: I am certainly not saying that. As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, those two nations have asked the Warsaw pact troops to withdraw, and they are doing so. I did not say that they should stay. I said that the structure of NATO and—in so far as we could assist the position—that of the Warsaw pact would, in the interim, be best maintained rather than precipitately dismantled.
    Mr. Foulkes: Why?
    Mr. Ashdown: There are three reasons. First, they will provide the means and the mechanism for us to proceed with disarmament; secondly, they will assist as a security backdrop for the political and economic steps that must be taken; and, thirdly, they will provide the framework on which we can erect new structures.
    Mr. Wareing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have been speaking for some time.
    I do not believe that the creation of the new security framework can be taken at as casual a pace as we might wish. Behind that process is the insistent imperative of German reunification. One of the tragedies of the current position is the fact that the European and German clocks are ticking at a different pace and at different times, a difficult situation to which we must, however, react.
    Mr. Gorbachev has told us—he said it again yesterday—that German reunification will arrive, and that there is

    333
    nothing that we can or should do to stop it. The Soviet Union clearly thinks that reunification is all right, provided that the new Germany is neutral. But a neutral Germany would destroy the cohesion of NATO. All that emphasises the urgency of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, particularly basket 1. We shall need not only to progress on disarmament, but to begin to build the new European security structure. As a diplomat who was involved in the Helsinki CSCE process, let me make a plea for the voice of Europe to be co-ordinated and clear: it certainly was not on the last occasion.
    I have discussed a number of issues in my speech. I hope that today's debate will be wide enough to encompass both what Britain should do to establish its part in western Europe and how, through western Europe, it can play its part in developments in the East. The new democratic Europe that is now emerging, East and West, presents the key framework within which our nation must build its future.
    Europe provides the litmus test that will identify Britain's political parties as parties of the future or of the past. For Labour and for Tories Europe is the crucial fault line, for both parties are equally infected with notions of post-imperial nationalism; each is impaled on outdated ideas of sovereignty, and each is incapable of rising to the challenge of a new democratic Europe that is now altering the shape of world power before our very eyes.
    Liberal Democrats recognise that our future in Britain is inextricably bound up in the new democratic Europe. We perceive that this is an historic moment for all of us, and we are determined that Britain should be part of the tide that is now sweeping Europe, rather than being left behind in a stagnant backwater. We understand that Europe must be Britain's destiny: that is why I commend the motion to the House.
    4.59 pm
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): Let me begin by dealing with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) about the European Community documents which were tagged to the motion for today's debate. I should make it clear that it was an initiative by the European Legislation Scrutiny Committee to which the Social and Liberal Democrats acquiesced and it in no way replaces the need for those documents to be properly debated in the fullness of time. It was not a Government initiative.
    The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), whose speech occupied the past 45 minutes or so, expressed a little surprise that no amendment was put down by the Government or by the official Opposition. It should be no surprise that the Government have no quarrel with the motion and welcome the chance to debate it. It should be no surprise that we welcome recent progress towards liberal democracy in eastern and central Europe and that we endorse the progress towards integration of the European Community because we are deeply involved in shaping that progress. All our actions show that we recognise that our future depends on
    "playing a full and wholehearted role in the development of the new democratic Europe."
    The right hon. Gentleman seems to believe that with fiendish cunning he has devised a motion that will expose
    334
    all sorts of deep divisions in all sorts of parties. He could just as well have put down a motion saying that the House believes in motherhood and apple pie. The motion is about as challenging and probing as the "doughnut" with which he surrounded himself when he made his speech.
    It is rather disappointing that in debating what are really quite great matters the right hon. Gentleman spent so much of his speech seeking to exploit narrow partisan domestic political issues. Perhaps it is inevitable that when we speak of recent events in eastern Europe we all seek fresher and ever more vivid words. We all strive against the certainty that our rhetoric cannot reach the level of the events that we have watched. After all, we have witnessed the 1989 revolution which was as profound and decisive as those of 1789 and 1848. The revolution has been mostly peaceful but sometimes bloody, driven throughout by the courage and passion of millions of our fellow Europeans who were unbowed by decades of tyranny and whose spirit survived the slow poison of the unconfined power of the state. It is wholly proper that the House of Commons should honour those who have fought for the freedoms that for us are routine. After all, the House was established so that the state should submit itself to the same rule of law that governs our people.
    The epic phase of the revolution is probably now complete. It has been glorious and it has brought forth its heroes, but it was only the beginning. Democracy cannot be created overnight. We are only now beginning to accept the difficulties of running free elections when none have been held for decades; where democracy is only a folk memory—tenaciously held but not easily realised. No one believes that democracy will be entrenched as result of one free election. The world will be looking for the full recognition of human rights protected by the rule of law. The rule of law is also essential for economic freedom to develop precisely the market approach which each of those countries has espoused and there is so much to do. The work has been started but it cannot be completed quickly.
    What is needed in eastern Europe today is no less than the recreation of civil society. Marx predicted the withering away of the state, but Communism sought to achieve the exact opposite—the withering away of society and the total domination of the state. Now eastern Europe has rejected Communism and wants capitalist structures, and the economic success and prosperity of the West has been a beacon. However, a market economy goes hand in hand with genuine democracy. Every day eastern Europe tells us that we cannot have one without the other and that political reform needs to be sustained by real economic change.
    In the Soviet Union perestroika has demanded political change. Fundamental to that will be giving free rein to the laws of supply and demand so that prices are set not by bureaucrats but by customers paying for goods and services that can be supplied to them. Enabling that to happen in a modern market economy requires a sophisticated apparatus. A legal framework must give investors the confidence to invest. Businesses need to understand accounts and there must be real banks, operating on commercial, not political, criteria. It may not sound popular, but if they want the rule of law, they have to have lawyers. In East Germany there are only 600. Any western country of equivalent size would have well over 20 times as many.
    Of course, in the old East Germany there was no use for lawyers. The authoritarian state took the decisions, and no

    335
    lawyer could help the citizen. A whole new generation of skilled people will be needed as part of the essential infrastructure of a free society. But where western societies have professional people serving the citizens, the old tyrannies had the Stasi serving the state. They do not need the Stasi any longer. They need solicitors, accountants and engineers. They need bankers and entrepreneurs with skill and flair. Free societies need their Petticoat lane, as well as their Speakers' corner. But the only markets in eastern Europe so far have been black markets and the gulfs between East and West are huge.
    In West Germany, 7 per cent. of households have two telephones. In East Germany, only 7 per cent have a telephone at all, and those are party lines. To set out the size of the task is not to be depressing or to sound gloomy. The eastern European economies face an awesome task. But if their problems are to be solved, they must first be identified. By identifying the problems, we can judge how to respond.
    Of course it is right that the Community should help, and it has done. Yet all the help that we give, as individual countries and together in the Community, cannot replace the determination to reform from within, and the determination to make those reforms endure. It is no kindness to suggest that our help can be a substitute for the iron determination that those countries will need.
    There can be no reforms without pain, no learning without suffering, no progress without risk. We cannot do more than ease the pain, speed the learning process, hasten the progress and reduce the risk. We cannot do more but we can do that, and we are.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said when she visited Poland in November 1988 that we would not stand idly by if the Poles embarked on real political and economic reform. Well, they did that; and we have not been idle. The United Kingdom took the lead immediately in marshalling western support for Poland and subsequently for the other emerging democracies.
    First, our own response to the changes has been quick and generous. We were first to provide technical assistance. In June last year we announced the establishment of a know-how fund for Poland. It has now been increased to £50 million. It is designed to provide the skills needed by the Poles to establish new political and economic structures. Other countries have now set up similar funds, but we pioneered the formula.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Did the Minister see the rather distressing television programme on Channel 4 showing the know-how process in action in which a member of the Conservative party was instructing some aspiring Members of Parliament from Budapest in how to write a manifesto? The lesson was on the lines of copying the Government's 1987 manifesto in which they promised to maintain child benefit and pay it as now. The Conservative party member explained that such a promise could mean anything at all.
    The know-how funds are certainly necessary, but I am rather alarmed at the suggestion that the best thing we can give newly-democratised countries is a plague of lawyers that would be as welcome as the biblical plague of boils. In arranging those know-how funds, should not we teach them the best of our democratic system rather than the sophisticated arts of cheating and lying?
    Mr. Maude: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that the best contribution he can make to the debate is of that quality.
    We are providing technical advice in banking, accountancy, commercial law and other essential areas. The Poles have sought our help in restructuring their aged industries. They have seen our success in breaking down state monopolies and creating competition through privatisation. While Opposition Members remain obstinately opposed, reformers in the East are embracing British Conservative ideas with enthusiasm and they recognise that that is an area in which we have terrific expertise from which they are keen to profit.
    All that is targeted and practical help with real benefits for the Polish people. Grand gestures alone shorten no queues. We are also training Polish managers, and colliery managers from Poland will be visiting the United Kingdom to study the techniques used by British Coal. We may be able to help in those areas, but we are especially well-placed to help in those areas that are the life-blood of a market-based economic system and we have already committed more than £2 million to those efforts.
    The Poles have also asked us for help in various non-economic areas. We are helping with local government reform, with the training of journalists and broadcasters and we are bringing members of the new generation of Polish politicians to this country for political seminars. I am grateful to those hon. Members who helped the organisers of those seminars to receive the first group of visitors last year. Thanks are due also to the BBC and to the British Council. Thanks to their skill we can help the Poles.
    We have also set up a £25 million know-how fund for Hungary and the first of that money will be spent in April. Last week we announced that the know-how effort will be extended to cover East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania. We have shown the Community the way.
    At a very early stage in the progress, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister urged the United States, Japan, West Germany, France and our other Community partners to respond equally quickly and generously to those east European countries that were firmly committed to reform. The Community responded magnificently and it has already provided aid, trade and lending assistance to Hungary and Poland and more is promised. We have played a major role in stimulating the many forms of unilateral help which Poland is now receiving.
    Mr. Wareing: It is highly commendable that our Government should provide assistance in eastern Europe. However, I believe that we are miles behind the West Germans with regard to aid and trade assistance. The Minister has referred to the aid that is being offered. Does that come from the existing Overseas Development Administration budget? Are resources being diverted from the Third world or, as should be the case, are we increasing the percentage that we spend on overseas aid, perhaps up to the level it was under the last Labour Government? Are new resources being found to assist the Poles, the Czechs, East Germans and the other peoples in eastern Europe?
    Mr. Maude: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the money to which I have referred is extra money. It takes nothing from the existing aid budget. The hon. Gentleman referred to our efforts compared with efforts in other

    337
    countries. This country was very quick and imaginative to find ways to provide immediate practical help for the emerging democracies, and we will continue to do that. The right hon. Member for Yeovil has recognised that.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Maude: No, I want to make progress if I may because we are already some way into the debate.
    At the Paris summit of the Group of Seven last July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pushed very vigorously the proposal that the European Commission should co-ordinate western assistance to Hungary and Poland. From that grew the Group of 24, the OECD countries, through which a huge amount of assistance is now being provided. That led to a $1 billion Polish stabilisation fund which was crucial to the structural reform of the Polish economy. Ours was the first contribution to that fund and it permitted the fund to come on line when it was needed.
    We have urged that the G24 exercise should be extended so that the same co-ordinated western effort can support Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania and East Germany. We have looked ahead to how the Community should develop its relations with eastern Europe.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has suggested to his ministerial colleagues in the Community the criteria for such an enhanced relationship. First, support should be appropriate to the level of practical and economic reform being put in place in each of those countries.
    Secondly, political reform needs a political response and we should be ready for a full political dialogue with eastern Europe. Those countries should be encouraged to accede to the European convention on human rights. They should be welcomed as full members of the Council of Europe as soon as they qualify. They should develop links with national Parliaments and there could be a particular role for the European Parliament.
    Thirdly, we should be open to a future relationship which neither leads to nor excludes membership of the Community. The Community has taken up the challenge magnificently.
    Comparisons have been made with the Marshall plan. However, it is worth noting that the total aid so far pledged for each person in Poland and Hungary is already roughly that provided by the United States to western Europe under the Marshall plan. We will begin work on the new programme as soon as we practically can.
    That the European Community responded quickly and generously is a measure of its growth and maturity. That the United Kingdom led its response is a measure of our central influence within the Community. Some have said that reform in eastern Europe poses a dilemma for the Community. Should it deepen or broaden itself? We see no such dilemma. It must do both.
    There has already been integration apace. Quite properly, in December the Community set the completion of the single market as its top priority to make European union increasingly a reality for our people.
    Mr. Gorst: In addition to the three criteria which my hon. Friend has already spelt out, should not there be a fourth criterion to take account of the possibility of a
    338
    breakdown in any of those countries as a result of political or social unrest leading to riots or even civil war? Although no one wants that eventuality, it is not impossible. Will the aid which my hon. Friend has described continue to be pumped into those countries if there is a protracted civil war?
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend raises a possibility which we all earnestly pray will not occur. It is possible to envisage circumstances in which that might happen, and if that occurred the donor countries would have to consider their actions. However, we have made it clear that our aid depends on proper political and economic reforms. The aid is not unconditional and it is intended to entrench the reforms. The circumstances which my hon. Friend postulates would be inconsistent with those reforms continuing.
    I was referring to the priority which the Community set unanimously in December in which it subscribed to the completion of the single market. We have seen measures to reduce air fares, to free travel, to increase consumer choice and to reduce costs. Those measures are genuinely intended to create a citizens' Europe to which the right hon. Member for Yeovil referred.
    People increasingly see that our single market is being founded on the rejection of centralism, without bureaucracy or prescription. We are seeing a genuine people's Europe emerging, not a bureaucrat's or politician's Europe. We are seeing a single market which entrenches precisely those virtues of liberal markets that our neighbours in eastern Europe are seeking.
    We are seeing the growth of political co-operation in the Community with no loss of sovereignty, but on an agreement that the 12 nation states should act in unison to make their common voice more powerful than individual voices could ever be. We are seeing the growth of economic and monetary integration to reduce costs, to help business and to take forward the integration of Europe. In all those profoundly important areas, Britain has led and we are showing the way forward.
    I sometimes see headlines claiming, "Britain on the sidelines". However, they come only from people who do not know which way the Community is going. They come from people who do not know the touchline from the try line. If they were looking in the right direction, they would know that we are not on the sidelines—we are ahead and that is where we will stay.
    The single market is following the pattern set jointly by ourselves and by the European Commission. It is being driven forward by our joint determination. Political co-operation was our initiative and we have been determined to see it succeed. In economic and monetary union, no country is more advanced than ours. No country has implemented more of stage I of the Delors report than we have. We are the only country to have put forward our own proposals for further development. Integration is proceeding apace, within the treaty of Rome.
    The Single European Act provides great scope for further integration, involving no further transfer of sovereignty, and encroaching no further on this House's powers. Within our treaty as it stands, deepening of the Community there can be, and there should be. But there must be broadening, too. This is no time for introspection—no time to turn inward.
    Our neighbours and our allies clamour to draw closer to the Community. We must respond to that. There must

    339
    be an enhanced relationship with the countries of the European Free Trade Association. We want closer links, and faster. We have led the way. The Community must make agreements with each country in eastern Europe, to suit each case, and to reflect the different and changing needs of each.
    On the "Europe beyond the Atlantic" to which the Prime Minister referred in her speech at Bruges, we should go forward with the proposals for the new transatlantic partnership that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out last week.
    There are those who urge that the Community should enlarge. That will not happen in the near future, nor does it need to. But, having seen an end to one division of Europe, the Community should not create another.
    I do not think that the Community can insist for ever that Europe will be divided between its present 12 members and the others. If others wish to join and can meet the Community's demanding standards, we should not prevent them.
    As I said at the start of the debate, it is significant that amendments have been tabled neither by Her Majesty's Government nor by Her Majesty's Opposition.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Minister has not yet outlined the Government's policy on monetary union as proposed by the other 11 members. Will he spend a moment on that topic before concluding his speech?
    Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman was not present in November, when we had a full-day debate on economic and monetary union. Had he bothered to turn up and listened to the views of the House of Commons on this matter, he would have realised that, as is so often the case, he and his party are the only ones in step—everyone else in the House of Commons is out of step with him.
    I will tell the right hon. Gentleman precisely our views. We can make huge progress towards economic and monetary union without changing the treaty and without the need for an intergovernmental conference by implementing stage I of the Delors report, on which we are moving forward faster than any other country in Europe. We have precisely set out our proposals for moving beyond that in the Treasury paper. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman has seen it and has understood it, although that is by no means certain. He will have seen that we have set out how progress can be made, not more slowly but more quickly than under the Delors report, and with no further encroachment on the powers of the House, towards which the right hon. Gentleman takes a remarkably cavalier view.
    If I criticise the motion, it is only that it urges the Government to do what they are already doing and have been doing for some time. I believe that the present success of the European Community owes a great deal to our leadership, to our determination to secure proper reforms, and to our readiness to look out as well as in.
    We have helped to fashion a Community that has been a beacon to eastern Europe. We are now leading its response to the changes that have swept through eastern Europe. The Europe that we aim at is a Europe of nation, without nationalism—a Europe of diversity without division. We shall achieve it.
    5.23 pm
    Mr. George Foulkes: The Labour party greatly welcomes the opportunity for the House of debate the European Community and eastern Europe. Apparently, it is the one subject on which the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) and his leader agree. I must apologise to the hon. Member for Rochdale if I have missed that uniqueness.
    Although the House discussed an almost identical topic just over a month ago, events in eastern Europe have moved and are moving so rapidly that much of what was said then has already been overtaken by those events.
    I shall deal briefly with only two principal matters. As the Minister rightly said—for once I can agree with him—the membership of the exchange rate mechanism, the powers of the European Parliament, economic and monetary union, the social charter and many of the matters that were raised by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) have been discussed many times. The Government and the Opposition have clearly outlined their policies, but, unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Yeovil was not able to grace the House with his presence.
    I shall deal with the three interrelated matters of the transition from Communism to democracy—the deepening and widening of the European Community, and German unity—and then I shall say a few words about defence implications.
    Opposition Members unreservedly welcome the end of Communism, and the overthrow of tyrannies in eastern Europe, and the courage of people who have stood up against tyranny—particularly young people, students, intellectuals and others. Therefore, it is a travesty for some mischievous Conservative Members to try to equate Communism with democratic Socialism. Socialism and liberty are inseparable. It is an insult to democratic Socialists the world over who have fought and died for freedom and democracy to imply otherwise.
    Mr. Ray Whitney: Will the hon. Gentleman define Socialism as he understands it, and explain where Socialism and liberty have survived jointly?
    Mr. Foulkes: I said that I would be brief. It would lake much longer to do what the hon. Gentleman asks. However, I will see him afterwards—he and I are good friends—and I shall go through the examples.
    The people of eastern Europe are certainly rejecting Communism, but, as the right hon. Member for Yeovil said—rightly, on this occasion—they are equally certainly not opting for Thatcherism. They are not opting for an unrestrained market. Instead, they are opting for a mixed economy, as J. K. Galbraith said in an excellent address at my old university at Edinburgh only last week. This spring we will see a welcome procession of democratic elections from March until June as democracy blossoms in eastern Europe. Opposition Members unreservedly welcome that.
    However, the transformation from Communism to democracy is not easy. Elections cannot be delayed for too long, because instability during the hiatus between the end of Communism and the elections could become uncontrollable. Equally, we accept that time is needed for new parties to be formed and to organise. There is a dilemma facing people in each country in eastern Europe.
    Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no need for Labour Members to be on the defensive? We fought against Stalinist tyrannies. For example, last year we went to the East German and Czech embassies, protesting at arrest and detention. From the very beginning of the Labour party, we have been opposed to every form of dictatorship or totalitarian rule. Is it not the case that Tory Members have often defended dictatorships—for example, Hitler and Mussolini before the war and the Greek colonels since, not to mention what is happening in South Africa? It is they who should be on the defensive when it comes to democracy, certainly not ourselves.
    Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is correct. We are also continuing to oppose tyranny in China, where it appears to be business as usual for Conservative Members. However, Opposition Members still recall the young student who stood up against the tank and fought for democracy. We do not erase that picture from our minds too quickly. I am not apologising in any way.
    As the transition from Communism to democracy takes place, eastern European countries will need our help. Opposition Members welcome the know-how funds, and we are playing our part in them. The Secretary of State recently announced their development and expansion to other countries. However, the pace of events in eastern Europe is overtaking the capacity of the know-how funds to offer help. We urge the Government to move their efforts up several gears and several levels.
    Mr. Maude: I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said. We have just extended our know-how effort to embrace all the countries of eastern Europe without a limit on funds.
    Mr. Foulkes: I said that we recognise the extension of the funds. I shall come to that in a moment and give some explanations.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has called for a new Marshall plan for eastern Europe. Such an initiative was endorsed by professor Susan Strange in two recent articles in the International Herald Tribune. She said that it should involve a central fund for credit, trade assistance and other help of that nature. Major economic assistance from Britain and other western European countries should be co-ordinated. Such assistance should be determined largely by the newly elected Governments in eastern Europe. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will tell us that he is prepared to move beyond the important technical assistance of the know-how funds to much wider, broader and fundamental assistance.
    The new Governments in eastern Europe should be allowed to develop their own democratic, economic and social systems and to protect and develop their countries' cultural identities. It is vital to avoid new forms of dependency, such as we have seen, develop regrettably in the Third world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) rightly said, it is vital that our help to eastern Europe should not be at the expense of our assistance to the Third world. That assistance will be even more important with the development of the economies of eastern Europe. Because I have known the Government over the past 10 years, I fear that, despite their assurances that new money will be made available, the planned increases in assistance to
    342
    poorer countries may be forgone and assistance to other areas may be squeezed. I urge the Minister to assure us that that will not be the case. I warn him that we shall watch it carefully.
    Britain has much to offer eastern Europe because of our experience of pluralist democracy, free access to the media, autonomous trade unions and a plethora of independent non-governmental bodies which are all still relatively vigorous in spite of—in some cases, because of—the ravages of the past 10 years. The message from both Conservative and Opposition Members should be that we are eager and willing to offer many types of assistance to the emerging democracies.
    We also support the initiatives of the European Community as an institution to assist eastern Europe. We have watched with interest moves towards closer political and economic links between east and west European countries. East Germany is a special case, and I shall refer to it later, but elsewhere in eastern Europe democracy will need to be established and consolidated and economies developed and stabilised before integration into the Community can be contemplated. Clearly, other forms of association are both possible and desirable.
    In Germany, the events of the past few weeks have been the most dramatic of all. Parties and unions in both East and West Germany are already joining in all-German federations. Some 3,000 workers who live in east Berlin have taken part-time jobs in the West. They earn more than they would by working full time at home. Last Saturday, at an amazing event, the great West German, indeed the world Socialist leader, Willy Brandt, addressed a tumultuous throng of 100,000 East Germans. It has become clear that the boundary between East and West Germany no longer exists. German unity is inevitable and we must work with that inevitability. Britain can take a lead in responding positively to that.
    As a democratic Socialist, I welcome the leading role that the SPD is playing in establishing a new Germany. It is important that the leadership of Germany show its acceptance of the 1937 borders with Poland and the Soviet Union in order to reassure the leaders and the peoples of those two countries.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Gentleman endorses the policies of the SPD. Will he comment on some of the implications of the victory of Oskar Lafontaine in the Saarland at the weekend? He appeared to win through an opportunist attempt to stir up feeling against East Germans coming into the country.
    Mr. Foulkes: I endorse the SPD initiative and the new moves towards East Germany. I refer specifically to Willy Brandt and I make no apology for doing so.
    I wish to move on rapidly to the defence implications of events in eastern Europe. I fear that the Government's response to developments in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe is both misguided and misjudged. The Soviet Union has already announced in 1988 that it will reduce its army by 500,000 troops. A similar number in Warsaw pact countries have an uncertain future. The conventional forces in Europe treaty will eliminate two thirds of Warsaw pact tanks and thousands of aircraft.
    We all know that the Soviet Union is preoccupied with internal divisions and urgently needs resources to be transferred from expenditure on arms to boost its economy. Increasingly, the Soviet Union is becoming a

    343
    most unlikely aggressor. Yet the unbelievable response of the British Government, announced in the expenditure review yesterday, is to add £1 billion to our defence expenditure next year, with real increases in spending over the next three years. The British Government are increasing arms expenditure, unlike Belgium, the Netherlands and even the United States of America.
    The Labour party believes that there is an urgent need for a wide-ranging defence review to cut expenditure and take account of the greatly diminished threat. Perhaps the Minister could confirm the report in The Times today that the Prime Minister is to head a Cabinet meeting to look into new defence strategy. If that is the case, we welcome it in principle but we have some doubts about the attitude of the person who will head the committee.
    The right hon. Member for Yeovil spoke about continuing the existing pacts. Beyond that, the Labour party believes that the new architecture of Europe will need an entirely new system of security. We welcome the initiatives of Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Mitterrand to consider a pan-European security system involving all 35 countries in a new Helsinki process. Although we welcome the Foreign Secretary's rhetoric about turning tanks into tractors, we cannot see evidence of it in Government expenditure plans or the Prime Minister's statements.
    We urge the Government to go even further than the Foreign Secretary's rhetoric and turn missiles into machines. It is grotesque and unacceptable while revolutions are taking place throughout Europe for the Prime Minister to press ahead with modernising short-range nuclear weapons. At whom are they targeted—Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa? Perhaps if the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will tell us. He is one of the remaining cold warriors in Europe.
    The Prime Minister buries her head in the sand. That not only wastes resources and maintains tension but delays the forward planning necessary in the arms industry to diversify in order to protect and maintain employment in more socially useful production.
    Finally, unless our present Government stop trying to make petty party political capital out of the monumental events in eastern Europe, broaden their vision and end the suspicion that isolates them as Europe's sole remaining cold warrior, Britain will have failed to play the positive part in these monumental developments in Europe which our background and history should determine that we play.
    5.39 pm
    Mr. John Biffen: The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is to be congratulated on tabling the motion, topical as it is in relation to the momentous events that are now revealing themselves throughout Europe. I suppose that he is to be admired for doing so with arguments which, although not entirely acceptable to me, have the deferential support of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith), because for any Liberal leader to secure that characteristic deserves memory. The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought that it was time for taking a view and a vision of Europe.
    I apologise for the fact that I shall not follow some of the more detailed argument of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). Instead, I shall put to the House one or two general
    344
    propositions that are properly the property of Back-Bench contributions to the debate, liberated as we are from the more cautious considerations of the Foreign Office or its shadows.
    I should like to reflect on the visionary comments of a generation ago, when the present European Community was being established, when it was much in the mind of Jean Monnet some time after the war, before the Messina treaty and the Rome arrangements were undertaken. He said:
    "In my view Western Europe is a vacuum, on either side of which are two great dynamic forces of Communism and American Capitalism."
    From that analysis a whole concept has developed of a continental state that comprises western Europe with a high degree of economic and political integration to match the existing defence arrangements that had been essayed in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I do not make this comment in any sense of hostility, but whatever the virtue and validity of that analysis at the time of its making, it reveals nothing of the Europe that we now see. It reveals nothing of the Europe that preoccupies this debate and the debate outside the House and nothing of the kind of institutions that are more appropriate for what is now emerging.
    Therefore, I should like to share with the House my own observations of the two great characteristics that I think will cast their shadow—or their inspiration—over European debates in the immediate years ahead.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the Europe of today bears no resemblance to that described by Monnet is very much due to the implementation of Monnet's vision of the structures of Europe that should take the place of that vacuum?
    Mr. Biffen: I am not trying to be clever, but the answer is yes and no. I have a qualified agreement with the Monnet analysis and a qualified acceptance of the present characteristics of western Europe as derived from the treaty of Rome and the changes that it secured. However, that is only a partial answer. So many other factors have operated outside Europe that have had inevitable hammer-blow consequences on the way in which we have developed that any answer given to that question must be much more than a mere couple of sentences, as the hon. Gentleman must know.
    I now turn to the two characteristics that I think will cast a shadow. The first is the reunification of Germany. Most hon. Members will accept that that reunification has been impending. There may have been arguments about the timing and about the modalities, but most hon. Members are past believing that two distinctive Germanys, operating to different economic, social and political judgments, are in prospect for the next decade. If we accept that German reunification is to be a reality of the new Europe, I hope that we shall do so with a full heart and not grudgingly.
    In my judgment, the behaviour of the German Federal Republic since the second war has been wholly exemplary. The fact that it has not sought to exercise a political authority in any sense commensurate with its economic clout, but has preferred to operate in partnership with France, should not deny us the belief that German politics operates with great maturity. They need no patronising comments from people in this country or elsewhere.

    345
    I have not been a particular Germanophile. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who was in his place a moment ago, has a great record of association with German parliamentarians, so I am happy to place on record the fact that I am making these comments in his spiritual presence.
    One can always try to unravel history to the advantage of one country or another, but I believe that the decision after the first war in the Versailles treaty provision 231 to identify German guilt for the first war is exactly the kind of insensitivity that haunts those who come after the authors of such attitudes.
    I observe a new, dynamic and cohesive force—cohesive in its own internal disciplines—now existing in central Europe, with new opportunities to direct its energies. "Drang nach Osten" is a phrase that will come back to us as we see German economic penetration to the East, German aid to the East and the recreation of traditional German ambitions towards the East.
    As I make my second observation in the presence of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), I confess that I had already formed my argument before reading Conor Cruise O'Brien's article in The Times. I make that point in self-defence. Although German reunification may be generally accepted, there are still great areas of dubiety, and I entertain great pessimism for the future of Mr. Gorbachev and the Soviet Union as currently constructed. I believe that the nationalism that has been released in the Warsaw pact countries will return to be effective in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia, the Transcaucasian territories and possibly in the Ukraine. It is a formidable list, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence for believing that those pressures are now at work in the Soviet Union.
    When one reflects that 18 per cent. of the Soviet population is Islamic and that 40 per cent. of the current Soviet conscript draft comes from the Islamic republics, one realises the lack of internal cohesion in the Soviet Union today. One possible reaction is that Russian nationalism will arise in response to the Soviet Union's losses in the minority, in the Islamic and in the non-Russian republics. Some evidence of the nationalist movement Pamyat can already be observed. I do not want to comment on that because I can do so only tentatively, but we would be extremely foolish to suppose that the Soviet Union, as currently constructed, can enjoy an element of stability in the new Europe. We have not seen the end of that story and no one can be quite sure where it will conclude.
    That takes me to the business of how the European Community and its institutions can adapt to meet that challenge. If I can plagiarise Jean Monnet, we need structures that can contain both a reunified Germany and possibly a humiliated, nationalistic Russia, which would be a potential danger on the eastern approaches. Therefore, in trying to secure the widest possible political co-operation, we should look at the institutions that we have today. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the Council of Europe and that is a start, but that wider political co-operation has to derive from the Council of Ministers and from the European Community.
    The right hon. Member for Yeovil and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley spoke of
    346
    defence. At this stage, not much can be said that is constructive, but I have an instinct that the influence of the United States will gradually diminish in the military councils of NATO. Therefore, we have to think in terms of European collective security, covering the European members of NATO and the Warsaw pact. That challenge will require the most delicate essay in statesmanship. The future of Europe will be more related to collective security and the ability to live to the old political structures—I know not whether before 1914 or 1939—than to maximising economic growth. That is the language of yesterday's Europe, not the challenge of tomorrow's.
    Trade is still the third cornerstone factor in the new Europe. As this debate has been initiated by the SLD, I shall quote the old Liberal adage that if trade cannot cross frontiers, armies will. That is adage enough to secure the efforts of the House to ensure the maximum trade operating throughout Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals. However, let us be clear about one thing. That is not just the simple trade of the treaty of Rome. We are taking within our ambit countries whose economies are substantially different from those operating within the countries of the existing Community.
    Let me give the House just one example. Both in this country and in western Europe we are increasingly laying major environmental charges upon our industry and commerce. A Bill on that matter is passing through Parliament this very Session. There is no such comparable environmental care in eastern Europe. Much of the industry there operates under the most reprehensible environmental standards. Despite that, we shall expect our industry and commerce to compete where there is no even playing ground. We have to find some way to increase and improve trade across the wider Europe that is now emerging.
    There are no blueprints for these changes. There is no immediate revised treaty of Rome. It will be much more subtle and difficult. Those of my hon. Friends who have been to eastern Europe recently say that the countries of the Warsaw pact in the north are quite different from those in the south. Our whole mentality on east Europe and west Europe had better be replaced by one on north Europe and south Europe when we try to devise ways to cope with these changes. One modest, often neglected, mechanism that can reconcile such varying economies is flexibility in exchange rates. That is why what often seems to be the settled argument of last month or last year comes back to haunt us with new challenges and opportunities. At least the House is privileged to live in a time of challenge and opportunity.
    5.53 pm
    Dr. David Owen: There is little doubt that historians will compare 1989 with 1848, and that it will be seen as the springtime of nations. We are seeing the revival of nationhood, and there is nothing wrong with that. I agree with the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) that we must welcome the unification of Germany and not be grudging about that. We are seeing the flourishing of nations. How we handle the emergence of a unified Germany is the most significant issue. How we handle it over the next few weeks and months will be particularly crucial. I have no doubt that this will change the nature of Europe.

    347
    I believe that a united Germany will be a member of the European Community. After all, since 1956 the protocol annexed to the treaty of Rome has made it clear that the DDR and the FRG were, for all trading purposes, to be seen as one nation. I believe that unification will take place far faster than any of us had imagined. It is right that that should happen, because that commitment to nationhood, and the wealth in the Federal Republic, can bind the two into a unified country far quicker than the pace of any of the changes that will take place in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland.
    It is in our interests that a market economy and a true democracy are established in one of the countries that were hitherto Soviet Communist satellites as quickly as possible. That can be done in three years, and unification will effectively take place this year, although the constitution requirements may follow later. If that can be done, it will make it easier for Czechoslovakia, Hungary and even Poland to come into the European Community within the decade.
    I do not know whether they will come into the Community. Much will depend on their determination to move to a market economy and the speed with which they can establish a real and genuine democracy. I agree with the Minister that democracy takes time to bed in. Such changes do not develop within a matter of months, and there are already worrying signs in Romania of the spectre of Fascism returning. We cannot be sure that any of these countries will find it easy to move—Poland, for example will find it hard to adjust to the market economy and will need all the help that it can get—but the fulcrum of these changes will be a unified Germany.
    That unified Germany will be a member of the European Community, but how it sees its defence relationships is still an open question. It needs to be made clear to Mr. Gorbachev that we will not accept any country dictating the pattern of defence alliances. That is a matter for self-determination by a unified Germany. I hope that a unified Germany will remain a member of NATO, but I note that Hans-Dietrich Genscher said the other day that he thought that it would be impossible for a unified Germany to be a member of NATO. If it is not, I hope that it will be a signatory to the Brussels treaty, a member of the Western European Union and committed under that treaty to come to the defence of any of its fellow signatories.
    I think that many Germans will be reluctant to give up the relationship with the United States that they know has been a central factor in their prosperity and security. We in NATO must look seriously at whether it is reasonable to ask a united Germany to have on its soil United States forces. After all, although we do not wish to have the Soviet Union dictating the pattern of German unification, and certainly not imposing neutrality, we have to take account of Soviet concerns.
    If, as I believe, Soviet troops are withdrawn quickly from Czechoslovakia and Hungary, it is certainly in our interests that they come out of eastern Germany. It would be foolish to have a unified Germany with Soviet troops in the old part of east Germany and United States troops in the old part of west Germany.
    It is open to argument whether it is right to provoke the Soviet Union by even trying to have United States troops in a unified Germany. Would it not be better for NATO, of its own volition—not as a result of an agreement with the Soviet Union or involving the Warsaw pact—to say
    348
    that a unified Germany would not have US forces stationed on its soil, and thereby no nuclear forces either from the United States?
    This does not mean, however, that the United States would pull out of a defence commitment to Europe. It is essential that we bridge the Atlantic. It is strongly in the interests of European development that the United States link its forces into Europe. American aircraft could still be deployed in the United Kingdom and in Italy. United States ships and submarines would still come into European ports and exercise in the western Atlantic and the Mediterranean. With smaller forces, Canada should also remain.
    NATO will stay; the only question is whether Germany will be a member of it. I think and hope that it will be. But we must not offer the provocation of keeping US forces on the soil of a united Germany, given that the Soviet Union is withdrawing from all the satellite nations. A unified Germany without United States troops can still have the troops of Holland, Belgium and the United Kingdom stationed on its soil—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That might be prudent, because it would allow the German army to be smaller.
    One aspect that worries people about a unified Germany is the idea of its having a large force. Were the forces of East and West Germany to link, a massive army would be formed. Many Germans would prefer a more modest army, relying, through the WEU, on links with other countries such as Belgium, Holland and Britain. That makes sense, and it would link a unified Germany to the deterrent strategy of the WEU, which is nuclear as well as conventional. That would mean that the United Kingdom and France would retain their nuclear weapons and be able to exercise their nuclear-carrying aircraft at the invitation of Germany, should they wish to do so They could even station them permanently in Germany, but there would be no United States forces.
    I hope that Germany will choose membership of NATO as well as of the European Community, although I would settle for membership of the WEU. I would be extremely concerned if a united Germany chose to be neutral. How we handle that question in the coming weeks and months is of fundamental importance. We must not be grudging in our political acceptance of the fact that a unified Germany will exercise its power responsibly. We must not be jealous of its economic strength, which will be needed in East Germany and which will be generously applied to other countries.
    The European Community and the Government have already demonstrated a great deal of imagination and foresight in the way in which they have tried to deepen the commitment to a market economy and to pluralist democracy in the countries of eastern Europe, but much more will have to be done.
    It is time we told Mr. Gorbachev that a European common home is alive and well and living in the European Community. If we want to build on the common home, we should enlarge the Community—of that there is no doubt—but the pace of enlargement remains open to question. We enlarged the Community from nine to 12 countries with political factors very much in mind. The economic development of Spain, Portugal and Greece had not progressed as far as we should have liked, but because we wanted to buttress the new democracies of those countries,

    349
    which were emerging from Fascism, we took a political risk and enlarged the Community more quickly than we might otherwise have done.
    We may find towards the end of the 1990s that the economies of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland have not made quite as rapid progress as we should like, but we shall want to buttress their democracies by accepting them into the Community. There is no doubt that, if Austria wants to join after 1992, it will; likewise Norway.
    None of us quite knows what is happening inside the USSR. I am afraid that I share the pessimism of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North. The great danger in this country, in the media and elsewhere has been that of giving Gorbachev rave reviews even though he is in serious trouble in his own country. Gorbachev has not delivered the market economy—he has come nowhere near doing so. I am somewhat pessimistic about anyone's capacity to turn the Russian economy into a market economy. Nor has Gorbachev moved in any significant way towards democracy; but the nationhood of which I spoke earlier is certainly flowering in the USSR—the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a phrase which Leszek Kolakowsky said contained a lie in every word. The Soviet Union has always contained nations forced into it and resenting that fact.
    What shall we do about Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania? It will be very hard for any Soviet leader to allow those countries to become independent—two months ago, I should have said that they would never be allowed independence. Now, I am beginning to wonder. The Russian empire is in such serious decline that it arguably may not be able to hold republics such as Moldavia, Georgia and Armenia. They may all seek independence. We may be witnessing not just the decline of the Soviet empire but the dismemberment of the USSR.
    What does this mean for the enlargement of the European Community? Instead of a Community of 24 or more nations, a wiser grouping might be a Community of about 16 nations, including Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and East Germany—because of unification. There might also be a Baltic community, comprising Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden and possibly Norway. That grouping might maintain a close relationship with the European Community. A Black sea community might also develop, comprising Romania, Moldavia, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Armenia.
    I have never believed that Turkey is a European country. I know that associate membership of the EC is meant to carry with it a commitment to full membership, but we should not see Turkey as an early candidate for enlarging the Community. If we outline how we see the enlargement of the European Community, we can lay claim to its being the European common home. We can have trading and economic relations with the Soviet Union, which might join us in the Council of Europe, a good forum in which to come together. However, the pace of development should be set by the democratic nations—by us.
    I urge the House not to get into the habit of thinking that these decisions should be taken in the framework of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe; or to believe that we have a vested interest in retaining the Warsaw pact, which is loathed by countries such as
    350
    Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. When they have attained their freedom, who are we to tell them to keep that organisation?
    We must be self-confident enough not to be exclusive, but to open out our democracy all the time to a wider Europe. We must do so of our own volition and strength. There will be greater integration, but the European Community will respect nationhood. I hope that the federalists will stop seeking the end of nationhood and cease their drive towards a Community that tries to stifle the most basic political factor in our democratic development—the sense of belonging to a nation.
    This is not the same as nationalism. Of course there are institutions in the EC that override nationhood: there is a pooling of sovereignty. We know how much we can poll at various times while retaining our nationhood. NATO had an integrated command structure, yet we retained our nationhood. We shall move towards greater European economic and monetary union. But we shall want to retain nationhood—and there is nothing wrong with that.
    I have been a committed supporter of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Community since the first public political speech I ever made—in 1962. I have never been a federalist, and I resent the mood in Britain that, somehow, if one is not a federalist, one is not a European. I have arguments and differences with the Government about some of their attitudes to the European Community, but I will not be told that I am a bad European because I believe that the United Kingdom can retain its identity within a European Community.
    Retaining identity will not result in a weaker Europe. We will not get a larger Europe by spurning nationhood, nor will we get a cohesive Europe if we hold on to the outdated views about national decision making. It will evolve. The evolution of the European Community is the most exciting thing that has happened. As it has been debated in this House, all of us have changed. I do not believe that 20 years ago the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North could have made the speech that he made today, and I doubt that 20 years ago I could have made the speech that I am making now. We have all adapted and changed.
    In the European Community, we are building a unique structure. Forcing it into a mould marked "United States" would be ludicrous. It is utterly ludicrous to believe that, somehow, the European Community states will be like California, Montana and Oregon. The European Community that we are developing is unique, basic—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Bogus."]— I hear someone say, "Bogus." I read in the New Statesman the other day an exact simile from Professor David Marquand, who likened the European Community development to California, Oregon and Montana. The fact of the matter is that the European Community that we are building will not be matched by any other institution in the world, because Europe has an identity of its own. It is the retention of that identity that will embrace central Europe, that will go wider than the Community of the 12. It is that which we should build—and build on the basis of a united Germany.
    6.12 pm
    Mr. Churchill: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). I certainly join him in his call to the NATO Allies in Europe—including a united Germany when it comes

    351
    into being, which, like him, I suspect will be sooner rather than later—to retain the commitment to the concept of collective security. It was the absence of that commitment in the 1930s that led this continent directly towards disaster. Further, I join the right hon. Member in his support for the concept of the United Kingdom and the other nations of Europe retaining their national identity within the scope of the European Community.
    Everybody under the age of 50 has lived his entire life under the reality or the threat of world war. Suddenly the scene has been transformed out of all recognition. Without question, the changes that are taking place in the Soviet Union and the revolution that has taken place in eastern Europe in recent months are the most positive and encouraging developments of my lifetime. Never have the prospects for peace been brighter than they are today. For millions of our fellow Europeans a 50-year nightmare, at the hands of the Nazis and then of the Red Army and its police-state puppets is drawing to a close. For the first time, these betrayed and battered people have a prospect of securing control of their own destiny through the establishment of democratic governments and the withdrawal of the invader from their soil.
    In this regard, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, most astonishingly, made it clear that it is his belief—I am not sure that it is a belief shared by his colleagues—that the Soviet occupying forces and the tanks of the Red Army should remain in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Since the day Gladstone gave the order for the bombardment of Alexandria, no more illiberal statement has been uttered by one who claims to be a liberal politician.
    Mr. Ashdown: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman was not listening. This calumny was put forward also by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, (Dr. Owen), and the hon. Gentleman knows that I quite specifically denied it. That is not my intention, nor were those my words. It is perfectly clear that those nations—Hungary, Czechoslovakia and others—who want the troops of the USSR to be removed should be able to require their removal. That is what should happen. What I said was that in the interim period, until we believe that new European security agreements which would accommodate, for instance, the matter of the reunification of Germany are possible, the two structures currently in existence—NATO and the Warsaw pact—would be best kept in place. That does not mean that there would be Warsaw pact troops in Hungary, any more than it means that the preservation of NATO—and the right hon. Member for Devonport said that it was not so—necessarily requires the retention of United States troops in Germany.
    Mr. Churchill: I am delighted to have the right hon. Gentleman's clarification on that point. I think that few hon. Members followed him in his suggestion that it was desirable that the Warsaw pact should be maintained. That is what he said.
    The implications of these developments are far-reaching for the future of NATO, which will have to rethink both its strategy and its deployment, and for the future of the two Germanys, where reunification is inevitable. I regard reunification as wholly desirable, provided—and it is an important proviso—that it is firmly based on democratic principles. Of course, the very
    352
    prospect of German reunification will send shivers down the spines of an older generation in this country and elsewhere. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said in his excellent contribution, the fact is that West Germany—the Federal Republic—has proved its democratic credentials, and there is no doubt that it could steer a reunified Germany on to the path of democratic development.
    Of course, the implications of this revolution for the European Community are also profound. We must see that the horizons of Europe and of the Community are widened to include the nations of eastern and central Europe. We must welcome those nations—we do welcome them—with open arms as partners in the building of this free and democratic Europe, provided that it is their wish to join in that adventure. Those people, like Mr. Delors, who favour a European unity based on centralism will have to revise their views, as the people of eastern Europe are most unlikely to want to be involved in anything that smacks of central control from distant places. We must build a structure of European unity based on respect for the national sovereignty of member states as expressed through their national Parliaments. In that respect, I echo what the right hon. Member for Devonport said. That is the way forward in building a European Community from the Atlantic to the Urals.
    I should like to address the immediate needs of the peoples of eastern Europe, especially in three particulars that stand out. First, millions of our fellow Europeans are literally starving and in urgent need of food aid on a far larger scale than that so far undertaken by the European Community. Secondly, the economies of many east European states are on their beam ends. Even at sacrifice to ourselves, we must extend large scale practical assistance on a Community-wide basis. Free enterprise must play a leading part in the regeneration of industry and commerce in eastern Europe.
    Thirdly, Britain and the House have a special part to play in helping the nations of eastern Europe to build democratic institutions. Those nations are at a loss to know which way to turn in that respect, and if we fail to help them there is a real danger that anarchy or even Fascism will fill the void created by the failure and collapse of Marxist Socialism.
    The House should call upon the Government and the European Community to redouble the laudable efforts that are already being made, because a special responsibility falls on us as Europeans more than on anyone else in the world, including the people of the United States, to rebuild the shattered nations of Europe ,on democratic foundations and to welcome them as equal members within the European Community.
    Let us recognise that, while we are living in a time of unprecedented hope for the future, the two super-powers are going through a period of the most intense instability. That could easily make the world an even more dangerous place than it was during the period from which we have so recently emerged—the cold war. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) would do well to recall that, in spite of the cuts in the Soviet defence budget to which he referred, the Soviet Union is today still spending as a proportion of its resources three times more on armaments and defence than the United Kingdom, and twice as much as the United States. It would be folly at this juncture for Britain and its NATO Allies to join in any mad rush to abandon our defences.
    6.22 pm
    Ms. Joyce Quin: I am grateful for this opportunity to participate in the debate because it raises issues that are important not just for us or for Europe, but for the world. Like all hon. Members, I wholeheartedly welcome the emergence of democracy throughout eastern Europe and I was astonished and exhilarated by the pace of change.
    In moving the motion, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) stressed liberal democracy and seemed to claim some special affinity between his party and the emerging democracies in eastern Europe. At the Conservative party conference the Prime Minister seemed to claim something similar, that the new freedom in eastern Europe had been inspired by events in Britain, as if somehow it was to be equated with bus deregulation.
    Many of the emerging movements in eastern Europe have strong links with the Democratic Socialist elements in western Europe and indeed have been linked to the Socialist International. There are many good relationships in that context and I hope that they will be built upon in future. Perhaps, however, it is presumptuous and misleading for any one of us to claim a monopoly of friends in eastern Europe. If democracy is to mean anything at all, it will mean a variety of political movements emerging and no one strand outdoing all the rest put together.
    The main thrust of my speech will be about the question of the new economic relationship between western and eastern Europe. Eastern Europe, if we include the USSR, has a population of 420 million. If that market becomes more open, and certainly, in the long term, if the people there are to become more prosperous as we all hope, the consequences for world trade will be far-reaching. What will be the prospects for British industry and the British economy in that new economic situation?
    I fully recognise the economic difficulties in the countries of eastern Europe. When I talk about opportunities for British industry, I well understand the difficulties of eastern European countries in finding cash for expensive imports. That is why opportunities for British industry should be grasped within the co-operative framework of aid and trade about which many hon. Members, I am glad to note, have spoken. A Marshall aid type operation has been referred to. I am aware of the PHARE programme launched by the group of 24 which will assist economic restructuring in Poland and Hungary. I am delighted to know that that programme is being extended to the other countries of eastern Europe.
    Quite rightly, one of the issues raised several times in the debate is the need for eastern Europe to receive help on the environment. I wish that the Minister had given us a few more details, but I am glad to know that co-operative action to try to repair environmental damage is one of the priorities that the group of 24 is addressing. The environment is certainly an important priority area.
    The Communist regimes that have governed eastern Europe have been among the last environment-friendly regimes that the world has ever seen. I am sure that we all read with great concern the accounts in the press about the huge extent of environment damage in eastern Europe. Apparently 12 million people in Poland live in what is referred to as ecological "emergency" areas. It is reported that in Czechoslovakia 70 per cent. of rivers are polluted by mining wastes, nitrates, liquid manure and oil and that
    354
    75 per cent. of toxic wastes in that country is dangerously stored. It is also reported that 50 per cent. of forests are dying or damaged.
    Recently I read an article in the press which referred to the black snows of Transylvania. A joke was that in one of the towns in the region a white car that entered at one end of the town emerged as a black car at the other. Horrific accounts such as these show the extent of the environmental problems facing eastern Europe. A massive effort is needed.
    Mr. David Alton: I am happy to endorse what the hon. Lady has said. Is she aware of Mr. Gorbachev's comments two weeks ago when he suggested the establishment of a green cross that could be used in parts of eastern Europe such as the Ukraine where 300 villages have been evacuated in three separate regions as a result of the continuing effects of Chernobyl? An international green cross could be established to pool common European resources so that we could fight some of the environmental disasters that are occurring.
    Ms. Quin: That is an interesting and important suggestion to which the countries of western Europe and the international community should give serious attention.
    A massive effort is needed to improve the environment in eastern Europe and that effort is certainly beyond the present financial capacity of the countries concerned. The West must help with environmentally friendly technology and equipment. I should like to see Britain in the forefront of that movement, but, despite the brave words of the Minister, we are a long way behind many other countries in that respect.
    When we look at the various joint ventures that have been agreed between western industry and industry in eastern Europe we see that the West Germans, the Scandinavians, the Americans and the Japanese are all very active. Recent accounts certainly bear that out. Our trade balance with eastern Europe is worrying. We are in deficit with the USSR, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and even Romania. There has been dramatic deterioration during the Government's term of office, but especially during the past five years.
    I read today that Tokyo was expanding its branch offices throughout eastern Europe, so we have to make up a considerable amount of mileage and the Government need to do a great deal more. That is not only my view; it was the view expressed a year ago in the excellent report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on trade between Britain and eastern Europe. We cannot afford to sit back, although we should adopt the aid and trade co-operative approach.
    I wish to quote from the Kreisky report, which was published last year and which referred to an economic programme for the whole of Europe. It stated:
    "Environmental protection will be as important in the next decade"—
    that is, this decade—
    "as national defence was in the previous decade …
    It also stated:
    "Environmental technologies will be more important than Star Wars technologies."
    Those are the challenges of the new Europe, and that is where Britain should be playing its full part.
    6.31 pm
    Sir Bernard Braine: I warmly endorse the speech of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) and also other splendid speeches made during this short debate.
    This is an exciting time to be alive in Europe. It is full of hope and promise both for the nations of the West and for those of the East. It is also a time fraught with some danger. In 1986, in a book about Poland, I wrote:
    "If East and West are ever to enjoy a genuinely peaceful co-existence—which is what millions on both sides want—there will have to be an end to the nightmare of repression suffered by the once independent nations of Central and Eastern Europe. This may have to come step by step but come it must.
    The alternative to removing the present injustices and building bridges of understanding and co-operation between East and West is the certainty that our grandchildren will be living well into the 21st century in two vast armed camps bearing a crushing burden of arms which they can only hope and pray will never be used, a state not so much of peace as one of controlled hostility."
    When I wrote those words, I had no idea that change would come so quickly, as it has done during these past few months.
    It was marvellous to see the Berlin wall come tumbling down. It is astonishing that, at long last, the Hungarians and the Czechs are now negotiating peacefully for the withdrawal of the Soviet occupation forces that have been in their countries for the past 45 years. It was symbolic of the new mood in Europe that even the Communists in Hungary decided to remove the Soviet-style star from the arms of their country and to replace it with the Holy Crown of St. Stephen. It was not at all surprising when a Member of the European Parliament representing a Bavarian constituency, who happened to bear the name Hapsburg and who speaks fluent Hungarian, was warmly welcomed on the streets of Budapest recently.
    Poland led the way with the first free elections last June, the first defeat ever of a ruling Communist party and the emergence of the first non-Communist Prime Minister since the second world war. Hon. Members will know how, with other hon. Members from all parties, I have long campaigned for Polish freedom, holding that Britain above all owed a special debt of honour to Poland, for which we went to war in 1939 and which, whatever the reasons, we abandoned at the end of the struggle.
    What has happened in Poland, since the end of Jaruszelski's dictatorship, has given us great joy. I wish to pay tribute to the Government for their ready and practical help for the Polish economy, which is struggling to modernise itself. I single out the know-how fund, which is the sort of developmental help that I would recommend elsewhere in the new circumstances of eastern Europe. Last year the Government authorised the sending of food, and declared a readiness to give additional aid once Poland had agreed an economic reform programme with the International Monetary Fund.
    However, as the Financial Times said on 28 December, it is still doubtful whether the flow of international aid to Poland—and, we must assume, to the other eastern European countries—will be sufficient. The Poles understand what is required. Prime Minister Mazowiecki made it very plain in his speech on 11 December on Polish independence day—the first time, incidentally, that it had been celebrated since the war. He said:
    "Let us at last take this fate into our own hands and we shall make Poland a normal country, a prosperous country, a
    356
    country in which there will be a great deal of satisfaction and joy stemming from the fact that Poland really is our joint possession."
    Their proud assertion underlines the remarkable speech of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). We are seeing the emergence of a Europe of nations, proud of their heritage and proud of the contribution they can make, if they are allowed, to the common good.
    I heartily endorse what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and the right hon. Member for Devonport about the inevitability of German reunification. I do not think that there is anything in that to worry us. It will take place within a democratic framework at a pace dictated by the Germans themselves, and I venture to suggest that it will come sooner rather than later. It is to be welcomed, and it should not frighten any of us if it is accompanied by the statesmanship and vision of which today's Germans are fully capable.
    For example, there is a need to reassure the Poles that there will be no clamour to alter Poland's western boundaries, which were settled in 1945. Poland has suffered enough at the hands of the Germans, as well as at the hands of the Soviet Union. The Helsinki accord must remain sacrosanct. There can be no boundary changes in the new Europe, save by the consent of the parties concerned. I do not doubt that German statesmanship will rise to the occasion.
    Elsewhere in central and eastern Europe the signs are also generally promising. Czechoslovakia has a new, inspiring head of state in Vaclav Havel. In 1983 I had something to do with helping to get him out of prison. That brave man could have purchased his freedom with the greatest of ease. He was then in prison for asserting that his country had dishonoured its signature on the Helsinki accord. If he had apologised to President Husak, he would have been released. He chose to remain in prison. It was only after ridicule from some of us in the West, aided by the BBC central European service, that finally the Czechs gave up and let him out. I salute the man: he is a great artist and a great human being. He symbolises the true spirit of Czechoslovakia, and we all wish him well.
    In Hungary, considerable progress is being made towards modernising and improving the economy. The Government are encouraging private enterprise and examining ways of securing closer economic co-operation with the European Community.
    Only in Romania is there doubt and fear. Here there is real cause for anxiety, as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and I discovered only last week. The Communist party there is entrenching itself in power. Only in Romania, of the eastern European countries mentioned in this debate, are the emerging democratic parties being harried by thugs brought in by the so-called Government from the provinces to terrorise their opponents. Hon. Members should consider the shameful events that took place only a few days ago just after the hon. Gentleman and I left Bucharest. There was shameful harrying of Cornelius Copuso, president of the National Peasant party, who had spent 17 years in Communist prisons. His party headquarters was ransacked.
    The hon. Member for Newport, West and I made some modest speeches. We were greatly moved by our experience. I have never before in all my travels or political life witnessed what I saw in Bucharest. I saw a crowd of

    357
    about 300, many of them young, kneeling in the snow and the slush, holding candles in silent vigil, before one of the three improvised monuments to the dead in a place where large numbers of people had been mown down by the tanks of the Ceausescu regime. They were described later by the Government as hooligans. The Romanian people deserve much better than they have got. Indeed, they may need another revolution before they are truly free. I mention that because it is difficult to see how it is possible to help Romania, yet help it must be given.
    Mr. Alton rose—
    Sir Bernard Braine: I would rather not give way, because I think that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) is ready to reply on behalf of his party.
    This has been one of the most interesting and stimulating debates that I have ever attended. This is the House of Commons speaking as one in favour of giving maximum aid, help and encouragement to the nations of eastern and central Europe struggling to be free. I look forward with confidence to our developing relationship with countries coming back into our common European home.
    6.43 pm
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: In the middle of October, in the course of a debate on the defence estimates, the Secretary of State for Defence told a somewhat surprised House that Mr. Honecker had resigned, and had been replaced by Mr. Krenz. There was among those who heard that news a sense of anticipation, but I think it is fair to say that none of us had any appreciation of the consequences. Indeed, had any of us attempted to predict what has happened since, we would have been received with nothing other than scepticism by those who were present on that occasion.
    Truly, the changes in eastern Europe have been staggering beyond comprehension. Of course, they have not all gone smoothly. The euphoria of taking down walls is soon replaced by the harsh reality of political decisions, sometimes made by those who have had little experience in recent time of making decisions, and sometimes made by those who are unsophisticated and unused to the responsibility which has inevitably been thrust upon them.
    The circumstances in eastern Europe, which are by no means common in each of the countries in which change has taken place, may yet get worse before they get better in our terms. One cannot ignore the emergence to a certain extent of nationalism. Any student of the history of the 19th century will recall that nationalism was a very bloody force in the politics of Europe at that time. Indeed, it had a carry-over into the current century. It is sometimes forgotten that the first world war was precipitated by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, something which in 1990 one would regard as highly unlikely to provoke the kind of conflagration that it did then.
    Later, nationalism was to some extent subjugated or subdued by Fascism, and then by the spurious internationalism and totalitarianism of Communism. I accept, as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, that there is nothing wrong
    358
    with nationhood; indeed, there is a considerable amount to be said for it. But I believe that in these burgeoning democracies in eastern Europe we must take account of the risk of an emergence of nationalism which would be detrimental to the view of Europe which so many hon. Members have expressed in the debate.
    I believe that our task is to ensure that parliamentary democracy is enshrined, entrenched even, in these countries and that they have at an early stage inculcated into them a sense of international interdependence. We will do that best by giving them such economic assistance as we can, but perhaps more significantly by giving them political encouragement, and by being receptive, welcoming and, I suppose to some extent, tolerant of their efforts to replace totalitarian regimes with regimes which accord with our view of parliamentary democracy.
    As the debate progressed, there was little doubt that in the minds of most hon. Members the single most significant question is the unification of Germany. I think most now accept that there will be unification. It could hardly be otherwise. All the political parties in Federal Germany have as part of their constitutions the aim and objective of unification, and the constitution of Federal Germany makes special provision for citizens of what we call East Germany to become citizens of the Federal Republic.
    If we did not recognise it, the reality would soon overtake us, because the people of East Germany would simply vote with their feet, having voted with their bulldozers and their hands in the period around Christmas. I do not believe that we should be apprehensive about the prospect of a unified Germany. The democratic traditions which were put in place in Federal Germany after the war may not be particularly long-lived, but they are well entrenched. One is legitimately entitled to say that in that time the people of Federal Germany have behaved in all respects as if they accept, recognise and hold dear those democratic principles.
    One must also remember that, unlike the 1930s, what is happening in East Germany is not the setting up of a dictatorship but pulling one down. It would be most curious if the people of East Germany, having got rid of one form of totalitarian government, were enthused to embrace another. Federal Germany is already the most dominant economic power in Europe. That is recognised by the United States of America in the special relationship which President Bush clearly feels with Chancellor. Kohl.
    I believe that the circumstances which now present themselves with regard to the unification of Germany should be seen as an opportunity rather than an obstacle. We want to channel the new political assertiveness which is undoubtedly in Federal Germany into the European Economic Community, but we also want, and are entitled to ask, Federal Germany and those responsible for East Germany to make it clear that they have no territorial ambitions beyond the existing boundaries of the two countries.
    The existence within a stronger Community of a unified Germany can only be to its advantage. I hope, like the right hon. Member for Devonport, that such a Germany will remain in NATO. However, between now and the time when that important decision is taken, we shall have to acknowledge that political circumstances have changed so much that, for example, the deployment of a successor to the Lance missile in the Federal Republic of Germany is not politically unacceptable. The notion that such a

    359
    weapon might be stationed in that country with a view to firing it at targets in Poland, Hungary or East Germany is totally inappropriate to the new political order.
    There has been discussion as to whether or not NATO and the Warsaw pact should remain in existence. We have some influence over NATO, but not over the Warsaw pact organisation, so if it decides to disband there is nothing we can do. However, if we are to move towards a new order of security in Europe as a whole, that may be achieved more easily if negotiations can be conducted between two existing structures. That does not detract from the right of the people of Hungary or of Czechoslovakia to request that Soviet troops be removed from their country—and let us hope that such a request would be acceded to.
    The eastern bloc countries—as we have known them—will all develop at a different rate. Their political sophistication and economic development will all advance at different speeds. I do not believe that it will be necessary for the Community to have a European equivalent of the Lomé convention, but it should be flexible enough to offer each of those countries—as they develop to the stage at which the rule of law and parliamentary democracy is accepted—an association with the EEC both for the economic advantage that will bring, and, more significantly, the political stability that it will undoubtedly create.
    Mention was made in the debate of the kind of Europe that people want to see. The word "federal" has been cast about, but I sometimes think that all such labels should be rejected, although they may give comfort to constitutional lawyers. The most amusing part of the debate was the notion that there are not yet sufficient lawyers in eastern Europe. Perhaps that might be our first export. I can think of a few candidates, both north and south of the border, excluding myself, who are capable of bringing a suitable range of skills and attributes to bear on the lapsing totalitarianism and bureaucracy of eastern Europe.
    However, it is not necessary for the satisfaction of constitutional lawyers to describe one's attitude to Europe in terms that lawyers regard as important when explaining matters to their students. The pace of development within the Community will undoubtedly be different at different times, and it will depend on the collective will of all its members—not just the United Kingdom. There will be times when the Community will want to move more quickly because that is the collective will.
    The circumstances that we have debated, particularly as they affect the EC, ought to create in us a sense of anticipation and a feeling that here is a moment of great opportunity—perhaps several moments. The Minister gave an account of the Government's contribution, and although the letter of what he said may have been recognised by our partners in Europe, I wonder whether they recognised the spirit of his remarks.
    I and other right hon. and hon. Members feel strongly that Britain, as one of the Twelve, is often dragged into a collective decision. Instead of arguing for a collective decision and trying to improve it, too often we are seen as being dragged unenthusiastically into agreeing to a compromise. While it is right that differences over important matters should be permitted and perhaps even encouraged, and although the pace of movement will always be subject to the keen attitude that people take towards important issues such as the sovereignty of this House, it is undoubtedly the case that too often we are seen as grudging participants in the European process.
    360
    If that impression is allowed to persist in the new circumstances of eastern Europe, it will serve not only the EEC but the interests of this country very badly. We have the greatest influence when we are seen to be enthusiasts for the European process. If this debate has done nothing else, it has brought home to many people, both inside the House and outside it, that a remarkable opportunity is available to us—and I hope that the House will collectively decide this evening to grasp it.
    6.55 pm
    Mr. Maude: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I say that one of the greatest of the privileges that I have enjoyed during my short tenure in my present post—six months that have seen a revolution across Europe— has been the opportunity to participate in several debates concerning matters that go much beyond the frontiers of the 12 existing members of the European Community. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said, they have shown this House at its best—able to look for the most part beyond narrow partisan politics and to devote its collective and considerable expertise and wisdom to examining the uncertainties that have unfolded before us, and to prospect the future, to see how events may change.
    Today's debate has been very much one such debate. I regard myself as greatly privileged to have heard the contributions made—especially those of my right hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point and for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), and the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). They all brought to the debate their formidable experience, wisdom, clarity and insight, which has better informed all those among us who must examine how our country can help decisively to shape the future.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North referred with a glancing blow to the caution that necessarily attends those of us who are, however temporarily, at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He was right to refer to that caution, but it is right also that we should exercise it, particularly at a time when Europe faces of necessity a period of instability. That instability exists for the very best of reasons, because for the past 40 years eastern Europe has paid a terrible price for its enforced stability. It is inevitable that we should deal with the new situation cautiously, sometimes looking carefully—perhaps excessively carefully—before we tread. I make no apology for that.
    It is inevitable that we should treat with caution also the unification of Germany, to which almost every speaker has referred. That is not to diminish in any way our commitment to that unification, based on self-determination. However, I re-emphasise the unanimous decision of the 12 European Heads of Government at the Strasbourg Council, that when unification takes place, it must have regard both to the interests of those directly affected by it and the treaties and agreements that it will affect. As I have said, that does not diminish the commitment of all 12 member states to Germany's reunification, should it emerge from the process of democratic self-determination.
    Inevitably, much of the debate has focused on the European Community and the way in which it should develop. I sensed a fairly widespread view that we should

    361
    not proceed helter-skelter into further institutional changes. I agreed profoundly with the right hon. Member for Devonport when he said that it was not necessary to be a federalist to be a good European; no one needs to believe that rapid further changes should be made to the treaty of Rome to be entirely committed to the European Community and to making it a success.
    The Government are committed to making the Community a success, and we have contributed centrally to its present position. That is why I found it hard to recognise the reality in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who said that we did not seem to be taking part in the discussions. The single market—the single factor that has made the most difference to the success of the Community—is fashioned after the pattern that we have described.
    Mr. Ashdown: Go to Brussels.
    Mr. Maude: It may have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's attention that I do occasionally go to Brussels. I take part in the discussions, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman without immodesty that our influence on their outcome is profound. The fact that he does not understand that is a simple demonstration of how far removed he is, and will remain, from the reality of the discussions.
    Perhaps we have looked into the past more than we should have, but we have also looked ahead. That is proper at a time when we should not let our caution diminish the joy and pleasure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point described in his profoundly moving speech. At a time of necessary and inevitable instability, now that the tyrannies have gone we should be readier to build than to dismantle; but this time we should build to last.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 9.

    Division No. 59]

    [7.02 pm

    AYES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Alexander, Richard

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Alton, David

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Amess, David

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Amos, Alan

    Burns, Simon

    Arbuthnot, James

    Burl, Alistair

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Butcher, John

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Butler, Chris

    Ashby, David

    Butterfill, John

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Carrington, Matthew

    Beith, A. J.

    Carttiss, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Chapman, Sydney

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Churchill, Mr

    Benyon, W.

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Colvin, Michael

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Boswell, Tim

    Couchman, James

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Cran, James

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

    Bright, Graham

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Day, Stephen

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

    Devlin, Tim

    362

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Maclennan, Robert

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Durant, Tony

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Dykes, Hugh

    Mans, Keith

    Eggar, Tim

    Maples, John

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Fallon, Michael

    Mates, Michael

    Favell, Tony

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Fearn, Ronald

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Flynn, Paul

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Forman, Nigel

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Mills, Iain

    Forth, Eric

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Franks, Cecil

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Freeman, Roger

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Moss, Malcolm

    Gill, Christopher

    Neubert, Michael

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Gorst, John

    Norris, Steve

    Gow, Ian

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Gregory, Conal

    Page, Richard

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Paice, James

    Ground, Patrick

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Grylls, Michael

    Patnick, Irvine

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hague, William

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Portillo, Michael

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

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Harris, David

    Price, Sir David

    Hayes, Jerry

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hayward, Robert

    Riddick, Graham

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Hind, Kenneth

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Salmond, Alex

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

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Howells, Geraint

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Sims, Roger

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Hunter, Andrew

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Irvine, Michael

    Squire, Robin

    Irving, Sir Charles

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Jack, Michael

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Janman, Tim

    Steen, Anthony

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Stevens, Lewis

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Kennedy, Charles

    Summerson, Hugo

    Kilfedder, James

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Knapman, Roger

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Knowles, Michael

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Thurnham, Peter

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Trotter, Neville

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Lightbown, David

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Lilley, Peter

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Waller, Gary

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Maclean, David

    Wilshire, David

    363

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Mr. James Wallace and

    Wood, Timothy

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

    NOES

    Beggs, Roy

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Cohen, Harry

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Cryer, Bob

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Meale, Alan

    Mr. John D. Taylor and

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Mr. William Ross.

    Skinner, Dennis

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes recent progress towards liberal democracy in the countries of eastern and central Europe; endorses progress towards the political and economic integration of the European Community; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government urgently to recognise that this country's future depends on Britain playing a full and wholehearted role in the development of the new democratic Europe.
    Mr. A. J. Keith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether the fact that no amendment to the motion had been tabled, and therefore the process of the vote was very short, caused some confusion among Labour Members. I was very surprised to go into the Division Lobby on a motion which invited the support of the whole House for democratisation in Europe, yet Labour Members were unable to bring themselves to vote for it. That is the new model Labour party.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order, but he has got his point on the record.

  Small Businesses and the Self-employed
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that the undermining effect of high interest rates combined with the impact of the Uniform Business Rate and revaluation in England and Wales, will have a catastrophic effect on small businesses and the self-employed; further believes that the effects of bureaucracy, employee poll tax defaulters and the late payment of debt will increase the number of bankruptcies within the small business sector throughout the counties and regions and nations of the United Kingdom; and urges Her Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to extend the relief associated with the introduction of the Uniform Business Rate, to take the opportunity of the Budget to improve the fiscal climate for small businesses and to enter the Exchange Rate Mechanism of the European Monetary System in order to improve the economic environment within which small businesses and the self-employed operate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Taylor: I welcome the opportunity afforded by the Liberal Democrats to debate the needs and difficulties of small businesses. Just before the debate the Minister told me privately that he also welcomed today's debate because we rarely have the opportunity to discuss these matters. The Liberal Democrats tabled the motion because we believe that there are important issues, developments and difficulties facing small businesses and we wanted to give the House the opportunity to debate them. I hope to suggest some practical measures to relieve the difficulties that small businesses are experiencing.
  The Government claim that a number of advances for businesses have taken place since they took office. We certainly acknowledge that there have been advances for monopolies and the privatisation of monopolies. There have also been some advances for other businesses—I would not wish to pretend otherwise—but recently the Government have created significant difficulties, particularly for small businesses. In election after election the Government described themselves as friends of small businesses, but business men and women tell me that the Government's present policies prove them to be anything but that. It would be interesting to see an opinion poll showing the reactions of small business men to the pressures of interest rates, business rate changes and new bureaucracy and red tape that are being imposed on them by the Government.
  The economic situation is worsening for businesses of all sizes, but small companies that are particularly vulnerable to those changes and are in a relatively weak position to negotiate with banks and to defend themselves against those changes suffer especially. After 10 years of Conservative government which were ushered in on the grounds that we had to tackle inflation and promote competition, we now have an inflation rate comparable to that which obtained at the end of the Lib-Lab Administration. For all that Ministers say, our competitiveness cannot be described as good either, for we have a record trade deficit—the only obvious accurate way of measuring whether our businesses can compete effectively with businesses abroad.
  The latest quarterly report from the Confederation of British Industry suggests that Britain is once more on the brink of a recession. We are smitten with high interest rates and high inflation. For all the Government's boasts about

  365
  new businesses, there was an increase in business failures in 1989 for the first time in five years. The latest CBI survey shows that business failures in 1989 rose to 18,000, which was a 10 per cent. increase over 1988. The CBI also states that we may see a substantial rise in bankruptcies, a further 1 per cent. rise in inflation and a £2 billion shortfall in investment, all due to the Government's policies. That is hardly a sign that Thatcherism has overcome the inherent weaknesses in the economy.
  From a Government to whom they once looked for support, small businesses now face the uniform business rate, revaluation, continued high interest rates, skill shortages, increased administrative burdens and an unsustainable exchange rate. The National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses states that high interest rates are proving a huge burden on small businesses. They create a climate of uncertainty and make it harder for those businesses to expand.
  The federation cites a number of examples of the way in which businesses have been hit. For example, a small manufacturing company with six employees in Berkshire is behind with orders. It cannot reinvest in new equipment and is having to turn down orders. A 20-year-old family business in Mid Glamorgan is prepared to state publicly that it is threatened with liquidation within two years if interest rates remain at the present level or are raised.
  I have spoken to business men in my constituency and I am aware of a dramatic change over the past few months in their attitude to the Government. Local businesses have called a meeting in my constituency on Saturday evening because they have been made desperate by the Government's policies. Those are the problems that small businesses face in this enterprise culture.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: When the hon. Gentleman spoke to small business men in his constituency, did he find that they valued the fact that his party—under one name or another—helped to keep the Labour party in government for four years with all the great "benefits" that that Government gave to small businesses which were closing down then far quicker than they are now?
  Mr. Taylor: Small businesses look back on the influences that the Liberals were able to exert on that Labour Government. They are aware of the cuts in inflation that happened then. They are also aware of the fact that the Liberals managed to have a Minister responsible for small businesses appointed to the Cabinet. That Cabinet post has disappeared and the responsibility has been moved from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Department of Employment. Obviously the Government do not consider small businesses to be a vital part of our industrial base or its power house. They regard them simply as a vehicle for employment legislation.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: Since the Liberal party was the power house at the time, will the hon. Gentleman explain why currently there is an increase of 1,200 new small businesses every week, while under the Lib-Lab pact there was a decrease of 100 businesses a week?
  Mr. Taylor: One of the peculiarities of the Government's boasts about the growth in businesses is
  366
  that they ignore the fact that the businesses that are created are often tax shelters and not real businesses. Other people trying to create real new enterprises, for example, through the enterprise allowance scheme, find it increasingly difficult to do so. People trying to maintain their self-employed status are also having difficulties.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only fair way to judge the statistics about small businesses is to look at all the figures, including the number of liquidations? Does he agree that bankruptcies and liquidations among small businesses are running at record levels and that that is a direct consequence of the Government's economic policies that are crippling the small business man's cash flow?
  Mr. Taylor: Many people have told me that they are threatened with bankruptcy and liquidation—[Interruption.] Small business men will not respect Conservative Members if they laugh as I describe their problems. Small business men will also not be amused by the Government's shilly-shallying and ducking of the measures that could reduce inflation and interest rates.
  The Government must seriously consider the need to join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. That policy option is staring the Government in the face. Whenever a Minister leaves the Cabinet, it seems it is only a matter of days before he announces publicly that we should have joined the ERM of the EMS, although the Minister was not allowed to say that while he was in the Cabinet. That stubbornness is illogical and it is not supported by the serious economists and business groups. It is also patently damaging to the prospects for British business in Europe and to our ability to play a full part in developments in Europe.
  The Liberal Democrats have consistently favoured membership of the ERM. The Conservative party has said consistently that it favours membership one day, but it sets blocking conditions, and every time the Cabinet meets we know that membership will not be on the agenda. Unfortunately, the Labour party's position is no better as it ducks and blocks the issue. We hear fine words, but no real intention to act on them.
  The most important step that we can take to help businesses in this country at the moment is to reduce interest rates. We can do precisely that by joining the ERM.
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: The hon. Gentleman will recall the White Paper which the Government published five or six years ago entitled "Lifting the Burden". It listed certain burdens on small businesses. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the vast majority of those burdens have now been lifted as a result of Government legislation. However, one burden—statutory audit for small companies—has not been lifted. What is the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party on that?
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I wonder what the Government's policy on it is.
  Mr. Taylor: Perhaps the Minister can tell us later what the Government's policy is. I intend later to outline a number of measures that I would like to introduce to cut the red tape and bureaucracy which currently face businesses.
  The problems of interest rates have been debated endlessly in the House. Therefore, I want now to turn to

  367
  considering the blow falling on many businesses, especially in the south and south-west, caused by the introduction of the uniform business rate and revaluation.
  For all Ministers' claims, the UBR will have devastating consequences for small businesses. Indeed, the largest part of my mail bag comprises letters about the UBR. In introducing the UBR, the Government have moved the initiative away from small businesses back to the Inland Revenue. The changes cut the links with local councils and they remove the right of local businesses to appeal after six months, and that latter change is inexplicable because only the Inland Revenue will benefit.
  A good example of the problems caused by the UBR and the revaluation can be found in a family hardware business in the heart of Truro. In my constituency, the UBR has meant an increase of nearly 10 per cent. over the old rating system. That extra money, which is being levied from our local businesses, is to pay not for extra local services, which perhaps those businesses could accept, but for cuts in rate levels in other parts of the country where service levels will continue to be protected. Taking money from one of the poorest parts of the country to fund areas with high levels of services is regarded by people in my area as quite unacceptable and inexcusable.
  Mr. David Nicholson: What would the hon. Gentleman say to small businesses in my constituency? They are facing difficulties, not from the UBR which, on present rateable values, would be lower than the present rates in Somerset, but from the revaluation. Would his party abolish them or postpone the revaluations still further?
  Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman gives me a moment, I shall answer his question.
  The proposed transitional relief scheme goes some way to helping small businesses. It was precisely because I foresaw the massive difficulties when I served on the Committees that considered the Local Government Finance Bill and the Local Government and Housing Bill that I have consistently pressed for transitional relief measures, and we have only gradually seen the Government start to introduce them. Today we have outlined a series of measures further to help businesses facing massive revaluation problems. First, we strongly believe that transitional relief should be applied to all businesses that exist in April 1990, regardless of whether they subsequently move their premises. There are several important reasons for doing that.
  It will cause great difficulties for businesses that need to move, for whatever reason, to be outside the relief scheme as soon as they leave their current premises. That serves as a hindrance to business expansion and it will cause difficulties for businesses seeking to sell premises as buyers will be few and far between if relief will not apply to them. It will also hit businesses that are trying to trade down as a result of the increase in their rate bills. By moving to smaller premises, they may still end up paying the same or greater rates than they pay in their existing premises because they will not get transitional relief. Also, the people from whom they are renting premises will be put in a strong bargaining position.
  Any decreases in rents that might otherwise have arisen from the changes will not take place because people involved in leasing premises and rent negotiations will know that if a business moves they will lose transitional
  368
  protection. Most ironic of all is the fact that, although the Government have not extended transitional protection to them, a business moving to an office where it will gain from the changes will still get gains phased in over a period. It is a no-win situation. Every which way they go, it seems that they will have to pay more than they paid before. They cannot escape that. I wonder whether Ministers intended that or whether they understand the impact that it will have on small businesses.
  Secondly, I call on the Treasury to contribute funds to ease the implementation process. I should like it to undertake a series of measures to help to ease burdens on companies that are being hit most by the revaluation process. I do not believe that there is any logic in doing that unless the Treasury is prepared to take on at least a part of the burden, otherwise other companies that may deserve to benefit from the changes will see their benefit put off even further into the future. It is an obvious moment for the Treasury to make a contribution to earning the money that it will claim from businesses at a later date. [HON. MEMBERS: "The taxpayer, the taxpayer."]
  Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend is being interrupted by Conservative Members saying, "The taxpayer, the taxpayer," from a sedentary position. Would they like honestly to answer the question raised by the hon. Members for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and so on? Would they prefer the taxpayer to assist the transitional arrangements, or would their constituencies, with an increase of more than 140 per cent. because of revaluation, prefer that there is no taxpayer assistance and that businesses should bear the whole burden? Unless they can answer that question, they should support my hon Friend and our proposals.
  Mr. Taylor: That is precisely the point that I have been making. My hon. Friend is quite right.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie rose—
  Mr. Taylor: I think that an eager volunteer wishes to respond.
  Mrs. Currie: If the hon. Gentleman has heard me speak on this subject before, he will know that my local business people face substantial reductions in the business rate. We are very grateful. It means that at last we can see the regeneration of our area. As for the point that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) invited the hon. Gentleman to make on his behalf, putting 2 billion quid back into the economy all in one go in the way that was suggested would be inflationary.
  Mr. Taylor: I have mentioned several non-inflationary actions that we can take. It is inflationary for the Government to pay off their debts because they dare not spend the money that they are currently attracting. That is a mistake, and they should not be engaged in it. Nothing is more important than building up and protecting our existing businesses. It is no good for the country to help at the margins of inflation if, in the process, the Government again bankrupt businesses that will provide the dynamo for solving current problems.
  Mr. Hanley rose—
  Mr. Gary Waller rose—
  Mr. Taylor: Conservative Members are seeking to intervene. I have given way a considerable number of times. I want to continue with my points on how we will tackle revaluation.
  Thirdly, the relief scheme should be extended to cover more premises by adjusting the size of businesses for which transitional relief is available. Small business organisations have been pressing Ministers for that, and some have pressed for large increases, and possibly a doubling of the size of the premises involved. Although I would not necessarily argue for going the whole hog on that matter, we need increases. I suspect that all hon. Members are aware of businesses that have been hit and have been outside the small business category but yet, in every other sense, should surely be eligible for help.
  Mr. Waller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I have already said that I wish to finish the points that I want to make on this subject.
  Fourthly, relief should be increased. The limits on increases on rates—15 per cent. plus inflation for small businesses—should be further reduced to 10 per cent. Bearing inflation in mind, we are still talking about a crippling series of increases over a long period. Although some businesses can quite easily cope with such increases, others, mainly smaller local businesses with only one premises in town centres, are finding it extremly hard to cope. Frankly, there is little prospect of increasing their turnover or profits at a rate that would allow them to pay.
  Fifthly, the transitional relief scheme should be extended to allow small businesses the necessary time to adjust. The present system covers most businesses. I applaud the Government for giving them some time to adjust. However, it does not allow for many businesses with large increases in their rates bills, which, even at the end of the period of transitional relief, will still find that they are faced with a large lump sum increase. During Prime Minister's Question Time last week, the Prime Minister said that the Government would look at that matter and might be amenable to extending the specified period. I hope that the Minister of State, Department of Employment will be able to elaborate on her comments and confirm that the Government will ensure that that is the case. That would provide a large measure of security to businesses that have been hardest hit by the changes.
  Those proposals are positive measures to help businesses through the painful process of the introduction of the UBR and revaluation. However, they can only mitigate the effects of the UBR and revaluation. No amount of improvements can make ideal a system that was ill-conceived in the first place, though I put those suggestions before the House in the hope that Ministers will take some of them on board to provide a measure of relief.
  We need, however, to review the system on which business rating is based. We should consider a system of land value taxation. That would broaden the base of the rating system and tackle some of the advantages that developers and speculators gain from the present system. As well as broadening the tax base, it would contribute to many other desirable improvements, such as the regeneration of our inner cities by removing the incentive for business men to hold on to inner city sites and not to
  370
  develop them. It would also remove the fear that improving land and property would increase the rates burden and encourage improvement of buildings.
  Administration would be easier because the system would not require intrusive checking on what improvements have been made. Crucially, the system would be run by local authorities. That would preserve an essential link between businesses and the community and ensure democratic local accountability. The uniform business rate destroys that principle and centralises power.
  There should be an investigation into a rolling programme of revaluation to avoid lump sum changes and politically motivated delays which ultimately make the position worse. That is precisely what happens now. If we can overcome such delays through a rolling programme of revaluation, businesses will benefit.
  Our proposals for the transitional relief scheme would bring great advantages to small businesses. Our preferred system of land value taxation, combined with full membership of the European monetary system, would create a programme for change that would give small businesses the backing that they deserve.
  I said earlier that I wished to cover administration. I call on the Government to do three things. First, they should explain why, reportedly, Ministers will not support the Bill to be introduced by the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) on Friday to give companies a legal right to interest on unpaid bills. The phenomenal sums owed to businesses by major concerns and Government Departments are a disgrace. The Bill would provide a measure of relief from that.
  Mr. Michael Mates: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning my Bill. I thought that it was a relatively modest measure which would cause no trouble across the party divide and would be of help to small business men. Unfortunately, it is now clear that the Government are not in favour of it. I suppose that the cynic in me will say that it is because I propose to apply the measure to the Government so that they pay their bills on time. I understand the Treasury's reluctance to accede to the Bill. I hope that both Conservative and Opposition Members will be here on Friday to show the massive support of small business men throughout the country for my measure, which is designed purely and simply to help them in these difficult times.
  Mr. Taylor: I hope that many of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues will be present on Friday. After all, they are the largest group in the House. If his Bill is not passed, we shall ensure that it is in our programme for the next election. I hope that he can convince his party that it should be in its programme for the next election.
  I have probably spoken for longer than I should have. I cannot cover all the points that I had hoped to cover, but I believe that the Minister will find that I and my hon. Friends have outlined a programme to help small businesses through their present difficulties, which have been caused by the Government. It would bring a degree of cheer to businesses around the country if the Minister would say that he was prepared to accept it.
  7.44 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

  371
  "congratulates the Government on creating an environment in which enterprise and small businesses are flourishing, and urges the Government to continue pursuing the policies which have led to a record increase in the numbers of self-employed and new business formations, as confirmed by the increase in registrations for value-added tax.".
  I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and his hon. Friends on choosing this subject for debate. It is useful from time to time to have a discussion on small businesses and the self-employed. However, I regret the extraordinary wording of the motion. It completely ignores the tremendous success of the small firms sector over the past 10 years. That success shows in the business climate established by the Government's policies, which favours enterprise and rewards risk taking and initiative. The current climate is in dramatic contrast to that created by the previous Labour Government, supported, of course, by their Liberal allies. The climate of the late 1970s was one in which small businesses were held back by punitive taxation, record levels of inflation and excessive union power.
  We took up the challenge to reinvigorate the economy by stimulating enterprise and encouraging innovation when we came to power in 1979. Over the past 10 years small firms have been, and will remain, a top priority for this Government. We have ensured that small businesses have been left free to get on with their role of creating wealth and jobs. The resurgence of small business in this country is described in the Employment Department's recent publication "Small Firms in Britain".
  These are some of the facts. Self-employment has risen by more than 60 per cent. over the past 10 years to stand at over 3 million. The early signs are that VAT registrations in 1989 show a net increase of 80,000, an average net gain of over 1,500 businesses a week—nearly 25 per cent. higher than in 1988.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The Minister said that self-employment had increased. Of course, that is welcome. Does he agree that the strict rules imposed by the Inland Revenue on people who wish to be self-employed are restrictive and discourage self-employment? Many people work for one employer at a given time but would like to work for many others. The strict interpretation of the tax rules excludes them from doing that. I have written to Ministers about that on several occasions with no positive reply.
  Mr. Eggar: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. With respect, it does not detract from the considerable increase in self-employment. A 60 per cent. increase over the past 10 years is a major achievement. I do not understand why the motion does not give recognition to the Government for their achievement in creating small businesses and increasing the number of self-employed.
  I said that indications showed a net increase in the number of businesses of over 1,500 a week over the past year. To set that in context, we estimate that there were 80,000 new VAT registrations last year alone. Between 1974 and 1979—the period of the last Labour Government—the net increase in VAT registrations over the whole five-year period was just 85,000. Last year alone there were almost as many new registrations as during the whole period during which the Labour Government were in power. During that time the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends claimed to influence the Labour party for the better.
  372
  The "Small Firms in Britain" booklet showed that, of the estimated 2·5 million businesses in Great Britain, 96 per cent. are small firms employing fewer than 20 people. These now account for 36 per cent. of non-Government employment compared to only 27 per cent. in 1979, and make an enormous contribution to the economy. In addition, nearly half a million unemployed people have also been helped to set up their own business through my Department's enterprise allowance scheme.
  We have achieved those remarkable figures by reducing taxation, scrapping unnecessary controls and cutting red tape. We have left business men free to make their own decisions and to take the rewards with the very minimum of Government interference.
  Mr. James Wallace: I do not in any way dispute the figures that the Minister has just given to show the increase in self-employment during the past 10 years, but does he accept that at a time of increasing unemployment—it has almost trebled since the time of the Lib-Lab pact—a large pool of people have been necessarily forced into self-employment because they have been forced out of employment?
  Mr. Alex Carlile: That is the context.
  Mr. Eggar: The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong again—[Interruption.] Well, we have created nearly 3 million new jobs in this country since 1983. We now have over 1 million people more in employment or in self-employment than in 1979. The facts do not coincide in any way with the assertions made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I realise that he is short of research assistants, but he should learn the basic statistics. The response to our policies for small businesses and the creation of employment has been tremendous.
  The achievement of the small firms sector is the achievement of these thousands—and now millions—of people who have made the conscious decision to branch out on their own during the past 10 years. They have made their own assessment that the conditions were favourable and have identified the needs of the market and of their customers. Hundreds of thousands of individuals have taken the opportunity to put their ideas into action.
  Mr. John Lee: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that in this important debate on this important sector of the economy the Labour party has in the Chamber only its official spokesman, a Whip and one Back-Bench Member who himself is probably nearer a large than a small business?
  Mr. Eggar: The vacant Opposition Benches obviously speak for themselves. While I was giving those figures for the net increase in business VAT registrations. I was indeed looking at the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) because he probably would have registered for VAT back in the early 1980s and so would not have featured in the net increase last year. The hon. Gentleman may wish to comment on that point when he seeks to address the House later.
  As I have said, the Government have worked steadily to reduce the disincentives to business initiative that we inherited from the last Labour Government. Taxation has been reduced and simplified. Every Budget since 1979 has seen reductions in taxation of one form or another.
  The reduction and removal of unnecessary and restrictive controls has been extended to other areas.

  373
  Controls on prices, dividends and foreign exchange—so beloved of the Liberals—have all been abolished, and many other areas of legislation have been simplified. Since 1979 more than 2,000 Government forms have been abolished and Government statistical inquiries have been reduced by over 1 million. Every new proposal for regulation, originating in either Whitehall or in Brussels, is now carefully scrutinised for its likely impact on business costs.
  New opportunities have been created for small business in the contracting out of central and local government services and in the liberalisation of areas such as bus services and telecommunications. This has enabled large numbers of new and expanding small businesses in these areas, and in others, to give better service and to create new wealth and new jobs.
  Our policies for small business have not only set up the right economic framework within which small businesses can succeed; they have also created an enterprise culture and stimulated a marked change in attitudes towards small businesses over the past few years. Not only are there many more small businesses, but they are being set up by entrepreneurs from increasingly different and diverse backgrounds. The number of women who are self-employed has more than doubled over the past 10 years. Indeed, the number of women taking advantage of the enterprise allowance scheme has increased from just 11 per cent. of all participants in 1983 to over 34 per cent. now.
  Furthermore, attitudes among young people towards business has changed to the extent that a recent MORI survey showed that 40 per cent. of young people were interested in running their own business and over a quarter—over 25 per cent.—fully expected to do so.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Before the Minister moves on from the subject of women going into business, does he accept that, while large businesses can provide work place nurseries, that is not the case for small businesses? Does he agree that it would be appropriate to help women who want to go into business or who want to work by providing child care vouchers so that they can contribute towards the cost of looking after their children and so that we can make the position more equal between smaller businesses and larger businesses in terms of their ability to help people in that way?
  Mr. Eggar: One option that is available to businesses of any size is to issue child care vouchers. Indeed, increasingly featuring in the enterprise allowance scheme are people who wish to start a business in helping and looking after children. I am sure that many more women will want to take part in creating businesses that set up creches. A number of options are therefore available to women, and businesses can take advantage of the scheme to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
  Mr. Taylor: The Minister has misunderstood me. I was suggesting that the Government should provide child care vouchers, not that that should fall on businesses because small businesses cannot become involved in the same way as large businesses. If the Minister is not prepared to accept that, does he at least accept that it cannot be right for such provisions to be taxed as they are at present?
  Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Gentleman knows, tax matters are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The hon. Gentleman's speech and his intervention have shown what is, I suppose, an expected lack of any understanding of government. He has put forward all sorts of ideas, but has totally failed to show how they will be paid for. It is not possible simply to provide Government with bits of paper without somehow funding the ideas on them. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman liberally and democratically to hand out the goodies—but if he were to produce the research to support them, perhaps he would have a little more credibility.
  Mr. James Paice: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Eggar: I would rather not, but I will.
  Mr. Paice: Well, in that case I am even more grateful to my hon. Friend. While he was commenting on the various points raised by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), did he pick up the slightly throwaway line about the introduction of a land value tax? Will my hon. Friend discuss the devastating effect that that would have on many businesses including agriculture—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and farming— [Laughter.] Well, perhaps that answers the point if the Social and Liberal Democratic party has not thought the issue through. Every time a tax has been placed on land, such as the development land tax, it has caused inflation in the value of land.
  Mr. Eggar: I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to have fun exploring this point later in the debate, if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has pleaded with me not to comment on that aspect of the speech made by the hon. Member for Truro, because he is looking forward to dealing with it himself. I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not go down that avenue.
  The Government's success in fostering the remarkable increase in business formation cannot be disputed. Our policy now is to build on this success and focus attention on the many businesses that were started up in the last decade and that are now facing the problems and opportunities of growth. We are determined to encourage those businesses that have the potential and the desire to grow, without abandoning our commitment to business start-ups. We need to encourage small businesses to identify their needs and seek advice, and to encourage individuals who already have the necessary expertise to provide it when small businesses ask for it.
  In addition, we have identified gaps in the market provision of services and in the advice available to small firms, and we have gone out of our way to fill those gaps. The loan guarantee scheme and the business expansion scheme are designed to meet the particular problems faced by small businesses when raising finance. The Training Agency offers a wide range of training for start-ups and growing businesses with a £50 million-plus commitment through business growth training. The small firms service and local enterprise agencies advise smaller businesses, while more specialised help is available through the DTI's enterprise initiative. Much of this help is delivered in partnership with the private sector.
  The critical new factor in this process will be the setting up of the locally based and employer-led training and enterprise councils. I am surprised that the hon. Member

  375
  for Truro, who has one of the first TECs in his region, did not comment on that or on the commitment by many leading business men in Devon and Cornwall to making a success of it. Perhaps he is not aware of what is going on.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister is aware that I cut short my speech because of the shortness of the debate and my desire to let other hon. Members speak. There is a rather higher proportion of Social and Liberal Democrats here than of any other party. I would otherwise have dealt with TECs. Therefore, the Minister can now answer a couple of queries about them. First, would it not be possible to increase the role of small businesses in the TECs? Secondly, would it not be better to free them from the restraints of Government control? I have had feed-back from a number of people involved in TECs, and they feel that the TECs are far too directed centrally, and thus are unable to take as many of their own decisions as they would like.
  Mr. Eggar: I am not sure how well the hon. Gentleman understands the position in his TEC. I think that he is aware that the distinguished chairman of it is also the chairman of a smallish company and I would have thought that that is an obvious sign of the importance that we attach to the TECs being assisted by small businesses. As to the flexibility that the TECs need, this matter has been discussed—I have done so myself on at least two occasions—with the chairman of his local TEC. The hon. Gentleman will find, if he inquires, that a number of concerns expressed by the chairman about flexibility have been met satisfactorily. We have responded to the points towards which the hon. Gentleman was edging, and he may be a little out of date.
  The Government recognise that most small businesses face problems, either at key phases in their development or as a result of external factors. We recognise too that interest rates are causing problems to some small businesses, although it is important to remember that, at the same time, about half of all small businesses are in credit with the bank. Nobody wants high interest rates for a moment longer than is necessary. Hon. Members should be under no illusion that, in the longer term, a period of high inflation would do far more damage to the viability of small firms and their ability to plan than the level of interest rates.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) referred to the absence of Labour Members. I am not at all surprised by this. That the Labour party appointed the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) as the Minister responsible for small business is a sign of the importance that it attaches to that sector. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that the greatest achievement of the Liberal party was the sacking from that post of the hon. Member for Bradford, South. That is an interesting gain for the country, delivered through the Lib-Lab pact. If my memory serves me right, the hon. Member for Bradford, South gave other reasons for his departure from the Government, but I shall leave that dispute to him and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
  Mr. Beith: The Minister is putting words into my mouth, albeit in a genial way. I did not claim that as our most significant achievement. We forced the Government to appoint as the Minister with responsibility for small
  376
  businesses somebody who understood what making a profit is about—the Right Hon. Harold Lever, and a very good job he did.
  Mr. Eggar: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that achievement. I suppose that one can put that in the positive side of the balance. I am rather more concerned about the tremendous damage done to the country during the period of the Lib-Lab pact. That is what really matters, as it had a dramatically adverse effect on small firms.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has spent two and a half minutes dealing with the hon. Member for Bradford, South but dealt with interest rates in less than 30 seconds. The problems facing businesses emanate primarily from high interest rates, and I hope that he will appreciate the great damage that these are doing to smaller businesses. I speak as someone who comes from a smaller business background, unlike half the lion. Members now present. High interest rates are crippling smaller businesses, adding to costs and making them less competitive against overseas manufacturers not only at home but in the export market.
  Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend's knowledge of, and expertise in, all matters that come before the House is well known.
  Mr. Winterton: Too bloody sarcastic.
  Mr. Eggar: I apologise to my hon. Friend if he misunderstood what I was trying to say. I said that we recognise that for some companies, although not for all, interest rates are a problem.
  Mr. Winterton: Most of them.
  Mr. Eggar: It is generally recognised that about half of small businesses are borrowers from the bank and about half are in credit with the bank. Therefore, it is logical to say that, roughly speaking, half of small businesses are not adversely affected by high interest rates.
  Mr. Winterton: Try manufacturing.
  Mr. Eggar: I do not want to get into a disagreement with my hon. Friend because I recognise, as I have said, that some small businesses are affected by high interest rates. However, allowing inflation to get out of control would be far worse for small businesses—be they manufacturing businesses or other small businesses. I am sure that my hon. Friend will make his own speech in his own way, and I shall listen with considerable care to the points—
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Eggar: If my hon. Friend insists.
  Mr. Shepherd: I understand why my hon. Friend may want to slide over high interest rates, but the intention behind them is to dampen demand. A reduction in demand affects all businesses, and that is one of the ways in which small businesses are squeezed. So to state that 50 per cent. of them are not in debt understates the position. Perhaps my hon. Friend has not given sufficient weight to that.
  Mr. Eggar: I know from conversations with my hon. Friend about his anxiety; he has particular expertise in the retail sector. Many small businesses in that sector are

  377
  affected by high interest rates, in terms of borrowing and of lesser demand. I accept my hon. Friends point, but I was not trying to skate over the problem. It is only right to put that problem in context and I hope that I did so in a balanced way.
  The Labour party's policy review shows that it is now even more hostile to small firms than ever before. Businesses would be required to pay a statutory national minimum wage—a recipe for destroying jobs and crippling fims as they are getting off the ground. All enterprises under the policy review, whatever their size, would have to contribute 0·5 per cent. of their pay rolls to a state training levy. Freedom to hire and manage staff would be effectively removed by a requirement to submit all personnel decisions to a joint union-employer body—
  Mr. Henry McLeish: Rubbish.
  Mr. Eggar: It is no good the hon. Gentleman laughing—that is what the policy review says.
  Labour's policy would smother small firms and stifle individual enterprise. To consult Labour about small firms would be as useful and effective as seeking King Herod's advice on child care.
  The Government will continue to encourage the small business sector. We shall continue to tackle the barriers to enterprise creation and to growth, whether they be in the form of attitudes to enterprise or of a lack of business knowledge and skills, or practical barriers in the form of red tape or restrictions on access to markets at home and in Europe. Conservatives do not only say that they are in favour of small businesses; we have proved by our actions and achievements that support for small businesses and enterprises is right at the centre of all our policies.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: We have heard a characteristically complacent speech by the Minister of State. It was interesting to see the little tiff about interest rates. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was right: the Government may want to take credit for blowing away lots of paperwork and Government inefficiencies, but the key problem facing small businesses is the crippling level of interest rates.
  How long does the Minister think this level of interest rates will continue; and does he seriously maintain that only a small number of firms are affected by it? The small business sector, along with the wider business community, is facing a bill of an extra £3 billion if the rise from 7·5 per cent. to 15 per cent. continues for a year.
  In view of jibes aimed at the Opposition today, I must point out that collective wisdom about small businesses has been invested this evening in my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and myself. I may add in passing that this is the first time I have been able to imagine someone leading a Conservative march in my constituency, and to look over his shoulder.
  The Opposition appreciate the contribution of the small business sector to growth and output and to employment. It was interesting that the Minister, who is usually courteous, would not allow me to intervene on a small
  378
  difference of opinion between him and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) about the Government's claimed jobs miracle since 1983.
  I have a small challenge for the Minister and his able advisers. From the figures provided by the Department of Employment, particularly in the labour force survey, it is clear that, between June 1979 and June 1989, the net increase in employment in this country was 978,000; but 440,000 were double jobbers, and 470,000 were people on training schemes. By my calculation that leaves a net increase of 68,000 in 10 years. What does the Minister think of that calculation? Will he at last assure the House that these figures will be examined and that we shall hear no more nonsense about a jobs miracle made up of an odd collection of training places, part-time and poor quality jobs, double jobs and other dubious statistics related to self-employment.
  The small business sector employs about 6 million people, or one quarter of the work force. It is obviously a fairly powerful section of employment creation. The Government have argued, using labour force survey figures, that within this sector 3 million people are self-employed. Our research reveals that of the 1·2 million people who entered the self-employed sector between 1979 and 1989, to make up the total of 3 million, 900,000 pay no national insurance contributions. I challenge the Government to provide another set of statistics to verify that.
  Mr. Eggar: I shall be delighted to respond to the hon. Gentleman at length in due course. One of the reasons why his figures are wrong is that he used figures for the wrong year. It is some time since I looked at assertions that the hon. Gentleman published just before Christmas, but I think I am right in saying that he related figures applying to 1987–88 to 1989. I shall be delighted to set the hon. Gentleman right with the other reasons in due course.
  Mr. McLeish: I am delighted that the Minister acknowledges that our document, which was the focus of such merriment among Conservative Members the other day, has been read by his advisers. But he will not get off the hook by suggesting that extrapolating the figures for 1988 to 1989 makes up for the enormous difference between the Government's assertions about job creation and the true figures.
  I hope that the question of the self-employed and the doubts now surrounding the figures will be looked into. I am willing to accept that, as a result of the enterprise allowance scheme and other schemes, there are in self-employment a number of people who do not register in any of the Government's statistics and are only picked up from the labour force survey, on which figures the Government base their figure of 3 million.
  In the past, the small business sector has certainly been the focus of a political knockabout in this Chamber. There are certain reasons for that. When one takes into account the fact that one quarter of the work force are now engaged in small business development and that those people contribute about 20 per cent.—an enormous amount—to the gross domestic product, one realises that it is incumbent on all parties in this House not only to take very seriously the achievements in that sector but also to look at the potential there for further employment growth.
  Before looking at some of the concerns of the small business community at present, I want to refer to the hype

  379
  and rhetoric of the Minister of State. This is an area in which the Department of Employment too is becoming expert. It is intimidating to other hon. Members to have Ministers, in some respects, exploiting the small business community, using it to try to highlight what the deregulated market economy has produced.
  But the Government's argument about small businesses falls apart when hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Macclesfield intervene to raise the question of interest rates. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) also mentioned the uniform business rate. This is a saga of two halves. The Government have been shuffling papers for a decade. They have seen a rise in the number of self-employed people and an increase in the small business sector. But we must see a new relationship developing. This Government and any future Government must take the small business sector far more seriously than has been suggested by some of the comments that we have heard tonight. The new relationship between Government and the small business sector must revolve around the issues that actually matter.
  We have talked about crippling interest rates, but there are a number of other matters. It used to be the case that in any forum the Government could call upon the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses to talk about issues and to reflect and support what the Government were attempting to do. In recent months, there has been a change in the attitude of those bodies. In my view, they now know that they were partly used by Lord Young during his sojourn in the corridors of power and by the Department of Employment, whose projection of what it is actually doing to improve the environment in which small businesses operate borders, at times, on the slightly dishonest.
  Speaking at a seminar on corporate finance in the City on 24 May 1989, the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined clearly what businesses need. He said that businesses needed three things from Government—first, a consistent framework; secondly, minimal interference; and thirdly, limited practical help.
  Let us take the second issue first. Certainly we have now arrived at a situation of minimal interference, though I have to say that, when one speaks to people in small businesses about VAT and income tax, they put a different complexion on the situation. In March 1985, we had "Burdens on Business"; in July 1985, "Lifting the Burden"; in 1986, "Building Businesses—Not Barriers"; in 1987, "Encouraging Enterprise"; in 1988, "Releasing Enterprise"; and in 1989, "A New Tack on Red Tape". It is an annual event.
  Mr. Tim Smith: It needs to be.
  Mr. McLeish: The hon. Member says that it needs to be.
  In the early days of the development of the small business sector, there were real problems about the amount of red tape involved. What we now see is a ritualistic attempt to engage the small business sector, to create the impression that the problems that it faces are related to much of that, without actually addressing the crucial issues that have been raised in this House by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Clearly, the first of these issues is the question of interest rates. The irony of crippling interest rates is that they actually hit the companies that are growing fastest.
  380
  The Minister has made the point that the number of companies affected is small. In reality, however, the gearing ratio of a fast-growing small business is much more significant, and outgoings are much more significant.
  If such a business is asked by this Government to participate by paying its share of the £3 billion increase in debt, surely that will have an impact on the business's growth potential and its ability to introduce new technology and to create employment—clearly something that is valuable for all of us.
  But it is not only my opinion that high interest rates are hitting hard. I have here a press release from the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses. Issued on 10 October, and headed "High Interest Rates Hitting Hard, Say Small Businesses", it says:
  "Mr. Bill Knox, Chairman of the National Federation of Self Employed, said 'Every percentage increase costs small firms £200 million. The real cost of money is at least 18 per cent. (15 per cent. plus 3 per cent. over base). This is how much businesses are having to pay to finance past expansion, to create new jobs, or even to survive. Small businesses are viewing the future with real concern.'"
  Does the Minister view the future with the concern that the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses seems to have? I will give the Minister an opportunity to talk about interest rates, to answer the question that was posed by the hon. Member for Macclesfield: how long will small businesses have to endure this crippling burden? Is no hon. Member on the Government side willing to intervene and give me, with my limited knowledge, a lecture about when interest rates will come down? [Interruption.] I have given hon. Members opposite a chance to intervene, but all that I have heard is murmurs, and all that I see is grim faces.
  Mrs. Currie: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should return to the situation that prevailed not so long ago, under a Labour Government, in which the rate of inflation was regularly over 20 per cent? One has only to look at the results. Far more firms were going out of business entirely than were coming into existence. These days, despite all the problems and the pressures that the hon. Gentleman has described, far more businesses are being created week by week.
  Mr. McLeish: It is amazing that a party that has no future always wants to dwell on the past.
  My concern—[Interruption.] Let me explain the point that has been made by other hon. Members about inflation rates. In no country of the developed world—and certainly not among our European competitors—would the Finance Minister, the equivalent of the Chancellor, use one heavy blunt instrument to attack financial and trading difficulties. That is the crucial test for this Government.
  There is another measure. Despite what Ministers have said, the number of receiverships jumped by over 40 per cent. last year as the squeeze hit. As a postscript to that, let me quote from an article in The Times of 12 January:
  "The survey also shows that three accountancy firms established a clear lead over all others in the receiving and managing sector. Cork Gully, the specialist division of Coopers and Lybrand, was appointed to 150 firms, Grant Thornton to 110, and Peat Marwick to 107"—
  another set of statistics that the Government should be duly proud off.
  The uniform business rate has been mentioned. I think that the hon. Member for Truro gave it sufficient airing and that therefore I need not to into great detail. While, in a very simplistic sense, the north will benefit signficantly

  381
  and the south will have an extra burden imposed on it, it is quite clear, again from the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses, that the impact of the transitional payments will disappear. Their phasing in is an illusion in terms of the impact that they will ultimately have on small businesses.
  I again ask whether the Government are truly the friends of the small business community. The business rate will start in April and it appears that people in small businesses will have to go to the local authority to determine the current position about rateable value. Discussions should be taking place with the small business community. Day in and day out, the Government lecture us and say that they are the true friends of the small business and that any other party, Liberal or Labour, that speaks or even hints at an interest in the small business sector is frowned upon. Things are changing, and it is easy to see why.
  The Minister talked about training and technology. The key issues for the future of small businesses are not only output and employment growth but whether the nation and the Government can link together to ensure that product development and innovation and training can be properly applied. Many small businesses do not have the resources to carry out those important tasks.
  Training and enterprise councils were mentioned. The Government say that, as friends of the small business, they welcome small businesses to TECs. Why is it that the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses put out a press release on 23 September which was headed:
  "Small firms to lose out in Government training plans"?
  The press release said:
  "'We are concerned with the direction of training in Britain. Norman Fowler states that Training and Enterprise Councils (TEC's) will be big business. Our fear is that they will be for big business only', says Lyn Hadfield, Chairman of the NFSE's Training and Education Committee. 'The composition of the boards of TECs could well lead to specialised training for large companies at the expense of smaller firms.'"
  It is interesting to note that the small business sector is lauded by the Government but never invited to the top table. It is crippled by interest rates and by the uniform business rate. It is supposed to be involved in training, but it will be excluded from virtually every TEC in England and Wales, and the situation is similar in Scotland.
  Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman has said that small firms have never been consulted. Will he comment on the fact that, as the poll tax comes into operation in England and Wales, employers will have to be involved in attaching the wages of employees? That unhappy burden has been placed on small business by the Government without the small business sector being consulted.
  Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman makes another valid point to add to our attack on the Government. The Government's attitude smacks of hypocrisy; we experienced a great deal of that in the Minister's characteristically complacent speech.
  The Public Accounts Committee's eighth report on assistance to small firms said that the Government have machinery to do much more about training in small businesses. The training for enterprise concept is interesting, but the Public Accounts Committee criticized
  382
  it because it was badly focused. There was no real idea of the return on the investment in terms of the impact that the scheme had on participants. If the Government value the contribution of small businesses, they should bring them into TECs and also discuss with them the extension of existing machinery in the Department of Employment to encourage small firms to expand their output and make a greater contribution not only to their employees, but to national welfare.
  The nation requires a great deal of consensus on how we move forward in industry and on employment and economic performance. The National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses expects the Government to put forward policies that will help the NFSE. The firm statement to the Government is that crippling interest rates must be lowered. If they are not, the number of firms going into receivership will increase. Small businesses provide 6 million jobs—a quarter of Britain's work force. It also contributes one quarter of our gross national product. If the Government believe in small businesses, they must show that they want them to become involved by adjusting the TEC provision and making sure that they are allowed to speak to Government.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Michael Grylls: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who has just left the Chamber—briefly, I am sure—were scraping the barrel when they tried to attack the Government's policy on small firms. Clearly that is their job, but I listened carefully to their speeches and I sensed that they were finding it somewhat difficult to mount the case that the Government have failed to encourage small firms and foster their interests. Any disinterested observer would see that mounting such a case is impossible.
  My hon. Friend the Minister was right to say that the climate has been totally transformed. Of course there are problems, and I shall come to them shortly. Entrepreneurs would not start businesses if they were not prepared to deal with problems. That is what sets such people apart from a corporate man or someone in the public sector who has a rather comfortable life. The entrepreneur recognises that life is tough and that he has to solve problems. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that the Minister mounted a most convincing case to show that the small firms sector has been transformed. The climate is totally different. There has been a great deal of deregulation, but there is still a long way to go. Much good has been done and the number of complications faced by small firms has been greatly reduced. That should encourage us to go further.
  Taxes have been changed. The hon. Member for Fife, Central made much of interest rates. I shall deal with that before my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) leaves the Chamber. I see that he has slipped back into his seat. I remind the hon. Member for Fife, Central that in 1979 the rate of corporation tax for small firms was 42 per cent. The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten that. It is now down to 25 per cent. and we have every expectation that it will come down again in succeeding Conservative Budgets.
  The rate of taxation for the sole trader, the self-employed person, went up to a maximum of 83 per cent. and it is now down to 40 per cent. Many capital taxes

  383
  have been reduced, and that is important from the point of view of leaving money in a business so that it can expand. This is a serious subject and perhaps it was a little irresponsible of the hon. Member for Fife, Central to have political fun at the expense of the Government on the subject of interest rates.
  There was a forest fire involving some of my hon. Friends a short time ago and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield threw in a match to ensure that it was burning properly. However, he is quite right to say that interest rates are a problem for many small firms. My hon. Friend the Minister accepts that and does not need to speak for a quarter of an hour repeating that that is a problem for small firms. However, it is not a problem for all of them because we have to add to the equation the question of demand. Of course it is true that the high interest rates from which we are suffering will reduce demand. However, we must remember that we have had eight years of record growth and demand in the small firms sector. When that is coupled to the reductions in taxation and deregulation, it will be seen that it has contributed to a huge growth in the sector. We have run into the problem of inflation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) was right to say that inflation is the real killer. It is the worst of the two problems. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield is nodding. He is a wise man who nods only when he agrees. He was nodding when the Minister spoke about inflation. Had we allowed inflation to continue at 20 per cent. for five years, that would have removed all the capital from businesses. It is not a very difficult or complicated mathematical equation; even I can work it out. Inflation is the worst evil. It is worth dealing with it in the short term because it must not get a real grip on the economy. I doubt that anything divides my hon. Friend and I on that point.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I believe high interest rates to be a major contributory factor to inflation. There should be a more selective weapon to deal with inflation than high interest rates, which kill the goose that lays the golden egg—which is manufacturing industry and industry in general.
  Mr. Grylls: That is my hon. Friend's view. In 1980 inflation was running at 20 per cent. If we had not tackled it, it would have been the worst conceivable evil. We dealt with it again when it rose by a small degree in 1985. It has risen again in 1989–90, and I believe that the Government's policies that succeeded in 1980 and 1985 will succeed now. Of course, it would be dishonest to pretend that that cannot be achieved without a great deal of pain.
  I want to contrast Britain with West Germany. During the past eight years Britain has had a higher rate of growth, but West Germany has had lower interest rates, especially now. It is a question of balance. Some aspects are better in West Germany but some are better in Britain. Like other hon. Members, I travel around the country and meet many small business men. They all say, "We must not have inflation because that will kill us."
  We shall have the Budget in a few weeks, and there is room for the Government to make further changes in taxation that will help the cash position of businesses. Although corporation tax for small firms has fallen from 42 per cent. to 25 per cent., for a new and growing business it still means that a quarter of its profit is lost in taxation.
  384
  That is too much. There should be a lower starting rate, at least for the newer businesses in their most fragile years—perhaps the first three years. Perhaps there should be a new rate band from nil to £25,000 or £30,000 of profit. That would give small companies the opportunity to move on to the next stage of development so that they could expand their premises and take on more employees.
  If too much is taken out of profit—and I believe that 25 per cent. is too much—how can a company grow? The only way that it can grow—and this comes back to interest rates—is to borrow, which in itself creates a problem. It would make much more sense if the Chancellor left more money in the businesses so that they could grow from their internal cash generation. I hope that that will happen.
  Another longer-term measure would be to cut even further the inheritance tax rates for businesses. If we sincerely believe, as we do, in the enterprise culture—in the encouragement of people to take risks and invest their money in firms—firms should be passed on from one generation to another. Most firms do not reach their optimum size in only one generation. Inheritance tax has been reduced to 20 per cent., which is better than it was—it was awful—but if a firm with an asset value of £1 million, which is not a great deal in current terms, is to be passed on to the next generation, some £200,000 in cash must be produced.
  I sometimes think that the Treasury believes that small firms have pots of cash in drawers just waiting to be handed over when the firm is passed on to the next generation. That does not happen. A well-run business uses its cash to develop and to advance. We must make the Treasury understand that. Some may say that firms can take all sorts of fancy measures, such as consulting accountants and lawyers, avoiding tax, transferring assets outside the seven-year rule and so on—but that is not the point. The one thing that most entrepreneurs cannot decide is when they will die. That is something that even the Treasury cannot get round. Of course, I am not referring to private money—that is a different argument—but businesses should be passed on without an inheritance tax liability.
  Another area in which the climate has been transformed is the provision of general finance, especially through venture capital, the highly successful loan guarantee scheme and the enterprise allowance scheme for very small new businesses. However, there is still a gap and we would be wise to consider the practice in West Germany, where small businesses have loans totalling the equivalent of £4·5 billion at interest rates below the going rate, which is very low anyway. West Germany has prudently looked after the Marshall plan money, which is still allowing small businesses to borrow at special rates of interest. Of course, we do not have Marshall plan money in Britain, but it is an aspect that should be considered.
  Multinational companies can borrow in the Euro dollar market at quite low rates, even with the high interest rates in Britain, but small firms have to pay the maximum rates. That is rather like telling young children to stand on their own feet, but when they grow up putting them in a nursery. We should consider ways to give growing businesses a leg up with special interest rates. We could also offer subsidies and so on, but they are complicated.
  In 1988 about £1·5 billion of venture capital was loaned to about 2,000 firms, so it has been a successful innovation. The hon. Member for Fife, Central was not in the House in 1979, but the venture capital market was almost

  385
  unknown. It is all new money. However, it has tended to go to firms with a high growth rate. Perhaps we should worry about the plodding firms such as the good, steady engineering companies that do not have a high growth rate and so are more difficult to finance.
  I am sure that the problem of high interest rates will be temporary, and I hope that most of our firms can cope with them. It is a problem of today, but it will not be the problem of 1991. I am not suggesting that we should pat ourselves on the back because there is always more to do. The small business sector suffered 40 years of neglect until 1979 which cannot be rectified in just 10 years. It needs another 10 years of Conservative government to improve the climate in the ways that my hon. Friend the Minister explained so convincingly in his speech. I hope that very shortly we shall be given the opportunity for that further 10 years.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Geraint Howells: As a very small business man, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I begin by declaring my interest, as usual, and thanking you for calling me in this important debate for the small business man. This country was built up by the vigour and enterprise of small businesses and the self-employed, but they are now being squeezed to death by the power of the big battalions and the lack of concern of the Government. My constituency has a higher percentage of self-employed than others. I am proud of their record. I know the problems at first hand, and I have become more and more concerned about the increase in pressure under which the self-employed work and live.
  I listened with interest to the Minister, whom I respect in many ways. He must take more heed of what his hon. Friends have said about high interest rates. I should not like him to be sacked for not looking after the interests of small business men, but he should have a word with the Prime Minister because I believe that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) would do a good job as a Minister responsible for small businesses and farmers.
  Many hon. Members, like me, represent areas with a large number of self-employed. When I go back to my constituency in Cardiganshire and north Pembroke people never mention inflation, although it is a big problem. They always talk about high interest rates and their effect on farmers and small businesses. They may be wrong in thinking that high interest rates have more effect on their businesses than high inflation.
  I have been in the Chamber since 7 o'clock. I think that only six hon. Members who have been here since the beginning of the debate were Members of the House in 1978. Human nature never changes. We always like to laugh at young Members who are up and coming politically, but I am ashamed that some Conservative Members laughed when my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) was trying to make a good case for the self-employed and for small businesses.
  Mrs. Currie: That is because he is an idiot.
  Mr. Howells: The hon. Lady did not help many small businesses when she was a Minister.
  I do not blame Conservative Members if they want to criticise the Lib-Lab pact. They may criticise the Liberals
  386
  as much as they like, but we are still here. May I remind them that our former leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), did something for small businesses that other hon. Members did not achieve. During the first few days of the pact my former colleague, Richard Wainwright, who was then the hon. Member for Colne Valley, and I met the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who was a Minister at the time. I shall not comment any more, but we were not pleased with the result of our meeting. On our return we had a word with our leader. In his wisdom he suggested that he and others should see Lord Callaghan, who was then Prime Minister, and press on him the need for a Cabinet Minister to look after the interests of the self-employed and small businesses. That was achieved.
  If Conservative Members disagree with what I have said, I can tell them about a letter that I have in my office from Lord Plumb, the leader of the Conservative party in Europe. He wrote to me at the end of 1978 to congratulate the Liberal party and Members of the Lib-Lab pact because the 1978 Budget had been the best one ever for farmers and small businesses. [Laughter.] There is no need for the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) to laugh. These are the facts of life.
  The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), who has left the Chamber, said that the Liberal party was in favour of rating agricultural land. Other hon. Members have expressed the same view over the years. I advise the hon. Gentleman to have a chat with his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) who decided a few years ago to introduce a ten-minute Bill on the rating of agricultural land. I opposed him. I am delighted that the majority of Conservative Members came into the Lobby with me and the Bill was defeated.
  Lest any other Members want to jump up to support the rating of agricultural land, may I tell them that I have a letter of apology from an ex-Minister of Agriculture because he and others had misled hon. Members about our policy. I hope that hon Members who have come to the House over the last 10 years will realise what we Liberals stand for. We will stand by our policies. Conservative Members should not laugh at what we have done over the years or at our achievements under the Lib-Lab pact, of which I am proud.
  I have been a farmer all my life, as well as a small business man. Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced an extra payment of 75p for the hill livestock compensatory allowance for sheep. Perhaps hill farmers in Cardiganshire will make a collection for the Minister so that he can help the Government out. I think my constituents would be willing to do that.
  Investment in United Kingdom agriculture has fallen by 40 per cent. in the last five years. Full-time employment in the industry has also fallen dramatically, with the loss of some 60,000 jobs in five years. Right hon. and hon. Members speak often about the environment, but it is the farmers on the highlands and marginal lands of Britain who are really responsible for looking after it. It is a great shame that so many of them are leaving the land and the rural areas of Britain, never to return. They have been the guardians of the countryside for generations. It is a great pity that the Government are unable to help the people who have looked after the interests of us all for generations.

  387
  My hon. Friend the Member for Truro mentioned at the beginning of his excellent speech the Interest on Debts Bill that is to be introduced by the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). There is great merit in his proposals. Dr. Emyr Roberts, the National Farmers Union deputy director for Wales, states:
  "We very much welcome this Bill, which would help virtually all farm businesses. It would allow small and medium-size firms the statutory right to interest on overdue debts from central and local Government, nationalised industries and large firms. It would not affect small and medium-size businesses in their trading with each other, and a big company could not use it against a small firm."
  At a time of high interest rates, it is vital that small businesses such as farms are paid promptly, as they cannot withstand payment delays in the way that large firms can. The NFU will urge all Members of Parliament to support the Interest on Debts Bill. I hope that, Ministers also will support the hon. Member for Hampshire, East and his Bill, which will do a power of good to everyone in agriculture and in small businesses.
  High interest rates are crippling farmers, shopkeepers, bus operators, and everyone concerned with rural, urban and city life. I hope that, when he replies, the Minister will reassure all those affected by the Government policy of high interest rates that he personally will persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends in Government to lower interest rates this coming year. If he will, the people of this country will be delighted to hear that news. Let us hope that small businesses and small farmers, who have been the backbone of this country, and still are, will be helped sooner rather than later.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Graham Bright: I welcome the fact that the topic for debate chosen by the Liberal Democrats is small businesses, because they have played a growing and more important role in the development of industry over the past 10 years. It is necessary not only to acknowledge that but to congratulate the Government on the work that they have done and to reflect on ways in which small businesses can be improved still further.
  Like the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), I am a small business man. That statement usually brings a laugh in view of my stature. The hon. Gentleman and I are similar in that respect. I have been a small business man for a number of years.
  I was interested to hear about the Lib-Lab pact's one moment of glory, when it disposed of the small firms Minister. Mr. Harold Lever, without doubt, understood the problems of small businesses. The pity is that, while he was in office, and during the period of the Lib-Lab pact—and I am sorry to mention it again, because I know that it upsets Liberal Democrat Members—small businesses and business men still suffered increases in income tax, corporation tax, capital transfer tax and capital gains tax.
  At the same time, legislation was introduced such as the Employment Protection Act 1975, which was nothing more than a form of appeasement to the unions. However appropriate it may have been for large firms, it imposed crippling requirements on small businesses. When debating the problems of small businesses, we must not only think of interest rates, because those problems cover a much broader spectrum.
  It is surprising that the Liberal Democrats could not bring themselves to congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the steady rise in the number of businesses that
  388
  have registered for value added tax since 1979. The Minister has already spelt out the enormous growth in self-employment, which has risen from 1·8 million to 3 million. We now have more than 2·5 million small businesses. It is partly because so many new businesses have been created in the past year—the weekly rate has increased from 500 to more than 1,500—that there have been more business failures.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North talked about farming. I do not farm, but I am a business man who, like a farmer, sows seeds, in the form of investments. Business men, like farmers, do not always get it right, and some of the seeds fall by the wayside; but they till the ground and work hard to protect those that take root.
  Hon. Members cannot simply point to interest rates. Lack of management expertise, poor marketing skills and bad financial practice often cause companies to go out of business, and I pay tribute to the Government for their investment in the small firms service.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman gives the impression that only incompetent managers "fall by the wayside" because of high interest rates. Does he not agree that many good, sound, careful, competent financial managers have seen their businesses collapse because of the crippling rise in interest rates?
  Mr. Bright: The hon. and learned Gentleman should have listened more carefully. I accepted that high interest rates caused problems, and I shall say more about that in a moment, but I also emphasised the fact that there are many other reasons for business failures. Failure in business is a horrible thing: we do not share with the Americans the culture that accepts that seeds must be sown if growth is to follow. It is easy for those who fail to blame interest rates without considering the facts.
  One of the reasons why I praise the Government's contribution to the small firms service is that thousands of people have gone into business for the first time. It is not easy to run a business. There is a considerable difference between having manufacturing or engineering skills, or a flair for art, pottery or tapestry weaving, and having the marketing expertise to sell the product. Business men must understand accounts and cash flow or the company is likely to get into trouble. The small firms service has recognised that they sometimes need their hands held, and is able to guide them through difficult times. It has enabled many companies that would have collapsed in the past to survive and succeed.
  Let me join in the spirit of the debate and make some constructive and positive suggestions. We still have a long way to go in assisting small firms, and I should like to see a change in administrative methods within Government. I have argued for a long time that the small firms division of the Department of Employment should be enlarged and should deal with the enterprise and deregulation unit, and that its operations should include the Development Commission and the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, which are now the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. I should like all the small business organisations to be brought together.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) spoke about training. That is an important concern for small companies which are not attracting people with the right skills. Small businesses require people with multiple

  389
  skills because a small company cannot afford to employ, for example, a maintenance man, an electrician, a plumber and a carpenter; it has to employ someone who can do all those jobs. We should emulate the Japanese and the Germans and employ people skilled in multiple disciplines, particularly in maintenance. We should look at our education system, and encourage fifth-year pupils in secondary schools to take vocational courses for industry. We should recognise the needs of small businesses and not encourage people to seek work only in large companies. Some of the initiatives to bring education closer to industry, such as the city technology colleges, are extremely important.
  Two areas in which the Government have actively helped small businesses are the loan guarantee scheme and the enterprise allowance scheme. We should attach to any money handed out under those schemes the obligation that the people receiving the money should undergo some training to make sure that they are equipped to run a business. The enterprise allowance scheme brought many people into business for the first time and managed to keep them in business for a year, but when the allowance was taken away many businesses failed. Perhaps it would be a good idea to examine the training facilities available and make it obligatory that people understand the basic principles of running a business.
  I accept that we have done a great deal to help by doing away with form-filling and mountains of forms, but we should consider the number of inspectors and officials who call on small firms as they are the bane of small business men. There is a powerful case for a single statute modelled on the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954, defining the rights of access for everyone to understand. Those who have rights of access should declare who they are, why they are there and what authority they have to visit the factory. I should like an enlarged factory inspectorate to deal with a whole range of issues rather than having so many people appear on site. There is often friction, and that is extremely confusing for small business men.
  The question of late payment has been mentioned, but the House will have ample opportunity to discuss that on Friday. In my view, by delaying payment large companies often weaken their suppliers, and that is not in their interests. However, I am sceptical about the introduction of legislation as it would not necessarily work in favour of small business men.
  We should do more to encourage local government to open up contracts for small businesses. There are still far too many bogus and dubious so-called health and safety grounds that stop small businesses getting involved in supplying local government. Small businesses should be taking over some of the printing and other local government services.
  I began by congratulating the Liberal Democrats on allowing us to discuss this subject. As soon as they saw the possibility of small business men crying with anguish about the interest rates, they tried to jump on the bandwagon. I have every confidence that interest rates will fall. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), I believe that we must consider the fact that large companies can borrow from abroad. Having talked to the banks, I can see no way in which that
  390
  can be extended to smaller companies. We must consider that point carefully to see whether some special borrowing powers can be applied to small businesses to allow them to have a lower rate. There is nothing sacred about that, because many large businesses enjoy that privilege already. We are not trying to buck the system; we are trying to make the playing field level once more for small businesses.
  I am confident that when people pass judgment on the Government the small business men will acclaim the past 10 years as being a period of enormous success for them, and the figures prove that.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: If small businesses look to this debate for salvation or hope, they would be better employed going bankrupt. Only my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), in his excellent speech from the Opposition Front Bench, displayed any understanding of the issue. Only he grappled with the problems. For the Government, the Minister turned a condescending sneer into a system of economics and Conservative Back Benchers whistled into the wind in an attempt to keep up their spirits as their majorities decline. They seemed only to say that, bad as things are, they would be worse under Labour. People do not believe that.
  The Liberals have shown a unique skill in framing incomprehensible motions. Well, I call it a motion, but it is more of a skip into which they have shoved everything. Perhaps a skip is a bit big. It is more like a Tonka toy dumper truck into which they have placed all their quirks—interest rates, the uniform business rate, bureaucracy, debt and regular brushing of teeth. It is all there. The motion even includes several non-sequiturs, the most amazing of which is that they want the relief associated with the uniform business rate to be extended. So far as I understand it, that would mean the north subsidising the south. The Liberals appear to be claiming that the north should subsidise the south for some time.
  I am no friend of the uniform business rate. However, I very much doubt whether the main topic of conversation on the Borders, in Berwick or in Southport is, "Good grief, what an awful time Harrods will have when the uniform business rate comes in. We must keep up our subsidy." If that is the extent of the Liberal's thinking on the matter, it is pathetic.
  The other pathetic part of the ridiculous motion is that membership of the European monetary system is introduced as the Liberal's answer to everything. In the previous motion EMS was the answer to the situation in eastern Europe. They asked, "Are there problems in eastern Europe? Well, the EMS will solve them." The EMS is now the answer to the uniform business rate, to bureaucracy and to everything else. Why is the EMS not the answer to AIDS, the problems facing the National Health Service and vandalism?
  The Liberals' view of the EMS is similar to a view expressed by Lord Randolph Churchill when he described Gladstone. Before the Liberal party became green, Gladstone used to spend his time at Hawarden chopping down trees. The Liberal faithful were brought round the grounds to catch a sight of the great man and they were all presented with a chip from those trees which they went home clutching. Lord Randolph Churchill asked, "What is Gladstone's answer to the problems facing the world?

  391
  Chips. What is his answer to eastern Europe? Chips. What about the poor? Chips." His counterparts today, Gladstone's teenage heirs, offer businesses a pamphlet on the EMS as those businesses head towards the bankruptcy courts.
  The Liberals portray a pathetic understanding of the EMS. The exchange rate mechanism ties other currencies to the deutschmark and uses them to keep the deutschmark down. The central problem with trading in Europe is that the Germans are generating a huge surplus and that means that the deutschmark should rise if we are to trade fairly. However, currencies are used as guy-ropes to keep the deutschmark down. That is why the exchange rate mechanism has had such a deflationary effect on the economies of France and Italy, in particular, with unemployment at 2·6 million and 2·9 million respectively. There has been a depressing, deflating effect. They are forced to deflate to get down to West Germany's abnormally low rate of inflation. Full membership of the exchange rate mechanism would have exactly the same effect here. It would become an engine of deflation.
  The Liberals want to enter the EMS, whatever is the exchange rate. When the deutschmark was 2·80 to the pound, they said, "Join the EMS". When it was 3·20 they said, "Join the EMS." Now it is on its way down again, they still say, "Join the EMS." They are not bothered. Yet the real problem is the valuation at which we enter. If we enter at an unsustainable valuation, it will not keep interest rates down. We would be forced to throw every engine of the economy, particularly interest rates—it is the only one that the Government have—into maintaining an untenable exchange rate. That is exactly the effect. Interest rates would not go down; they would fluctuate more wildly in the ERM. That is why the Labour party has very wisely suggested four conditions for joining.
  A rate will be determined by competitors who have a vested interest in access to our market and who want us to be over-valued so that they can send us more of their manufactured goods, and cause our industry to suffer. That is exactly the effect of membership. Deflation would be the inevitable result. Deflation is the real enemy of small business.
  Mr. Eggar rose—
  Mr. Mitchell: I shall give way to another condescending sneer from the Minister.
  Mr. Eggar: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of our joining the exchange rate mechanism?
  Mr. Mitchell: The Minister heard me say that the Labour party has suggested four conditions. Since I think that those four conditions are unattainable, that is my position.
  Deflation inhibits the growth and development of small businesses. The Government's only achievement has been to make big businesses small and small businesses bankrupt, and to turn the unemployed into small business men by making them self-employed. That is their policy for small businesses.
  The real problem for small businesses is that the economy is run not for the needs of business or for industry or manufacturing—not for making things—but for those who manipulate money. Big financial institutions are the main enemy of small businesses. Their attitude, not in advertisements but in reality, is to lend small business a
  392
  brolly when it is sunny, to snatch it back as soon as it rains, and then to charge it for taking it back again. They would much rather buy estate agencies and banks in America. go bankrupt with them, and lend money to South America than lend it to small business in this country. That is the record of our financial institutions. If an economy is run for financial institutions, as ours is, it institutionalises over-valuation, because financial institutions' interests are in buying foreign assets cheaper and putting more money overseas than they are investing in this country. That is their record, and that is the way in which they run the economy. That is the way in which the economy has been run under this Government—for a high exchange rate, for high interest rates, and for the interests of financial institutions, not making things, selling things and surviving in a tough world.
  We need an economy that is run for manufacturing, with a competitive exchange rate and cheap money, which allows business to invest, allows us to become competitive and allows us to export, which makes exports cheap and imports dear, and allows us to build national champions such as those that have been successful in competing economies, in particular those of West Germany and Japan—national champions to export. It is on the back of that that small business becomes prosperous and expands. It needs a healthy, competing manufacturing sector.
  With deflation, small business shrinks. The Government began with a disastrous rate of inflation that crucified small businesses for four years and caused many of them to go bankrupt. They have never allowed manufacturing to expand its base so that it can do its job of supporting a national economy, provide jobs, generate growth, provide a surplus of spending power and provide the high-skill, high-wage economy that generates demand for small business. That is what it is all about.
  The only way in which we shall have a successful small business sector is by having a successful economy. That is why there is such a high proportion of small businesses and why small businesses are so active in Germany and Japan. They have a successful manufacturing economy. That is what we have destroyed and undermined. Until we recreate that, it is no use the Government promising sops and diverting into side issues of more freedom, fewer inspectors—which was the suggestion from the hon. Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright)—freeing business from controls and regulations and allowing them to fire staff, neglect training, and undermine the conditions in which staff work. Through all those side issues and the manipulation of emotive symbols the Government try to escape the fact that the economy is being run, not for industry, small business, survival, competitiveness and jobs, but for finance and deflation.
  Under "Blabynomics", with the obsession of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer with following the deutschmark, we should have had even higher interest rates. That was one Major gain from the change of Chancellors. It is now Government policy to let the pound fall while pretending to keep it up. They walk backwards towards a devaluation market pretending that it is not happening. Yet they are keeping interest rates too high—much higher than our competitors, higher than industry and small business can bear and far higher than investment requires.
  With a trade deficit the size of ours, the pound must come down. Interest rates must come down, too, because we have to invest to survive. Unless we invest to rebuild

  393
  and expand our industrial base, we shall not survive; it is as simple as that. It is no good the Government whistling in the wind and distracting small businesses from reality by the lures that they introduce.
  This next year will be horrendous for small business. No one has denied that prospect tonight. The small business sector will be tortured by high interest rates. They will be prodded and their position will be made worse by the uniform business rate and higher charges for electricity, water and telephones to fatten up the privatised industries. Telephone charges are now far higher than those in most countries on the continent. Small busineses will be depressed by the decline in spending power as people grapple with inflation, as unemployment increases and as people fail to improve their wages. All that contributes to a general decline. One person's spending is another person's income: money circulates. The Government's policies are dedicated to deflating and squeezing the economy in a fashion which is reminiscent of the attitudes, jargon and lack of concern with which they went into the great deflation from 1979 to 1982 which was so ruinous to British industry and, particularly, for the small business sector.
  We are, in business as in society, one of another. We advance together or we do not advance at all. One does not advance the interests of small business by allowing it to triumph over its workers, dodge restrictions, fire people and avoid its commitments to safety and training. We advance together with a healthy, prosperous industry which produces the skills, incomes and wages for people to spend in the shops on the products of small business, to activate the suppliers and small business so that we all grow together. That is true of the economy and of society.
  That will not happen until we replace a Government who have been completely ignorant of the interests of business and industry and deferential to those of finance and money and those who manipulate money. We must replace them with a Government dedicated to the interests of jobs, expansion and growth and to working together for an expanding future in which we have a strong industrial base on which this country can survive, compete and hold its head high in the world. A Labour Government will rebuild the economic health and heart of Britain.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am aerobicised after the activities of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The agility with which he leapt from one theme to another would have put Saul Samuelson at a disadvantage. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman tackled some important and great themes.
  I began as a very small business man after leaving university with a single shop in Earl's Court road. It has given me a modest prosperity and has enabled me to come here. As is said, "Those who can, do—and those who can't, teach.", so here I am prattling on about a subject that I have always been cautious about approaching.
  I have always observed that small business men are essentially independent. The nature of their independence and the character of their spirit is instinctively Conservative. They draw from two great traditions that have little to do with Socialism. Their spirit may derive from the dissenters, the Quakers, the independent religions
  394
  or from the great Conservative tradition. Most of the people with whom I have come into contact in my working life have been in small businesses and have been modest dissenters, who strike out on their own and build businesses. They are instinctively Conservative.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman seems to be missing the point slightly. What I have found most common among small business men is that they hate being ordered around. What attracts them to different political parties and away from the Labour party is that they are mistrustful of the intervention of the state. They are far more anti-Socialism than they are aligned to any other political views.
  Mr. Shepherd: I accept that anti-Socialism is a strong theme among independent business men. Fear, experience and a whole variety of reasons such as the attitude, "I am independent and do not wish to be bossed around" lies behind their thinking. I accept that, but the natural home of most business men I have encountered during my working life has been the Conservative party.
  Mrs. Currie: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Shepherd: Perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way, but I want to speak only briefly.
  Mrs. Currie: Will my hon. Friend please talk about business women as well?
  Mr. Shepherd: I hear my hon. Friend and note what she has said.
  Instinctive Conservatism is important to many small business men who have therefore looked to the Conservative party for understanding. However, during the 20 years that I have been a business man, which includes the 10 years before I became a Member of the House, I have noted that the Government are not particularly mindful of little business men. They take them for granted. I have nowhere else to go—I am an instinctive Conservative. I know that, "Those who can't teach—and those who can, get on with it", and the Government have taken for granted the attention and attendance of many small business men.
  I shall say little on this subject because, like most of us, before being elected to the House I had never written a letter to a Member of Parliament and had never been associated with the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses. I stood alone and the modest prosperity that I gained was by the efforts of those with whom I worked. Therefore, I am respectful towards that class of small business people.
  I shall not deal with the wider subjects that have been raised, although I am grateful to the Social and Liberal Democratic party for initiating the debate. I shall consider just one narrow tax that the Government have stumbled upon and which is mentioned in the motion. I refer to the uniform business rate. I cannot imagine a Government choosing a tax without knowing how it will fall or where it will hit and pushing it through the House on assumptions that were manifestly wrong. It was paraded by my right hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), now the party chairman, and for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who is now at the Foreign Office. The document is called, "Paying for Local Government". When one reads through what was written in ignorance and then sees what has happened, one realises that the distress is profound.

  395
  I first realised what we are about when the "Paying for Local Government" Green Paper suggested that the west midlands would pay more under the new system and that central London would pay less. I am a Member of Parliament for the west midlands and have seen the 'flu that hit our industry during the late 1970s and the early 1980s. I have also seen the collapse in commercial property values in manufacturing industry and it seemed to me that a tax predicated on that basis would lead to a reduction in manufacturing industry's overall contribution to domestic rates. I realised, therefore, that the idea had to be wrong.
  I am a trader in London and have seen the march of commercial rents. The assumptions behind the Green Paper therefore caused me some confusion. The Government changed a locally based tax, predicated on the supply and demand of local shops to finance local communities, into a national tax and created a huge redistributive mechanism. That amounts to £1 billion in redistributed money, but they do not know where it is going and what effect it will have.
  The Government should remember that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 imposes two conditions on small business men. They already pay a premium to get their businesses. I have no covenant. I have no plc behind me. When I am bidding for shop premises, I am invariably the last person whom a landlord would have by preference. We have now converted our high streets into some of the dreariest in western Europe because all the shops are owned by plcs. Each high street is replicated and one can buy only from these plcs. This nation of shopkeepers, as Napoleon called us, is reduced to a nation of about five plcs. That undermines the vitality of small business men who fight for their markets. They hold on long after the managing director of a plc quits with his pay-off and retires.
  I am conscious of the bleak circumstances faced by small businesses. Furthermore, rent reviews are only upwards. Once a rent has got somewhere, the terms of the lease ensure that it never goes down, despite the fact that small business men have to pay extra just to get the lease and often have to offer personal guarantees.
  In these circumstances, the Government decided to set up an £8 billion tax, and that will affect our national economy. Let us see how it falls. The Government suggested that central London would be a beneficiary but, over and above what businesses there would have had to pay to local authorities under the previous arrangements, they will have to pay some £610 million, of which £190 million will have to come from shops and £230 million from offices. A £610 million tax is being imposed on central London—I am not talking about outer London—and that will have some consequences quite apart from rent and balance of trade consequences. How does the retailer or small business man, the accountant or solicitor in his little office, recoup his share of that £610 million that the Government, without knowing that they were raising it and without knowing where it would go, have imposed? He has to raise prices. Therefore, I am worried about the inflationary impact at the time of the worst inflation that we have known in the last part of this decade. The tax will incite inflation.
  Outer London—a smaller region, with a lesser base for rateable value—will pay an additional £30 million, which is not much, but £15 million for shops. The south-east—another Conservative heartland—will pay an additional £270 million, with £120 million from shops and £80 million
  396
  from offices. The area from which the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) comes—the south-west—will have to find another £60 million to distribute, £20 million of which will come from shops. Some £30 million will be shipped out of East Anglia—the Government did not know that—of which £20 million will come from shops.
  Originally, I suggested that the Government go ahead with revaluation, because not many people dispute the need for that. However, I also suggested that they should not have redistribution until they had seen how the pattern fell and that they should be prudent. Instead, they embarked on this. As I have said, it will gee up inflation, but it will have other effects. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) seemed to think that Britain was ruled from the City of London, but most small business men will recognise his general point that overall prosperity helps every business. A strong and successful City of London is undoubtedly important to whatever Government we have—whether Conservative, Labour or, should it ever happen, SLD.
  Furthermore, 1992 is coming and the Government have constructed the highest cost office operating area in the Community. The additional burdens on the City of London will make firms wonder why they should locate there. By this measure, with £900 million exported from poor regions—without knowing the consequences of it—the Government will affect inflation and that is the most damaging result. This £900 million has to be paid for somehow—usually by raising prices. That is just an observation on which hon. Members must make their own judgments.
  I do not know how the north of England will be affected, but I have tabled a question to the Department of the Environment asking how local authorities will lose or gain under the tax. The question relates to flows in and out of local authorities. There will be some surprised yelps from Conservative Members representing northern constituencies when they realise that their constituencies do not gain. I am talking about a destabilisation of the national economy which may have an influence on inflation.
  I have been cautious. I have asked the Government to look at the Landlord and Tenant Act, which ratchets up prices to the highest rent last paid, never reflecting downward drifts in rents. So the costs for retailers, accountants or small business men always stay at the highest possible level. I predict that many businesses in central London will collapse. I am sorry that the Government have rejected the case put by retirement salesmen. The capital of a small business is often in the business. When these men reach the age of 65, 70 or even more, all they have for their pensions lies in the disposal or sale of their businesses. By imposing an arbitrary date of 1 April the Government have reduced the value of these businesses.
  I have said that I was a small trader. I started a shop in Sloane street, renting it for £5,000 in 1973, with a 20-year lease and a five-yearly rent review. By 1983, the rent had risen to £15,000, and the latest rent request is for £100,000. Valuation under the Government's uniform business rate is £121,000, which entails the payment of £40,000.
  I am not retiring or selling the business, because my brother runs it now. The whole business is now valued at £310,000 under the UBR. We bought the business from a retirement sale. A business sold on that basis now would

  397
  have a greatly reduced value because from 1 April a tenant in gainful possession of the premises would pay £40,000 in rates, which would affect the rental value.
  All this will prevent and confuse redevelopment in certain areas. The Government must urgently consider improving the position of retirement sales, and I suggest that a review of the Landlord and Tenant Act would provide a stimulus for small businesses.
  I have tried to present my suggestions in a friendly way and in a condensed manner. The Government, in short, must be more mindful of those who are natural Conservatives.
  9.43 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: This has been a good and necessary debate and it has been clear that, but for my right hon. and hon. Friends, we should have had to wait a long time for it.
  Because of the twin problems of high interest rates and the introduction of the uniform business rate, about which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has just spoken so eloquently, the Government would have been reluctant to introduce a debate on this subject in their own time. Despite the valiant efforts of the hon. Members for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), there has been a singular lack of interest on the part of the Labour party, which suggests that we would have had to wait a long time for the Opposition to take the initiative, as well.
  This has been the first opportunity in this Session for our party to nominate the business for the day, and we have used it to debate this important subject. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills pointed out, based on his contact with people in the small business and self-employed sectors, that they tend to be people with independent minds. Those in my party have a great deal of sympathy with such people. Many Social and Liberal Democrat constituencies have high percentages of self-employed people.
  It is for that reason that we welcome the fact that there are more people in self-employment and in small businesses today than there were 10 years ago. Any development in that direction is to be welcomed. However, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that we still fall far short of the comparable figures in, for example, West Germany or the United States of America. So there is still some way to go.
  What we have heard tonight from the Government does not give us much confidence that we are taking the right strides in that direction. The Minister, many times over, gave us the statistics for the increase—the welcome increase, I say once again. What he said was all very defensive: it was all about what had happened over the last 10 years. There was not really anything about the problems facing small businesses today, and less still about the problems and opportunities of small businesses tomorrow.
  We heard too about the number of small businesses being registered, but we have to look beyond that. What happens after they have been registered? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), in an intervention which was not answered properly by the Minister, pointed out, in respect of people
  398
  who want to be self-employed—North sea divers, journalists, free-lance photographers, actors—that the Government are trying to make them not self-employed, to move them from schedule D to schedule E. Surely, under tax law, there must be some means of ensuring that people who want to be self-employed have their wish respected. The Minister did not answer that point. Perhaps he did not appreciate it. It is a serious point, and I hope that he and his Treasury colleagues will reflect on it.
  One could also look at the barriers that the Department of Social Security puts in the way of those who wish to be self-employed. The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West Mr. Grylls) made a very valuable contribution. He referred to a number of areas in which the self-employed have problems—the increasing lack, these days, of venture capital being put into new small businesses; the need to look at the tax relief that might be applied to small family firms where profits are ploughed back.
  The hon. Gentleman talked in terms of £1 million in the context of a particular small business. Many of the self-employed people in my constituency do not know what £1 million is like. A self-employed person who came to my constituency surgery last Saturday wanted to claim family credit. I have dealt with the cases of several self-employed people who find it increasingly difficult to claim family credit.
  To his credit, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), when he was a junior Minister at the Department of Social Security, changed the rule that required audited accounts. Of course, that rule was nonsense in the context of self-employed people. One wonders who drafts these regulations. But now, even though accounts are allowed, and even though they have been properly prepared by accountants, they are very often sent back with umpteen questions.
  One question that came to my notice in a recent case concerned the fact that farm insurance was not being allowed as a business expense, despite the fact that the farm was being insured as a business. Clearly some people in the family credit branch of the Department of Social Security do not understand what small business is about. That is another area in which a barrier is put in the way of people who want to enjoy self-employment.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills expressed very well the fact that, for too long, the Government and Conservatives have taken small businesses and self-employed persons for granted. In an intervention, I referred to what is happening over the introduction of the poll tax. Employers whose employees do not, or cannot, pay the poll tax will be expected to attach their wages. That will undoubtedly put a further administrative burden on small employers. Indeed, they are allowed to charge the employee £1 for the service—for actually making a deduction from his wages. Who in the world thinks that that will make any contribution to good industrial relations in small companies?
  But there are so many other ways in which the small business man has to act as the Government's tax collector. In a recent article in the Financial Times, Professor Sandford says:
  "The biggest unfairness associated with tax compliance is the disproportionate burden it imposes on small companies. What might be called the regressiveness of tax compliance costs applies in its most extreme form to VAT … the lowest band of compulsorily registered traders … bore compliance

  399
  costs which averaged £7·80 for every £1,000 of goods sold; the corresponding figure for companies with a turnover of £10 million was 3p."
  That shows quite clearly the burden that has been placed on small businesses.
  Let us look at the Government policy of introducing student loans. What will be the reaction of the banks to a new graduate wanting to set up a business or become self-employed when that graduate already has a substantial loan hanging around his neck from his days at university? My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), in his excellent speech, outlined the Government's policy on fishing and expecially on farming. Government policy in those areas is putting great pressure on the self-employed.
  As I have said, high interest rates and the uniform business rate place a great burden on the self-employed small business man. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) put his finger on the problem when he said that, in a glib but competent speech, the Minister of State tried to slide over the problem of high interest rates in some 30 seconds. Time and again, people in small businesses speak about the pressure of high interest rates not only on their own indebtedness, but on the spending power of those seeking their services or wishing to buy from them.
  An economic outlook report yesterday from the Royal Bank of Scotland said that the difference between the present recession
  "and that experienced during the early 1980s is that this time the impact will be felt by the service industries".
  It is in the service industries that we have seen such growth in small business and the self-employed. The Minister did not address that problem. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said that the stock answer of my party is entry to the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS. Perhaps we say that time and again because we genuinely believe that it is the answer. Interestingly enough, when freed from the constraints of collective responsibility, Conservative Members have also said that.
  If the Minister spoke for only 30 seconds about high interest rates, he said nothing at all in response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) about the uniform business rate. That the House could have demanded more answers about that is shown by what the Prime Minister has said:
  "The present transition period is five years, but that is not an absolute figure and it could he extended if need be."— [Official Report, 23 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 737.]
  The state of the small business sector needs to be fleshed out. What do the Government intend to do? Those of us north of the border well remember the problems experienced by the small business sector in Scotland after revaluation. For months, the Government said that they would do nothing and then had to rush legislation through in a week or a fortnight to bring much-needed relief. They subsequently paid the political price for not having acted earlier. Great pressure will build up on Government to respond.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby cannot say that this is purely a problem for the south. He represents a constituency in south Humberside and may not know that in north Humberside a hardware shop had rates in 1989–90 of £2,611.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I said that it was a daft tax.
  Mr. Wallace: Under the uniform business rate, that will increase to £3,740—an increase of 143 per cent.
  The hon. Gentleman says that it is a daft tax, but businesses in the north will not be entirely exempt. We are not trying to provide exemption for Harrods. If he understood the transitional scheme and had listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro, he would know that our efforts are directed towards helping the small business community.
  It is important to leave the Under-Secretary of State adequate time in which to reply to the debate. My party is committed to the interests of the small business. That was shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke who said that when we had an opportunity to influence Government we brought about a profound change in the attitude of the Labour Government to the self-employed. In the local government areas where we have control we have helped small businesses. In Government we would carry through our promises and bring benefit to the self-employed and the small business sector.
  9.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who has just made an eloquent speech, flatters me if he thinks that I can do justice to the debate in the six minutes that remain. I say to him what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said when he opened the debate—that we welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues decided to choose this subject for debate. Although the debate has been short, it has been useful.
  I shall deal first with the speech by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) who had two limbs to his attack. One was what he described as the crippling rate of interest; and he also spoke about the effect of the uniform business rate.
  It would be interesting to consider the careers of the hon. Gentleman and me. We are both virtually the same age, we appear to share the same sort of interests and we are both Members of this House. However, at a time when I was running a small business, the hon. Gentleman was earning his living in a quite different way. The hon. Gentleman spoke about interest rates as though they were far more important than the rate of inflation. When I was setting up my small business in the late 1970s, I was worried not about interest rates but about the rate of inflation. I must reiterate that the Government do not enjoy the current interest rate policy. No Government could enjoy the effect that it has on business in the country. However, it is the proven way to prevent inflation from getting back into the system.
  I tried to run a business in the 1970s when inflation rates exceeded 20 per cent. at times. That was incomparably more important than the interest rate. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said that people in his constituency were not talking to him about the rate of inflation. They would not be talking to him about that, because, even though it has peaked under this Government, it is still only at the low mark of the rates reached under the last Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am well acquainted with his part of the world. I have a good memory, and I remember what people were talking about in parts of his constituency when the inflation rate was in

  401
  excess of 20 per cent. If anything wrecks small businesses, it is the rate of inflation. If there is one proven instrument to deal with that, it is interest rates. It is not a comfortable instrument, but it works.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central spoke about the Labour party policy, but understandably he did not want to dwell on it overlong. Labour party policy is to support a property tax on business. I remind the hon. Gentleman what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said:
  "we support the revaluation of business property because we are in favour of a property tax."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 3 March 1988; c. 1186.]
  The Labour party should not shed crocodile tears. The hon. Member for Fife, Central does his homework well—much better, I suspect, than some who have spoken tonight. He knows that the uniform business rate produced seemingly large increases in certain areas, not because of the concept of the tax itself, but because of a lack of revaluation since 1973.
  It is a matter of great personal grief to me that, in the three minutes remaining, I shall not have time systematically to take apart the spurious arguments of the hon. Member for Truro. I remind him that there has not been a revaluation since 1973. The first time that the revaluation was ducked was in 1978; the significance of that date is that it was the date of the Lib-Lab pact. Indeed, the Earl of Stockton once said that the Liberal party produced policies that were both interesting and original—the trouble was that none of the original policies was interesting and none of the interesting policies was original.
  The hon. Member for Truro took the same approach today. He said nothing about any Liberal alternative to the uniform business rate. He told us about a man who kept coming to see him to complain, but he did not say that he had told him what the UBR was all about. He did not tell him about the lack of revaluation, because his party was opposed to it. He did not tell him that, on average, factory rates would come down by 31 per cent. and warehouse rates by 20 per cent. Obviously there is no such thing as a popular charge. There never is, and there never will be. There is no such thing as a popular tax either, but at the end of the day the uniform business rate will be the fairest form of charge. Bearing in mind the fact that the hon. Gentleman's policy is committed to a land revaluation tax as well, it is a bit thick that he should have criticised us today.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 13, Noes 164.

  Division No. 60]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Beith, A. J.

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Howells, Geraint

  Mr. James Wallace and

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Amess, David

  Allason, Rupert

  Amos, Alan

  402

  Arbuthnot, James

  Jack, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Janman, Tim

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ashby, David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Atkins, Robert

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Kilfedder, James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Knapman, Roger

  Beggs, Roy

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Knox, David

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Benyon, W.

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Lightbown, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Lilley, Peter

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Boswell, Tim

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Maclean, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bright, Graham

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Mans, Keith

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

  Marlow, Tony

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Burns, Simon

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Burt, Alistair

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Carrington, Matthew

  Mills, Iain

  Carttiss, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Colvin, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Cormack, Patrick

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Couchman, James

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Cran, James

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Neubert, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Devlin, Tim

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Paice, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Patnick, Irvine

  Dunn, Bob

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Durant, Tony

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Eggar, Tim

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Favell, Tony

  Riddick, Graham

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Forth, Eric

  Ryder, Richard

  Franks, Cecil

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Freeman, Roger

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Fry, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Gill, Christopher

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Squire, Robin

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Gregory, Conal

  Steen, Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Grylls, Michael

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Hague, William

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

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

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Harris, David

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Thorne, Neil

  Hayward, Robert

  Thurnham, Peter

  Hind, Kenneth

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Waller, Gary

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Hunter, Andrew

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Irvine, Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  403

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Wood, Timothy

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  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 139, Noes 30.

  Division No. 61]

  [10.11 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Allason, Rupert

  Hind, Kenneth

  Amess, David

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Amos, Alan

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Irvine, Michael

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Jack, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Janman, Tim

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Kilfedder, James

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Boswell, Tim

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Lightbown, David

  Bright, Graham

  Lilley, Peter

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Maclean, David

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

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Buck, Sir Antony

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Mans, Keith

  Burt, Alistair

  Marlow, Tony

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Chapman, Sydney

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Colvin, Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Moate, Roger

  Couchman, James

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Cran, James

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Day, Stephen

  Neubert, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Paice, James

  Durant, Tony

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Eggar, Tim

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Fallon, Michael

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Favell, Tony

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Forman, Nigel

  Ryder, Richard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Forth, Eric

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Franks, Cecil

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Freeman, Roger

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Gill, Christopher

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Squire, Robin

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Gregory, Conal

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

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

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Harris, David

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Thorne, Neil

  Hayward, Robert

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  404

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Wood, Timothy

  Waller, Gary

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. Irvine Patrick.

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  McAllion, John

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley west)

  Beith, A. J.

  Martlew, Eric

  Bradley, Keith

  Meale, Alan

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Buckley, George J.

  Nellist, Dave

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Patchett, Terry

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Dixon, Don

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Wallace, James

  Gordon, Mildred

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Home Robertson, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Howells, Geraint

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the Government on creating an environment in which enterprise and small businesses are flourishing, and urges the Government to continue pursuing the policies which have led to a record increase in the numbers of self-employed and new business formations, as confirmed by the increase in registrations for value-added tax.

  PETITIONS

    Television Reception
    10.21 pm
    Ms. Mildred Gordon: I beg leave to present a petition, which I support, signed by 481 of my constituents in the London borough of Tower Hamlets. It is one of three petitions that have been sent to me by people who, having bought or rented television sets and having paid for a television licence, have found that increasing interference with reception has become so bad over the past few months that programmes are now unwatchable.
    My petitioners believe that that is due to the massive buildings being erected in Docklands, particularly at Canary Wharf.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will act to bring a swift remedy to this situation.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Dogs
  Mr. John McAllion: I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. John Lynch, and of the citizens of Dundee.
  The petition reminds the House of the savage attack that took place last year during which Kellie, the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Lynch, was killed by two Rottweiler dogs. The petition urges the House to support any amendments to the law which would require all dogs to be muzzled in public places and which would ban the private ownership of particularly powerful breeds of dogs such as Rottweilers.

  405
  Mr. and Mrs. Lynch have succeeded in gathering 15,000 signatures in support of the petition. They have shown tremendous determination, and out of this terrible incident perhaps some good will emerge at the end of the day. I urge the House to support the principles in the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Points of Order
  10.23 Pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) I am an assiduous attender in the Chamber. Today, when the Social and Liberal Democrats had the choice of subject for debate on this Supply day, I happened to be out of the Chamber for a short time while I was engaged in important constituency work. I understand that, without any notification, the Minister made an attack upon me.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, when an attack is to be made on another hon. Member, it is usual to notify that hon. Member so that he may respond. The Minister attacked a very good record of work by the Minister with responsibility for small firms in the last Labour Government, who ensured growth and prosperity for small firms. It is deeply regrettable that the Minister should feel so insecure and incompetent that he chose to attack me behind my back. It is very much to be regretted.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree with what my hon. Friend the
  406
  Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said about his being an assiduous attender in the Chamber. He is. The only reason he was missing tonight was that there was no money resolution. If there had been, I think that he would have been on his feet now. The important issue is that he was attacked—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Was the hon. Member present?
  Mr. Skinner: Yes. I was stood at the back.
  Mr. Speaker: Why did not the hon. Member raise the matter at the time? I was not in the Chair at the time. The hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) are assiduous attenders. It is a convention that, if hon. Members attack each other in the Chamber, they let the relevant hon. Member know. I cannot judge what happened in the debate to which the hon. Members have referred.
  Mr. Skinner: Let me finish this little story. My hon. Friend was attacked—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not really story time.
  Mr. Skinner: It is a bedtime story. When the Minister was attacking my hon. Friend, another Tory Member—I think it was the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—said, "Hey, just a minute. Never mind about attacking the hon. Member for Bradford, South. You should be getting interest rates down." There is a moral to the story. The Minister should not have attacked my hon. Friend; he should have been doing his job in respect of interest rates. My hon. Friend came out—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a good bedtime story, but let us have the Adjournment debate.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Cumbria)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: The Government's spending target for Cumbria is ridiculous; it reflects the classic north-south syndrome and indicates the inability of Whitehall to recognise the needs of Cumbria or of any other area outside the south-east.
  Those are not my words, but those of the leader of the Conservatives on Cumbria county council. An article in the Evening News and Star of 16 January states:
  "Tories attack Thatcher. County poll axed."
  It goes on to state that the group in Cumbria
  "would not seek to meet the Government's target which would mean cuts of up to £33 million."
  I wonder whether Mr. Gyngell and his colleagues on the county council now regret their enthusiasm for the introduction of the poll tax. They fought the 1989 election campaign on the basis of the poll tax. They said that it was a good thing. I wonder whether they are so sure now, when their electors must pay the price of the Government's policy.
  The standard spending assessment for the county fails to respect or reflect the costs of providing services, particularly education and fire services, in a large and sparsely populated county such as Cumbria. It underestimates the significance of the cost of road maintenance and winter maintenance and it inadequately funds what is called "other resources". It grossly overestimates potential interest receipts.
  I now refer to winter maintenance, to give hon. Members some idea of how the SSA was put together. Cumbria is the second largest county in England. It has within it the Lake district, with many of the highest passes in the country and very bad roads in winter. It was originally granted £90,000 for snow clearing, which is less than the London borough of Camden was granted. That gives some indication of the thought that went into the SSA. It was only through representations by Members of Parliament and a high-powered delegation from the county council that that figure was changed. It is still inadequate.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: The hon. Gentleman made a good deal of the remarks of Mr. Gyngell at the beginning of his speech. I should think him unfair if he did not add that, besides criticising the standard spending assessment for Cumbria, Mr. Gyngell criticised unnecessary overspending by the county council. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the council is dominated by the Labour party. Many people think that there are considerable opportunities for savings so that ratepayers of Cumbria do not have to pay as much over the SSA as may be the case.
  Mr. Martlew: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not tell the House which service he would like cut. People in his council—South Lakeland district council—will pay the highest poll tax in the area.
  Mr. Cecil Franks rose—
  Mr. Martlew: If the hon. Gentleman wished to speak on this subject, perhaps he should have sought an Adjournment debate. I am glad to see that I am keeping up the Conservative Members for Cumbria.
  Mr. Jopling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Martlew: I have given way once to the right hon. Gentleman. I have only a quarter of an hour at my disposal.
  It is deeply resented that Cumbria is being penalised to help the south-east. The Government came to the conclusion that they had to pay more to councils in the south-east. That was right and proper, but although it had to be funded the money did not have to come out of the pockets of people in the north of England.
  Mr. Keith Bradley: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the distribution between the south-east and the north-west. He spoke eloquently about rural areas, but urban areas are equally hit. The city of Manchester—
  Mr. Franks: A high overspender.
  Mr. Bradley: For a standstill budget, Manchester would require £449·8 million. The SSA for Manchester is £366·5 million, a shortfall of £83·3 million. On top of that, each poll tax payer in Manchester will have to pay £71 to fund the safety net, or, in other words, the Tory marginals in the north-west.
  Mr. Martlew: I agree with my hon. Friend. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) tried to make a sedentary intervention. He seems to talk in the House more about what happens in Manchester than about what happens in his own constituency.
  Mr. Franks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Martlew: I refuse to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Had Cumbria been in Wales our SSA would have been £280 million. We have £244 million because we are not a Welsh county council. Cumbria has many similarities with some of the north Wales councils. We have sparsely populated, large areas. I hope that the Minister will not come to the Dispatch Box and get away with the lame excuse that he has nothing to do with Wales and has no responsibility. My constituents want to know why they must subsidise areas in the south and why they are not supported to the same extent as the Welsh county councils.
  To go into the detailed estimates for the county, the Government say that Cumbria overspends on education to the tune of 11 per cent. They want the council to cut education by 11 per cent. That is nonsense. We do not spend enough on education in Cumbria. I plan to visit two schools in my constituency on Friday. No doubt, I shall be told that classes are large, that there are not enough teachers, that the buildings are shabby and that there are not enough books. That is a reflection of the amount of spending that is put into the county. The education system in Britain is a disgrace compared with the rest of western Europe. We should put more money into it, not take it out.
  The Government say that we should cut education expenditure by 11 per cent. If that happened, the small schools in the Tory rural areas would feel the effect. They are already feeling it under local management of schools.

  409
  We see pictures of Tory Members in the newspapers presenting petitions and complaining about the threat to rural schools. It is time that they started to do something about that instead of just picking up petitions.
  The Government say that we should cut social services spending by 7 per cent. The fact is that this week my county council has already decided to close six old folk's homes—not because they are empty, but because the county cannot afford to bring them up to standard. That is under the present assessment. What will we do if we have to cut the budget by 7 per cent.? Will we say to some old folks, "We have no place for you"? When children in this country are more at risk from sexual abuse than ever before, are we saying that we shall have to cut resources? That is what the Government are saying.
  I turn now to the police. Six months ago the Home Office told us that we would get extra police. I was one of those who lobbied for that and I welcomed the announcement. However, the SSA for Cumbria says that we have 4 per cent. too many police. Therefore, on the one hand the Home Office is recognising that we have a problem with crime—indeed, we have near record levels of crime in Cumbria—but, on the other hand, the Department of the Environment is saying that we have to sack the police that we have taken on.
  The funding of our fire service is also amazing. We have had a Home Office review and it is right that Cumbria overspends. We spend £500,000 more than the shire average. However, the Home Office review states that the high costs are not due to inefficiency or ineffectiveness. In fact, the main determination of fire costs is not population, but the nature of the fire risks to be covered. As the House knows, Cumbria has several areas of major fire risk in its boundaries. We have British Nuclear Fuels at Sellafield, the nuclear shipyard and the gas terminal at Barrow and a large ammunition depot near my constituency. They are all fire risks. The Home Office report states that there is a shortage of 16 firemen. Therefore, the force is below standard.
  However, the SSA for Cumbria on fire services says that we are overspending by 28 per cent. It implies that we should cut the service by 28 per cent. But if we do, we shall be failing to abide by the law because the Home Office has set down statutory guidelines saying that we should maintain a certain level of fire cover. If we cut the fire service budget by 28 per cent., we would have only two full-time fire stations in the county—one in Barrow and the other in Carlisle. The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), and his hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) would be most concerned about that.
  I have mentioned highways and the problem of winter maintenance. I concede that we received more than the £90,000, but only after a struggle with the Minister. While the Department of Transport says that we underspend on our roads by £1·5 million, the Government say that we are overspending and should cut our roads expenditure. If we did that, we would be cutting Cumbria's economic lifeline. It is a remote county and needs good roads. We do not have them now and we certainly will not have them if we make any cuts. When the Government announced that the poll tax for Carlisle would be £239, they were right.
  410
  However, they should have added that if we cut education expenditure by 11 per cent. and destroy our children's futures; if we cut social services expenditure by 7 per cent. and close old people's homes; if we cut 4 per cent. off the police budget and give the criminals a bonus; if we cut the highways budget by 19 per cent. and reduce our lifeline for economic viability; and if we cut the fire service budget by 28 per cent. and put lives at risk, then we could have a poll tax in Cumbria of £239. That is the truth. That is what would have to be done if we are to reach the SSA that the Government specify.
  In reality, the Cumbrian councils will not make those cuts. Indeed, the Tories on the county council have said that they will not make such cuts, and neither will the Tories on the district councils. In fact, the Lake district special planning board, over which we have no control and which has put precepts on us, will not make any cuts.
  Mr. Jopling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Martlew: I have already given way once to the right hon. Gentleman. If he wishes to make a speech on this subject, he should ask for his own Adjournment debate.
  A terrible burden has been placed on the people of my constituency. The poll tax in Carlisle, and probably in most of the south lakeland, will be between £300 and £400 rather than the £239 that the Government suggested.
  I have asked for this Adjournment debate for three reasons. First, I want the Minister to change his mind on the SSA for Cumbria. I am sure that that is why Conservative Members are here. Secondly, I wish to place on record the terrible way that the county has been treated not only by the Government but by Conservatives representing constituencies in it. On 18 January, we had a debate and then a vote on a measure that would have given Cumbria and other councils extra money. The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and the hon. Members for Barrow and Furness and for Penrith and The Border all voted against it. That is the day that they deserted the people of Cumbria. Thirdly, I want to lay down a marker for the Government and the Minister. They have done it once to Cumbria. If there is any justice, next year they will give us a fair deal with the SSA.
  10.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) wanted to reply to the debate, but, as the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has been told, my hon. Friend was called away at short notice to Southampton. However, the reason is a happy one. His wife is expecting a baby, and it is arriving early, so it is right that he should be there.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Carlisle on securing the debate and on the vigorous way in which he has put the case for a higher spending assessment for Cumbria. This is not the first time that there have been consultations and discussions between Ministers from my Department and representatives from the county council about the SSA. On 6 December last year, a cross-party delegation from Cumbria county council met my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen and put to him many of the points that the hon. Member has raised again tonight. The council put its case clearly and identified a number of aspects of the SSA where it did not do as well as it thought it should. The fact that Cumbria was able to identify so specifically where it

  411
  was not happy with the SSAs demonstrates that, at the very least, the new system is, as we had intended, much more understandable than the complex grant-related expenditure assessments that it replaces.
  Ministers in my Department have met many other delegations, from local authorities throughout the country, about local authority grant settlement for this year. We have also received many written representations. Nearly every authority from which we heard put forward reasons why it should be treated as a special case and why some element of the SSAs was not appropriate to its circumstances. My righ hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment considered all these sometimes conflicting representations and laid before the House the distribution report which defines how SSAs are calculated. He said:
  "Excluding the parish councils, there are 426 local authorities in England, and the more deputations I have received concerning SSAs, the more I have realised that there are at least 424 special cases".—[Official Report, 18 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 435.]
  Drawing up a means to distribute standard spending assessments between the 426 authorities is a difficult task. My right hon. Friend has reached a basis that is fair and strikes the right balance between the differing points of view put to him.
  The basis of the distribution is in no way arbitrary and does not seek to reward or penalise particular authorities. It is set out very clearly in the distribution report, approved by the House, which gives a formula for each of a number of service blocks. These formulae apply in exactly the same way to all authorities providing particular services. The information which feeds into the formula is derived from nationally available data sources, so that these data are provided on a consistent basis for all authorities.
  Mr. Martlew: Can the Minister explain what went wrong with the computer when it decided that Cumbria would receive £90,000 for winter maintenance but that Camden would get £125,000 for the same purpose?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall come to that in a minute. It was a useful element of the earlier consultations that such factors were spotted and dealt with. I am entirely satisfied that the settlement that finally emerged was fair and was on a consistent basis for all authorities.
  Mr. Franks: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and thereby displaying far more courage than the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who saw fit to use up only 13 minutes of a 30-minute debate, yet chose not to let me intervene.
  Will my hon. Friend bear in mind two points? First, the hon. Member for Carlisle said that Conservative Members representing Cumbria had deserted the county. Six Members of Parliament represent Cumbria, three Conservative and three Labour. All three Conservatives are in the Chamber tonight to hear the debate; two of the three Labour Members are not.
  Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend to take into account the bloated bureaucracy of county hall. It is a shameful waste of expenditure. Should not the hon. Member for Carlisle direct his fire at his Labour colleagues on the county council instead of at the Government?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes a characteristically telling point. I too have noticed that the
  412
  hon. Member for Carlisle is the only Cumbria Labour Member to attend, whereas all three Conservative Members from the area are here. I refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who has taken time out of his ministerial duties to attend this debate. All three of my right hon. and hon. Friends have consistently and vigorously promoted the interests of their constituencies and the county. That has been more productive than the mistaken allegations made by the hon. Member for Carlisle.
  If the Labour party ever makes progress in bringing forward alternative proposals for local government finance—we await them with interest—the hon. Member will still have to face up to the problem of how to distribute grant between local authorities. A balance must be struck between making the system reasonably simple and understandable—by limiting the number of criteria—and including ever more criteria to take account of every conceivable circumstance. The latter system would immediately become too complex and opaque—features of the system that we have replaced. It became too complex to be understandable even by those who work in local government.
  I shall return to the details of the SSAs for authorities in Cumbria, but first I must mention the overall provision in the settlement for 1990–91 for England as a whole. The plain fact is that the total standard spending for 1990–91—the amount that we consider it appropriate for local authorities to spend in total from revenue to provide services—is a full 11 per cent. higher, at £32·8 billion, than the equivalent for 1989–90.
  Perhaps I may now turn to Cumbria itself and put on record that for 1990–91 Cumbria county council told us that a budget of £278 million would, in its terms, be needed to maintain services. This represents a cash increase of more than 11·5 per cent. over its equivalent total expenditure for 1989–90, and seems to me to be rather more than should be needed simply to maintain services. It does not suggest that the council has made further efforts to find savings. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness pointed out where it could start to look. I hope that, now that it knows its final standard spending assessment and the grant and business rates going to district councils in Cumbria, it will be able to look again and find further savings to benefit its charge payers. In broad terms, every £1 million by which Cumbria county council could reduce its budget could lead to a reduction in community charges in its area of almost £3 per charge payer. All savings that local authorities can make will now feed through, pound for pound, into reductions in the community charge.
  As I have already said, my hon. Friend listened very carefully to the points that Cumbria county council made when it came to see him. One of the points that most strongly concerned it was its assessment for highway maintenance—a point raised by the hon. Member for Carlisle also—and in particular for winter maintenance. Several other authorities with climate and geography similar to Cumbria's also told us that the winter maintenance SSAs seemed out of line with expenditure. As I have said, we looked again at this and realised that the formula we published in the consultation documents on 6 November did not adequately reflect my right hon.

  413
  Friend's desired treatment of winter maintenance. On 8 December last we wrote to all local authorities informing them of this.
  This has been of very considerable benefit to Cumbria county council—a point not made by the hon. Gentleman. Its SSA for highway maintenance in the final figures is £1·587 million higher than the figure published on 6 November. Taken with other changes—in particular, more up-to-date figures for credit approvals—Cumbria county council's SSA is now almost £2·5 million higher than the figures published in November.
  Mr. Martlew: The Minister does me a disservice. I indicated that the £90,000 that had originally been given by the Government was increased. But that was not because of anything done by the Minister or any of his minions; an all-party delegation of councillors from Cumbria had to come and tell the Minister that in the winter it is colder in Cumbria than in Camden, and that Cumbria has many more roads and a lot more housing. Otherwise we would have received £90,000.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Cumbria county council was not the only authority to raise that point with my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend. It was as part of the wider consultation procedure that we took a further look at highway maintenance and, in particular, winter maintenance and came to the conclusion that an adjustment was necessary. I wish that the hon. Gentleman were rather less grudging in conceding that we moved very significantly to increase the subsequent SSA. All of this means that the SSA for Cumbria county council is now £246·476 million, which is an increase over its equivalent GRE in 1989–90 of 7·3 per cent. That figure is close to the current rate of RPI inflation, and well above our estimate of the GDP deflator, which is perhaps more relevant to local government spending. Not only does Cumbria have an increase of about the rate of inflation, but its SSA per adult is around the average for shire counties. Its SSA is £643 per adult and the average is £653. Some 19 out of 39 shire counties have lower SSAs per adult than Cumbria.
  414
  That cannot be construed as unfair treatment for Cumbria. The hon. Member for Carlisle stayed away from those figures.
  Mr. Jopling: Those figures are all very well, but my hon. Friend must understand that many people other than those in Cumbria are complaining. The way in which the SSAs have been worked out taxes the loyalty of many of the Minister's supporters. As the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said, how can one possibly justify an SSA which says that spending on the fire service must be cut when the Home Office says that spending should be increased?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I had hoped that in the closing minutes of the debate I could come to some of the specific points made. The review of SSAs for the fire service looked at many options. The approach that was finally adopted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has the support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the fire services.
  Although the SSA for an authority is made up of a number of elements, we do not ask authorities to compare their expenditure with those elements service by service. It is the overall comparison between spending and SSA that is important. Local authorities retain discretion to set their overall level of spending and to decide how that should be distributed across the services that they should provide. Cumbria will see a 7·3 per cent. increase between its SSA for 1990–91 and its equivalent SSA for 1989–90 GRE.
  I welcome this chance to debate the matter in detail. I hope that I have covered all the points raised by the hon. Member for Carlisle, but I shall write to him on any that I have failed to cover. I am satisfied that the new system of SSAs is simpler and more understandable than the old system of GREs and that the result for Cumbria is fair. It is for Cumbria county council to examine its expenditure plans and to play its part in setting a reasonable community charge.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENERGY

  Electricity Supply Industry
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's estimate as to the tonnage of limestone required per year if the limestone-gypsum process of flue gas desulphurisation were to be used on 12,000 MW of electricity generating capacity.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am advised by the CEGB that the estimated annual limestone requirement for a 2,000 MW power station is 300,000 tonnes. On this basis a 12,000 MW programme would be likely to require the purchase of around 1,800,000 tonnes of limestone annually.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of the annual output of sulphur dioxide would be stopped from being discharged if 12,000 MW of generating capacity were fitted with flue gas desulphurisation equipment.

  Mr. Baldry
  Flue gas desulphurisation equipment can remove up to 90 per cent. of a power station's annual emissions of sulphur dioxide. The actual percentage of overall annual output abated would depend on the operating characteristics of the stations to which the equipment was fitted, including the sulphur content of the coal burnt.

  Natural Gas (Water Removal)
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) how many installations on the United Kingdom continental shelf use triethylene glycol as a part of the process of water removal from natural gas; and how many of these installations use cold vent stripper gas;

  (2) how many offshore installations on the United Kingdom continental shelf use the DRIZO process of water removal from natural gas; and what other methods of water removal are currently in use on offshore installations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  This information is not held within the Department. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps have been taken by his Department, under its obligations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, to monitor the effect of triethylene glycol in water removal processes from natural gas.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Primary responsibility for safety of persons on offshore installations rests with the operator. My inspectors, in carrying out inspections of installations, monitor all aspects of safety including employers' responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971.

  Offshore Installations (Discharges)
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many prosecutions under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act he has initiated against operators of offshore installations on the United Kingdom continental shelf for the discharge of unsafe quantities of benzene and toluene into the atmosphere.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  None.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what studies have been undertaken by him into the exposure of offshore workers to benzene and toluene, the effects on the health of workers of such exposure, and into the present and future hazard such exposure presents to the health of offshore workers;

  (2) whether he has made any assessment of the carcinogenic properties of benzene and toluene; and what steps he has taken to prevent the release of benzene and toluene into the atmosphere on oil and gas installations on the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  It is the responsibility of the operator to ensure that all reasonably practicable precautions have been taken against any danger to which persons on an offshore installation may be exposed by the use of any dangerous substance.

  There is a wide range of information available on these matters, which are not exclusive to the offshore industry. In particular, the Health and Safety Commission's Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances has considered the effects of both benzene and toluene on workers generally. Additionally, a study has been undertaken by this Department of the hazards of contaminants in diving breathing gases and in decompression systems. A follow-up study set out safe exposure limits for divers in decompression on a wide range of contaminants, including benzene and toluene. A survey has been undertaken of methods of accurately sampling gas contaminants in hyperbaric chambers.

  Central Electricity Generating Board
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will call for a report from the Central Electricity Generating Board as to how much it has paid British Nuclear Fuels plc for(a) reprocessing and (b) decommissioning for each year from 1985 to 1989.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a commercial matter for the CEGB. I have therefore asked the chairman to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will provide a breakdown of his current assessment of total fuel cycle cost for nuclear power per kilowatt hour including the cost of uranium, reprocessing, enrichment, where applicable, and waste disposal.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a commercial matter for the nuclear industry.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessments he made of the effect of methane leakages associated with gas-fired power stations, before consents were granted for the projects listed in his answer of 8 January,Official Report, column 475.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Environmental considerations are taken into account when considering gas burn consent proposals. Our assessment in general is that methane leakages from the high pressure distribution system are very low; and new gas-fired generation plant is not expected to add to the overall emissions of methane from the United Kingdom system.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Frank Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, what is his estimate of the current maximum electricity generating capacity in England and Wales in the public and private sectors, respectively; and what is his estimate for each year up to 1995–96.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The declared net capacity of (commissioned) generating plant in England and Wales is 55.1 GW in the public sector; private generating capacity for Great Britain as a whole is 3.7 GW. Capacity in subsequent years is a matter for future electricity generating companies.

  Mine Closures
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the closure dates of Danygraid mine, Nant Medlyn mine, Darren mine (West Glamorgan), Hall of Auchinross mine (Ayrshire), Wrytree drift mine and Robin Rock mine (Northumberland).

  Medical laboratory scientific officers in post as at 30 September (whole-time equivalents)

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  Clwyd

  88·8

  90·9

  87·1

  97·8

  96·6

  99·5

  103·6

  94·1

  East Dyfed

  76·6

  79·1

  77·8

  77·0

  80·5

  81·4

  82·2

  70·4

  Gwent

  106·2

  110·9

  109·7

  112·8

  110·2

  118·1

  113·4

  111·5

  Gwynedd

  47·0

  54·0

  61·0

  62·0

  64·9

  62·0

  58·0

  59·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  138·1

  141·5

  138·0

  154·5

  155·7

  159·0

  159·2

  141·2

  Pembrokeshire

  30·1

  30·7

  30·8

  32·5

  31·0

  31·0

  30·9

  28·6

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  275·9

  281·0

  279·5

  283·0

  280·0

  290·7

  293·6

  271·9

  West Glamorgan

  97·0

  97·0

  95·0

  102·8

  105·5

  108·1

  103·7

  104·9

  1 Those staff previously graded as junior medical laboratory scientific officers who were not following a course of training leading to state registration have been regraded to the appropriate laboratory support grade and have not been included in these figures.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Salaries
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what information he possesses on comparable parliamentary salaries, exclusive of allowances in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) Australia and (e) the United States of America, for the latest published figures available.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The information requested is as follows:
  180
  Mr. Wakeham
  The Department does not have this information. I have therefore asked the chairman of British Coal to write to the hon. Member.

  NHS Ambulance Staff
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what National Health Service ambulance staff based in South Yorkshire have participated in any exercises of local emergency plans at nuclear installations; from which stations staff came; and what was the exercise location in each case;

  (2) what specialist equipment, including personal dosimeters, radial survey meters and decontamination meters are available for National Health Service ambulance staff in South Yorkshire; and what specialist training they have received.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  Equipment for Health Service staff and emergency planning is a matter for health authorities. I suggest the hon. Member contacts the chairman of Trent regional health authority for the information he seeks.

WALES

  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many medical laboratory scientific officers have been newly appointed to each health authority in Wales in each year since 1982.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on the number of newly appointed medical laboratory scientific officers is not available centrally. However, information on staff in post is shown in the following table:

  Country

  Salary (per annum)

  United Kingdom Member of the House of Commons

  £26,701. All Taxable

  France Deputy in the National Assembly

  FFr 424,111 (£44,776) of which 45 per cent., FFr 190,850 (£20,149), is tax-free

  Federal German Republic Member of the Bundestag

  DM 110,652 (£39,693). All taxable

  Australia Federal Member of the House of Representatives

  A$ 55,000 (£25,439). All taxable

  181

  Country

  Salary (per annum)

  United States of America Member of the House of Representatives

  1US$ 89,500(£54,039). All taxable

  1Congressman's salaries have not been increased since 1988

  Note: The sterling figures calculated using rates of exchange at the close of business on 24 January 1990.

  Office Accommodation
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many personal offices are available and assigned to hon. Members of Parliament(a) within the Houses of Parliament, (b) within the Norman Shaw building and (c) elsewhere.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Rooms are available and allocated for right hon. and hon. Members' personal use as follows:

  Number

  (a) Palace of Westminster

  163

  (b) Norman Shaw North and Norman Shaw South

  129

  (c) St. Stephen's House, 3 Dean's Yard, 2 The Abbey Garden and 7 Old Palace Yard

  42

  Secretarial and Research Allowances
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the level of secretarial and research allowance available to a Member of (i) the United Kingdom Parliament, (ii) the United States Congress and (iii) the Federal Republic of Germany Bundestag.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Members of the House of Commons are eligible to claim the office costs allowance for general office expenses and secretarial and research assistance up to a maximum of £24,903 per annum, with an additional maximum of £2,490 (10 per cent.) provided for employer pension contributions of any staff employed. I will provide the additional information requested as soon as possible.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Northampton, North, of 25 January,Official Report, column 1054, if he will give the Hansard reference for the answer to which he referred.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The clarity and distinction to which I intended to refer was of course that of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 17 January at columns 291–304.

  Televising of Proceedings
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what consideration the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House has given to changes in the rules of coverage for the televising experiment.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  At its meeting on 29 January, the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House considered a number of representations from the broadcasters for experimental modifications to the rules of coverage (the guidelines to the television director as to the 182
  types of shots which may or may not be used). On this basis, the following changes to the rules set out in the Committee's first report of Session 1988–89 have been approved.

  Reaction Shots

  The rule which permits a reaction shot of a Member who has been referred to will be interpreted less strictly so that a specific mention of the Member's constituency, or in the case of a Minister, his office, will not be necessary; so long as it is clear to the director which member is being referred to, a reaction shot will be permitted. As under the existing rules, this change will not apply at Question Time or during ministerial statements and subsequent questioning.

  Group Shots

  A group shot—mid way between the standard head and shoulders shot and the wide-angle shot—will be permitted; such shots may be used either for the purposes of showing the reaction of a group of Members or in order to establish the geography of a particular part of the Chamber. This shot will be available to the director at any time, including Question Time and during ministerial statements and subsequent questioning.

  Second Feed of Wide-Angle Shot

  A second feed, showing a continuous single wide-angle shot from the end of the Chamber, will be provided as soon as the necessary technical facilities are available. This feed may be used only for editing purposes; it may not be used for separate live transmission, or for mixing electronically with the main feed for live transmission. The second feed will be time-coded, and extracts from it may only be employed in their correct chronological sequence within the proceedings of the House.

  Zoom Shots

  The Committee has also decided that the director should be encouraged to make appropriate use of his ability, under the existing rules, to zoom in on a Member speaking or to zoom out to show the same Member in relation to colleagues in his or her vicinity.

  All these changes, including the supply of the second feed, will be subject to the existing rules relating to the coverage of incidents of disorder. During such periods when the director is required to focus on Mr. Speaker, the second feed will be withdrawn.

  In deciding to approve all these changes, the Committee has been particularly swayed by the argument that the House has agreed to an experiment and that the only way of establishing whether certain shots are appropriate is to see them in operation. The House will, of course, be the final judge when it considers the Committee's detailed Report on the outcome of the experiment.

  It is hoped that these revised guidelines for the television director will be brought into effect on Thursday 1 February. Although no time limit has been set at this stage on the duration of the changes, the Select Committee will monitor very closely their impact on the way in which the House's proceedings are covered and will review their operation as the experiment continues. As the Committee's report made clear, further modifications

  183
  during the course of the experiment, whether in the direction of greater latitude or increased strictness, cannot be ruled out.

  The report also stipulated that the rules of coverage for the Chamber (and, by implication, any changes in the rules)
  "should apply mutatis mutandis to Committees".

  I should stress, however, that there is no question at this stage of a second feed from Committees.

  Officers of the House (Salaries)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will give figures, grades, titles and ranks for all officers of the House whose salaries are(a) higher and (b) lower than those of hon. Members.

  Mr. Beith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir. G. Finsberg) on 16 November 1989 at columns 374–77.

  House of Commons Library
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many professional librarians in the Library are(a) full-time and (b) part-time.

  Mr. Beith
  Of the 32 professional librarian posts in the Library, 30 are filled by full-time staff. Four part-time staff share the remaining two posts.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many researchers in the Library are(a) full-time and (b) part-time.

  Mr. Beith
  There are 27 research posts in the Library. Of these, 24 are filled by full-time staff. Six part-time staff share the remaining three posts.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many researchers in the Library are currently working in the fields of defence and foreign affairs.

  Medical and Dental Staff (W.T.E)

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Clwyd

  244

  246

  258

  268

  273

  283

  277

  286

  287

  275

  283

  East Dyfed

  199

  216

  222

  225

  173

  179

  186

  191

  197

  196

  201

  Pembrokeshire

  60

  71

  66

  73

  70

  69

  75

  Gwent

  298

  318

  321

  330

  338

  342

  340

  340

  345

  360

  365

  Gwynedd

  123

  133

  139

  147

  152

  151

  164

  164

  165

  162

  161

  Mid Glamorgan

  324

  343

  368

  373

  379

  379

  392

  384

  392

  403

  420

  Powys

  34

  34

  35

  34

  33

  35

  34

  35

  32

  33

  37

  South Glamorgan

  588

  603

  599

  634

  644

  660

  653

  675

  674

  648

  682

  West Glamorgan

  283

  288

  292

  297

  301

  304

  308

  317

  308

  325

  321

  Cardiac Surgery
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on the availability of coronary bypass surgery facilities in West Glamorgan;

  (2) whether he will initiate policies to improve the development of cardiac surgery services in south-west Wales.
  184
  Mr. Beith
  Four full-time research staff (one of whom specialises in defence matters) currently work in these areas. Certain aspects of defence and foreign affairs—for example, those inquiries involving statistical and economic expertise—are handled by research staff in other sections of the Library.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the current annual budget of the Library; and how much is allocated to(a) research activities and (b) librarian activities.

  Mr. Beith
  The current annual budget of the Library Department, which includes the Vote Office as well as the parliamentary and research divisions, stands at £3,241,000. This figure covers staff costs, the cost of purchase, binding and repair of books, and other Library services. The Library runs an integrated service, and it is therefore not practicable to separate the costs of research activities from those of librarian activities.

WALES

  Midwives
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff midwives were in post on 30 September in each health authority in Wales in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Grist
  Information is available centrally only on the total staff in post for all nursing and midwifery staff. Currently, breakdowns of these figures into occupation category are not considered reliable.

  Medical and Dental Staff
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the number of medical and dental staff whole-time equivalents in Wales in each year between 1978 and the latest available year, by health authority.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Mr. Grist
  Cardiac surgery facilities are presently available to patients from West Glamorgan at the regional cardiac unit at the University hospital of Wales, Cardiff. Our policies for the improvement of cardiac services, based on the report of the cardiology committee of the Royal College of Physicians, were announced in July 1989. They include the development of the regional unit, which is presently in hand, and the appraisal of options for a second unit in south Wales, which will commence shortly.

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in his Department; in what locations; and if they have to make a contribution to this service.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department does not currently provide creche facilities for its staff. It is looking at the possibility in conjunction with other Government Departments in Cardiff.

  Table 1

  Civilian Workforce in Employment in Wales Thousands, Unadjusted

  Males

  Females

  Total

  March 1979

  710·9

  429·3

  1.140·2

  June 1979

  716·2

  440·7

  1,156·9

  September 1979

  719·9

  439·7

  1,159·6

  December 1979

  712·0

  442·8

  1,154·8

  Table 2

  Civilian Workforce in Employment in Wales Quarterly Changes, Thousands, Unadjusted

  Actual

  per cent.

  Actual

  per cent.

  Actual

  per cent.

  March 1979

  —2·7

  —0·4

  —3·6

  —0·8

  —6·3

  —0·5

  June 1979

  5·3

  0·7

  11·4

  2·7

  16·7

  1·5

  September 1979

  3·7

  0·5

  —1·0

  —0·2

  2·7

  0·2

  December 1979

  —7·9

  —1·1

  3·1

  0·7

  —4·8

  —0·4

  Change between March 1980 and June 1980

  —10·0

  —1·4

  2·0

  0·5

  —8·0

  —0·7

  Table 3

  Civilian Workforce in Employment in Wales Annual Changes, Thousands, Unadjusted

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Actual

  per cent

  Actual

  per cent

  Actual

  per cent

  March 1979

  Data not available

  June 1979

  0·7

  0·1

  14·5

  3·4

  15·3

  1·3

  September 1979

  2·8

  0·4

  9·9

  2·3

  12·7

  1·1

  December 1979

  —1·6

  —0·2

  9·9

  2·3

  8·3

  0·7

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to make special financial allocations to Welsh local authorities to assist them in tackling the storm damage of 25 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I announced on Friday 26 January that special financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme would be available to local authorities in Wales which would otherwise suffer an undue financial burden because of the effects of the severe weather on 25 January. The Welsh Office will shortly be writing to all local authorities with full details of how the scheme will apply in Wales.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated extent of damage in Wales concerning the 25 January storm; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  It is still too early to quantify the cost of damage for Wales as a whole.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his letter of 12 January 1990 to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside on employment in Wales, if he will state in the Official Report (a) total civilian work force in employment in Wales, and sub-divided by males and females, in (i) March 1979, (ii) June 1979, (iii) September 1979 and (iv) December 1979; (b) the actual and percentage quarterly changes for each in (a); the actual and percentage quarterly change between March 1980 and June 1980 and (d) the actual and percentage annual change for each in (a).

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is shown in the following tables:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. Kevin Taylor
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will make a statement on the discontinuance of the trial against Mr. Kevin Taylor.

  The Attorney-General
  No.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General how many Queen's counsel there are at the English Bar; and, of these, how many are(a) men, (b) women, (c) black and (d) Asian.

  The Attorney-General
  As at 1 October 1989, there were 640 Queen's counsel at the English Bar, of whom 610 were men and 30 were women. Neither the Bar Council nor the Lord Chancellor's Department keeps records of the ethnic origin of Queen's counsel, but it is understood that there are three black and three Asian silks.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he proposes any changes to the Serious Fraud Office's cash and running cost limits for 1989–90.

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class XI, vote 12 will be increased by £50,000 from £5,764,000 to £5,814,000. Within this total the running costs limit of the Department will increase by £50,000 from £5,372,000 to £5,422,000. This increase will enable the Serious Fraud Office to meet extra costs arising from its casework. The increase will be charged to the reserve.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) if he will list any research reports or policy analyses received from outside management consultants after January 1985, but commissioned by his Department before that date, and the date of completion and cost of each contract;

  (2) if he will list the contracts his Department has given to outside management consultants in policy areas concerning his Department since January 1985, and the date of completion and cost of each contract.

  The Attorney-General
  The legal secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office have not received such research reports or policy analyses and have not given contracts to outside management consultants in policy areas. The Crown prosecution service has given the following contracts to outside consultants, largely in management areas, since the service was created in 1986:Strategic planning and budgeting study by Hay Management Consultants, completed April 1987, cost £37,000;
  Telecommunications strategy study by Logica, completed January 1987, cost £20,000;
  Internal communication study by Charles Barker Communications, completed December 1987, cost £29,000;
  Information study, asistance from the Mindworks Partnership, completed March 1989, cost £40,000;
  Staffing model feasibility study by P. A. Management Consultants, completed December 1988, cost £37,000;
  Staffing model development by P. A. Management Consultants, completed January 1990, cost £135,000;
  Evaluation of the use of information technology to present evidence in court by the human science and advanced technology research centre, Loughborough university, for completion February 1990, cost £15,000.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what action the Government are taking to persuade the Ethiopian Government to allow church workers to provide famine relief in Tigray;

  (2) what aid the Government intend to provide to the Joint Relief Partnership of church agencies to provide famine relief in rebel-controlled areas of Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government very much welcome the announcement on 18 January of agreement between the Ethiopian Government's relief agency and the Joint Relief 188
  Partnership (JRP) of local church groups on arrangements for the distribution of relief supplies within Tigray. A positive response from the rebel side is vital, and we have been in touch with their representatives here to this end. The Ethiopian Government meanwhile issued a fresh appeal for food aid on 26 January, taking account of the needs of Tigray. I have approved an immediate response to this appeal of 10,000 tonnes of wheat flour (equivalent to 13,700 tonnes of wheat) to be channelled through British NGOs in support of this JRP operation. The cost of this will be about £2·6 million. I have also approved a further £1 million of emergency aid. Much of this will be used to support JRP operations in Tigray and Eritrea. This new aid is in addition to commitments totalling £18·5 million in 1989.

  Cambodia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what decision has been made in response to a request from Medical and Scientific Aid for Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, for a grant to send oral rehydration sachets to Cambodia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Supplies for oral rehydration treatment are already available in south-east Asia. It would not be cost effective to supply them from the United Kingdom as proposed. We are ready to consider proposals from NGOs for primary health care activities in Cambodia under the joint funding scheme.

  Foreign Aid
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a table or chart showing for the last five years (a) the flows of aid from the United Kingdom to (i) South America, (ii) Africa and (iii) Asia and the middle east and (b) the proportions in each case of this aid tied to trade deals involving United Kingdom companies.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The answer is as follows:

  United Kingdom gross bilateral aid 1984–88 (£,000)

  Of which ATP1

  Percentage of ATP to gross aid

  South America

  1984

  17,755

  6,427

  36·2

  1985

  19,591

  3,713

  19·0

  1986

  17,313

  453

  2·6

  1987

  16,301

  85

  0·5

  1988

  14,725

  434

  2·9

  Africa

  1984

  268,041

  8,002

  3·0

  1985

  315,397

  3,547

  1·1

  1986

  284,723

  8,761

  3·1

  1987

  304,650

  10,534

  3·5

  1988

  422,030

  10,422

  2·5

  Asia and Middle East

  1984

  306,226

  37,090

  12·1

  1985

  255,256

  31,328

  12·3

  1986

  315,577

  68,973

  21·9

  1987

  216,053

  17,425

  8·1

  1988

  298,499

  42,838

  14·4

  1 Expenditure under the Aid and Trade Provision.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official

  189
  Report a table showing in United States dollars for each year since 1980 and for 1989 to the latest available date, the annual amounts allocated to Third-world development aid by (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the EEC, including the United Kingdom, (c) the EEC, excluding the United Kingdom, (d) the United States of America, (e) Japan

  Disbursements of Net Official Development Assistance 1980–88

  United Kingdom

  EEC Countries1

  EEC Countries1

  USA

  Japan

  Australia and New Zealand

  (Including United Kingdom)

  (Excluding United Kingdom)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  (f)

  $ million

  Per cent. GNP

  $ million

  Per cent. GNP

  $ million

  Per cent. GNP

  $ million

  Per cent. GNP

  $ million

  Per cent. GNP

  $ million

  Per cent. GNP

  1980

  1,854

  0·35

  12,972

  0·47

  11,118

  0·50

  7,138

  0·27

  3,353

  0·32

  739

  0·46

  1981

  2,192

  0·43

  12,704

  0·53

  10,512

  0·56

  5,782

  0·19

  3,171

  0·28

  718

  0·40

  1982

  1,800

  0·37

  12,230

  0·53

  10,430

  0·57

  8,202

  0·27

  3,023

  0·28

  947

  0·52

  1983

  1,610

  0·35

  11,537

  0·51

  9,927

  0·55

  8,081

  0·24

  3,761

  0·32

  814

  0·46

  1984

  1,429

  0·33

  11,330

  0·51

  9,901

  0·55

  8,711

  0·24

  4,319

  0·34

  832

  0·43

  1985

  1,530

  0·33

  11,620

  0·51

  10,090

  0·55

  9,403

  0·24

  3,797

  0·29

  803

  0·46

  1986

  1,737

  0·31

  16,122

  0·51

  14,385

  0·55

  9,564

  0·23

  5,634

  0·29

  827

  0·44

  1987

  1,871

  0·28

  19,093

  0·49

  17,222

  0·53

  8,945

  0·20

  7,342

  0·31

  714

  0·32

  1988

  2,645

  0·32

  21,231

  0·49

  18,586

  0·53

  10,141

  0·21

  9,134

  0·32

  1,206

  0·44

  1 EEC Countries which are members of DAC:—Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland*, Italy, Netherlands, United Kingdom.

  * Ireland not included in 1980 and 1981 as figures not available.

  Eastern Europe
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will include aid to eastern Europe when calculating the percentage of gross national product spent on aid for figures collected by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Assistance Committee.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The reporting of aid to eastern Europe is currently under discussion in the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD.

  Yanomami Indians
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to make known to the Government of Brazil the concern in Britain about the treatment of the Yanomami indians.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I believe the Government's views about the treatment of indigenous minority groups are well known to other Governments, including Brazil. We shall take all suitable opportunities to express our legitimate concern about the plight of the Yanomami indians. However, we must respect the rights of sovereign countries to conduct their own affairs in accordance with their laws. In this case, we must await the outcome of the due legal processes in Brazil.

  I hope that the environmental technical co-operation programme now being developed, in the context of the memorandum of understanding signed in Brasilia last July by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr.
  190
  and (f) Australia and New Zealand, and the proportions these amounts represent of each nation's gross national product.

  Mrs. Chalker
  This information is set out in the table. Figures for 1989 are not yet available. The figures for the EC relate to those EC countries which are members of the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD:

  Patten), will enable us to contribute directly or indirectly to solving some of these problems. I am ready to consider proposals from relevant organisations for medical or other humanitarian assistance for the Yanomami. None has so far been received, but proposals will be welcomed.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list by location where creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in his Department; and if they have to make any payment for this service.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Duchy of Lancaster does not provide creche facilities for working mothers.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disabled People
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what eligibility criteria he used in estimating in paragraph 4.13 of "The Way Ahead" that 150,000 people would benefit from the proposed mobility component.

  Mr. Scott
  It is assumed that the lower level of the mobility component will be awarded to people aged between five and 65 at the time of their claim who, by virtue of a physical or a mental disability, are not
  191
  independently mobile. Precise details of the eligibility criteria will be considered in working up proposals for the disability allowance.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration was given in the Government's proposals for disability benefits to the introduction of an allowance for disabled people for costs not arising from mobility or attendance needs but which are nevertheless associated with a person's disability; and what were the reasons for rejecting it.

  Mr. Scott
  In re-examining benefits which help with the extra costs of disability we considered ways in which these benefits might be restructured, including a range of points-based assessment schemes which took into account disabilities other than locomotion and self care. When related to existing benefit entitlements these produced widespread changes in people's entitlements to benefit, with unacceptably high numbers of losers. Such a scheme would also involve considerable administrative complexity.

  The proposed disability allowance builds on the existing benefits. As paragraph 4.2 of "The Way Ahead" Cm. 917 explained, the surveys of disability carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys suggest that the existing benefits are well directed towards the most common of the more costly disabilities. Equally important, the benefits provide help to people with other disabilities which are frequently combined with locomotion or self-care disabilities.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what eligibility criteria he used to estimate in paragraph 4.12 of "The Way Ahead" that 140,000 people would benefit from the proposed care component.

  Mr. Scott
  It is assumed that the lower level of the care component will be awarded to people aged 65 or under at the time of their claim who need repeated help in connection with their bodily functions but who need that help less frequently than those who currently qualify for attendance allowance. Precise details of the eligibility criteria will be considered in working up proposals for the disability allowance.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the surplus or deficit in the national insurance fund for each financial year since 1979; and what is his estimate for the current year and for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is in the table.

  Surplus/deficit of fund income against expenditure for each year £ billion

  Balance held in the national insurance fund at the end of each year £ billion

  1979–80

  +0·54

  4·63

  1980–81

  +0·41

  5·04

  1981–82

  -0·99

  4·05

  1982–83

  -0·03

  4·02

  1983–84

  +0·58

  4·60

  1984–85

  +0·38

  4·98

  1985–86

  +0·31

  52·9

  1986–87

  +0·42

  5·71

  192

  Surplus/deficit of fund income against expenditure for each year £ billion

  Balance held in the national insurance fund at the end of each year £ billion

  1987–88

  +1·58

  7·29

  1988–89

  +3·08

  10·37

  1989–901

  -0·96

  9·41

  1990–911

  -1·70

  7·69

  1 Figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 are estimates by the Government Actuary.

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by location where creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in his Department; and if they have to make any payment for this service.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No creche facilities are available at present but there are plans for a nursery to open at our Hertford office in February 1990. This nursery will cater for 10 children under five years of age. Other locations are considering the introduction of nursery facilities and the development of new holiday play schemes. We have already established holiday play schemes in several different parts of the country, often in collaboration with other Government Departments and other local employers. All staff using child care facilities are required to make a financial contribution.

  Mobility and Attendance Allowance
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how existing levels of benefit for mobility allowance claimants will be protected.

  Mr. Scott
  People will qualify for the upper level of the mobility component and the upper two levels of the care component and the upper two levels of the care component on the basis of assessment criteria similar to those currently employed for mobility allowance and attendance allowance respectively. The introduction of the disability allowance will produce only gainers, and we do not envisage any need for transitional protection.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will give details of the formula by which social fund local office allocations will be calculated for the year 1990–91;

  (2) when he expects to announce the local office allocations for the social fund for 1990–91;

  (3) whether the additional allocations made to certain local offices for their social fund expenditure in 1989–90 will be taken into account when allocations for 1990–91 are calculated.

  Mr. Scott
  Individual social fund allocations to local offices for 1990–91 and details of the basis on which they are made will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what criteria were used to determine which local offices would receive an extra allocation in December for their social fund budgets.

  Mr. Scott
  The extra allocation was made to those local offices whose budgets had come under exceptional
  193
  pressure as a result of high levels of demand. Particular factors taken into account included the extent to which the expenditure of individual offices exceeded their expenditure profiles, and changes in the levels of priority they were able to meet during the course of the year.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when it is expected that the social fund loans element will achieve a balance between the value of loans paid out and the value of repayments received.

  Mr. Scott
  It is not envisaged that the loans budget should achieve such a balance.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will take further action to ease the difficulties experienced by those local offices which were not given extra allocations for their social fund budgets in December and which are now experiencing difficulties as great as those that were given extra allocations in managing their budgets.

  Mr. Scott
  Additional allocations have been made to a further 10 offices bringing the total number of offices helped to 106. We are continuing to monitor the situation closely. A revised list of offices has been placed in the Library today.

  State Pensions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which countries of the European Economic Community have state pension schemes that include(a) an earnings-related retirement component, (b) an earnings-related component with a widow's pension on death before retirement and (c) an earnings-related component with invalidity pension.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the right hon. Member to the Department's annual publication "Tables of Social Benefit Systems in the European Communities", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Benefits (Charitable and Voluntary Payments)
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the treatment of charitable and voluntary payments in the income-related benefits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We propose to double to £10 a week the current disregard for charitable and voluntary payments made to people in receipt of an income-related benefit. In addition, we intend to disregard completely any regular charitable or voluntary payment which is intended and used for an item other than certain accommodation costs already met by benefit, food, ordinary clothing or footwear, and household fuel.

  Regulations will be introduced shortly to give effect to both these proposals in income support and family credit from April 1990. Housing benefit and community charge benefit regulations will also provide for a £10 a week disregard from April 1990 and for a disregard of regular payments for certain items from October 1990.

  These proposals will enable charities, voluntary bodies and relatives to give more help to people without affecting their benefits.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who are eligible for a rebate of the community charge will not receive the rebate because it falls under the minimum amount payable; and what is the total sum involved.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 24 January 1990]The most recent estimates for Great Britain for 1990–91 suggest that 130,000 benefit units or 170,000 individuals will be eligible for community charge benefit but not receive benefit because it falls under the minimum amount payable. The sum involved is about £1·5 million. These figures compare with current estimates of an expected caseload in Great Britain of some 7·9 million benefit units and 9·75 million individuals, with a total cost to central Government, in terms of community charge benefit, of £1·75 billion.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what importance he attaches to the involvement of the tourism and hospitality industry in the development of the training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is very much in the interests of the tourism industry to become involved in the new training and enterprise councils so that the councils properly address the issues relevant to that industry. From 1 April regional tourist boards will be given much more Government money to help with this process; the North West tourist board, in particular, is already very active in this regard.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average weekly training allowance, including the training premium, for each ET trainee.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The average weekly training allowance including the training premium is estimated to be around £50 per trainee on employment training.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for each region and for Great Britain as a whole the number of filled and contracted places in ET in the health and personal social services fields; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information about the number of filled and contracted places in employment training is not available broken down into health and personal social services or other occupational categories.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much has been paid by his Department in training bonuses to ET trainees since the start of the programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To the end of December 1989 the Training Agency had paid out £2·2 million in training bonuses.
  195
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much has been paid out through the underpinning arrangements to ET managers and agents; and how much has been paid to those organisations to cover redundancy payments, since the start of ET.

  Mr. Nicholls
  From September 1988 up to and including December 1989, some £1·19 million has been paid to employment training training agents and £31 million to employment training training managers under underpinning arrangements. In the same period £2·7 million has been paid to former community programme managing agents in redundancy payments, for employees in community programme schemes who transferred to employment training and were subsequently made redundant.

  Factory Inspectorate
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many enforcement visits it is envisaged will be paid by the factory inspectorate in 1990 in order to enforce (i) the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988, (ii) the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 1989 and (iii) the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The 1990–91 plans provide for factory inspectors in the Health and Safety Executive's new field operations division to make some 159,000 preventive inspections, at all of which inspectors will consider compliance with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988, the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 and the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 where these regulations apply, and take enforcement action where appropriate. Compliance with these regulations may also be considered at visits for other purposes, such as to investigate accidents, complaints and dangerous occurrences.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many safety cases under regulation 7 of the 1984 CIMAH regulations are awaiting approval or examination by the Health and Safety Executive, by area office; when any backlogs are likely to be cleared; and if it is envisaged that any extra staff will be recruited in 1990–91 in this area of activity.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) assesses but does not approve safety reports submitted under regulation 7 of the 1984 Control of Industrial Major Accidents Hazards Regulations (CIMAH). Work has started on assessing all the reports which have been submitted but it is not possible to say when this process will be completed. Information about the current position concerning those reports where completion of the assessment is outstanding could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the table shows the position in August 1989, the latest date for which information is available, and gives a breakdown by area office.
  196

  Total number of reports submitted = 331

  Area office

  Number of reports where assessment not completed

  01 South

  3

  02 South West

  —

  03 South East

  —

  05 London North

  2

  06 London South

  2

  07 East Anglia

  10

  08 Northern Home Counties

  —

  09 East Midlands

  4

  10 West Midlands

  3

  11 Wales

  21

  12 Marches

  1

  13 North Midlands

  6

  14 South Yorkshire and Humberside

  26

  15 West and North Yorkshire

  5

  16 Greater Manchester

  8

  17 Merseyside

  30

  18 North West

  5

  19 North East

  24

  20 Scotland East

  38

  21 Scotland West

  3

  Total

  191

  A substantial number of reports was submitted to HSE just before the deadline of 8 July 1989 set by the 1984 regulations despite encouragement to industry to phase their submissions. This has led to a short-term peak in assessment work which was anticipated and is being met from existing resources.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will establish an external inquiry, by a firm of management consultants, into the Health and Safety Executive; and if he is at present satisfied with the current ratio of management to inspection staff.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, responsibility for ensuring the efficient organisation and management of the staff of the Health and Safety Executive lies with the Health and Safety Commission and HSE. My right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied that HSE has in place the systems and expertise needed for this purpose. A detailed account of organisational improvements, and other actions to increase efficiency and effectiveness, will be included in the HSC/E's annual report for 1988–89, to be published on 26 February.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library(a) the report of the central policy review staff on the Health and Safety Executive and (b) the report on the recruitment and retention of specialists in the technology division of the Health and Safety Executive of September 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government have no plans to publish the report of the review carried out by the central policy review staff in 1980 on the cost effectiveness of methods of implementing policy on health and safety at work. I have not received a copy of the report on the recruitment and retention of specialists in the technology division of the Health and Safety Executive. This was commissioned by the executive which I understand is currently considering its recommendations.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current maximum exposure
  197
  limits for (i) ceramic dust, (ii) cotton dust and (iii) dust and fumes in the rubber, steel and foundry work areas; and how many enforcement visits it is envisaged will be paid in 1990 by staff of the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no maximum exposure limits (MELs) for ceramic dust and cotton dust. The MELs for "rubber fume" and "rubber process dust" are 0·75 mg/m3 and 8 mg/m3 respectively for eight-hour time weighted average reference periods (eight-hour TWAs).

  There are no MELs for general airborne emissions in steel and foundry work areas, although some specific processes may give rise to substances for which MELs have been set.

  It is not possible to provide a breakdown of the number of visits that will be made during 1990 to each sector of industry.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total budget of the Health and Safety Executive; and how many Health and Safety Executive employees possess formal purchasing qualifications.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Gross financial provision to the Health and Safety Executive for 1989–90 is £119 million; of this an estimated £35 million will be spent on the purchase of goods (capital and current), services and general contracts. The Health and Safety Executive's director of purchasing and supply, appointed in February 1989, is a member of the Institute of Purchasing and Supply.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the chairmen and secretaries of the Health and Safety Commission's advisory committees have any formal professional qualifications in the industries or subjects with which they deal.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are currently 18 commission advisory committee chairmen and 19 secretaries; 33 per cent. of all chairmen and 26 per cent. of all secretaries have formal professional qualifications in the industries or subjects with which they deal.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion, by area office, of factory inspectors, excluding principal inspectors, are trainees and if it is the policy of the Health and Safety Executive for trainee inspectors to make their trainee status known when visiting a factory.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Factory inspector IIs (for their first two years) are designated as trainee inspectors. The number of trainee inspectors, expressed as a percentage of the total number of factory inspectors (excluding principal inspectors), in each Health and Safety Executive area on 1 January 1990 is as follows:

  Area

  Trainees as percentage of total

  South West

  30·4

  South

  26·3

  South East

  12·1

  London North

  17·0

  London South

  18·2

  East Anglia

  18·7

  North Home Counties

  23·5

  East Midlands

  25·0

  West Midlands

  9·1

  198

  Area

  Trainees as percentage of total

  Wales

  29·2

  Marches

  40·0

  North Midlands

  30·0

  South Yorks and Humberside

  26·1

  West and North Yorks

  17·4

  Greater Manchester

  25·0

  Merseyside

  19·0

  North West

  31·1

  North East

  27·9

  Scotland East

  31·1

  Scotland West

  22·9

  Health and Safety Executive inspectors do not normally announce their status or rank during visits.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to raise substantially the bi-annual recruitment of trainee factory inspectors; and what is the current target for the total number of inspectors.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Measures taken by the Health and Safety Executive to increase recruitment of trainee factory inspectors include improvement of salaries for inspectors at the basic grade, more effective targeting and advertising of recruitment campaigns, and new procedures to reduce delays between interviews and offers of appointment. The HSE's target is to have 640 factory inspectors by 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why the Bootle health and safety office public inquiry point is open for telephone inquiries only between the hours of 10 am. and 3 pm; and if he has any proposals to extend these hours.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Restricted hours of opening of HSE's public inquiry points at Bootle, Sheffield and London are necessary to allow staff time to gather information and do research to answer inquiries satisfactorily. I understand that the executive has no proposals at present to extend opening hours beyond 10 am to 3 pm.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of job vacancies in Rochdale borough.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In December 1989 the number of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres in the Rochdale local education authority (the closest approximation to the borough for this data source) was 641. Vacancies at jobcentres do not represent the total number of vacancies in the economy. The latest research shows that nationally only about one third of vacancies are registered at jobcentres.

  Tourism
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received for the development of tourism in the north-west of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Ministers from my Department have on a number of occasions met representatives from the tourism industry in the north-west, and have received correspondence on a wide range of issues affecting tourism in the area.

  Mines (Accidents)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, further to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 721–22, if he will now publish the equivalent figures for 1988–89.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested will form part of the HSC/E annual report for 1988–89 to be published on 26 February.

  Mine Closures
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the closure dates of Danygraid mine, Nant Medlyn mine, Darren mine (West Glamorgan), Hall of Auchinross mine (Ayrshire), Wrytree Drift mine and Robin Rock mine (Northumberland).

  Mr. Nicholls
  I will write to the hon. Member.

PRIME MINISTER

  Privacy and Individual Choice
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the Government's policy on individual privacy and on individual choice as to who, or who may not, hold, use or disclose information that relates to that individual; and whether she will establish a Cabinet Committee to review legislation across the whole range of Government on these issues.

  The Prime Minister
  The Data Protection Act 1984, introduced by this Government, has greatly extended the safeguards relating to personal information held on computer; and privacy in the context of press activities is currently being examined by a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. David Calcutt QC. There are also sanctions against disclosure or misuse of information in particular circumstances, such as breach of confidence.

  The Government subscribe to the conclusion of the Younger committee (1972) that a general right of privacy would be very difficult to define in law, given in particular the variety of situations to which it would have to apply and the inherent conflict with other principles such as freedom of expression. It keeps the issues under continual review, and believes that problems which arise are best considered in the context of particular aspects of people's lives.

  General Sikorski
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has had in regard to reconsideration by the Government for the repatriation to Poland of the remains of General Sikorski; and what reply she is sending.

  The Prime Minister
  We periodically receive representations both for and against transfer of General Sikorski's remains to Poland. I told General Jaruzelski last June that we had reconsidered this question but felt the time was not yet right. We will continue to review our policy in the light of developments in Poland.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions she has had with the President of Mexico on rain forest problems.
  200
  The Prime Minister
  The Mexican Government are well aware of our concern for rain forest conservation. Last year the Government, at Mexican request, financed a forestry expert to advise on reforestation in the state of Quintana Roo.

  Parliamentary Answer (Cost)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of providing the answer to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell),Official Report, 18 January, columns 384–391.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: The reply was assembled from material provided by a wide range of Departments. The total cost of time of those who contributed, including secretarial staff, measured by salary, overheads and other costs, including printing, is estimated at £2,620.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Firearms
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in the country carry firearms.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In 1988—the latest year for which figures are available—7,194 police officers in England and Wales were qualified to carry firearms. Firearms were issued to police officers in 2,227 operations against criminals known or believed to be armed.

  Gallows
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the reason for the keeping of gallows at Wandsworth prison; when these gallows were last used; how old are they; how often they are examined and tested and how this is done; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Gallows are kept at Her Majesty's prison, Wandsworth, for use if required. These particular gallows were last used on 8 September 1961. No record has been kept of when they were constructed. They are examined and tested every six months. The testing is undertaken by checking the equipment to see that it is functioning correctly.

  Secondary Immigration
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the ratio of secondary immigration to primary immigration since 1960; what studies have been undertaken to assess the likely levels of secondary immigration in different circumstances and with what results; and what estimates he has made of the likely level of secondary immigration per 100,000 primary immigration from different sources.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) on 22 January at column 518.

  Death Sentence
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the offences for which a person can be sentenced to death by courts in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The death penalty is still available for offences of treason, piracy with violence and certain treasonable and mutinous offences re-enacted under the Armed Forces Act 1971.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list any research reports or policy analyses received from outside management consultants after January 1985, but commissioned by his Department before that date, and the date of completion and cost of each contract.

  Mr. Waddington
  Information is not readily available before 1984. The Home Office awarded one contract in 1984 concerning research and policy analyses to Price Waterhouse for a review of marketing and sales effectiveness in the prison service industries and farms. The contract was completed in August 1985 at a cost of £16,100 (exclusive of VAT).

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the contracts his Department has given to outside management consultants in policy areas concerning his Department since January 1985, and the date of completion and cost of each contract.

  Mr. Waddington
  The Home Department has let the following contracts to management consultants in policy areas since January 1985:

  Consultant and contract

  1Cost

  Completion date

  1990

  Capita Ltd.

  Assist with organisational review of the probation service

  65,750

  January

  1989

  National Economic Research Associates

  Copyright protection for sound recordings

  214,000

  December

  Price Waterhouse

  Privatisation of IBA transmission system

  84,000

  December

  J. K. Clayton

  Review of voluntary scientific effort in civil defence

  9,122

  October

  Captain Hannant

  Standard system for control of police aviation

  125,000

  October

  BIS Applied Systems

  Magistrates courts contingency planning

  21,586

  September

  PE Inbucon

  Issues of TV licences and saving stamps by Post Office

  216,000

  August

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Review of passport issuing and management information systems

  51,677

  August

  202

  Consultant and contract

  1Cost

  Completion date

  Lloyd's Merchant Bank

  Privatisation of the tote

  79,200

  April

  Price Waterhouse

  Options for privatising the IBA's transmission network

  262,000

  April

  County Nat West

  Future of science and technology group

  30,000

  February

  Broadcasting and Research Unit

  Radio broadcasting and listening

  74,000

  January

  1988

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Advice on the future of the laundry industry within PSIF

  46,664

  August

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells

  Examination of clerical support within PSIF Farms and Gardens

  25,625

  May

  1987

  Ernst and Whinney

  Review of charging arrangements

  76,000

  September

  KMG Thomson McLintock

  Main strategy on office automation

  35,000

  July

  Arthur Young Management Consultants

  Information technology strategy for accounting and financial management systems

  72,231

  June

  Touche Ross

  Study on scientific support for the police service in England and Wales

  109,000

  June

  CSP International Ltd. (Booz, Allen and Hamilton

  Subscription television

  128,000

  May

  Christian Brann Direct

  TV licence evasion

  171,000

  March

  Coopers and Lybrand

  The future provision of staff training—Magistrates' courts service

  52,000

  January

  1986

  Lawson Somerset Ltd.

  Easy payment methods for TV licence fee

  61,000

  September

  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells

  Development of a financial management information system for the probation service

  35,000

  June

  Touche Ross

  Study of organisation in the directorate of telecommunications

  38,000

  March

  1 Exclusive of VAT.

  2 Figures represent only Home Office proportion of full cost.

  Gwent Constabulary
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Gwent as to the whereabouts of the shotgun, the property of a Mr. G. W. Phillips, taken into the possession of the police by PC 853 Fairie of the Gwent constabulary on or before 10 November 1989.
  203
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable that the shotgun is being held at Newport police headquarters pending the outcome of further discussions with the owner.

  Guildford and Woolwich Bombings
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are being made to finance the cost of Sir John May's inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the convictions arising out of the bomb attacks in Guildford and Woolwich in 1974.

  Mr. Waddington
  Parliamentary approval to expenditure on this inquiry will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate for the Home Office Vote for administration etc. (class XI, vote 3). Pending that approval, expenditure estimated at £222,000 will be met by a repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund.

  Immigration and Nationality Department
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a decision has been reached on the relocation of the immigration and nationality department from Croydon.

  Mr. Waddington
  We have decided that those parts of IND which are at present located in Lunar house, Croydon, should for the most part remain there. This decision has been taken in the light of a report by consultants on the feasibility and desirability of the relocation of IND and further work on costings and benefits. That further work has revealed that most of the financial and other benefits of relocation were taken when IND moved to Croydon in the first place.

  We have however decided that the nationality work of the Department can with advantage be brought together in the existing Liverpool nationality office which would otherwise not be needed beyond April 1991. In reaching this decision we have taken account of the likely reduction in the future volume of nationality work. We should complete the process of transferring the nationality work to Liverpool during 1991.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in his Department; in what locations; and if they have to make a contribution to this service.

  Mr. Ryder
  No nursery facilities are yet available to staff in the Treasury, but London-based staff have access to a holiday play scheme financed by both parental and departmental contributions.

  Drug Seizures
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many illicit drug seizures, broken down by drug category, have been made in United Kingdom ports in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Ryder
  Seizures made by Customs officers at United Kingdom ports and airports in the last five years have been as follows:204

  Heroin

  Cocaine

  Cannabis

  Amphetamine

  Other

  1987

  193

  174

  4,609

  62

  306

  1988

  279

  221

  4,934

  74

  177

  11989

  432

  402

  6,788

  110

  294

  1 All 1989 figures are provisional.

  The total numbers of drugs seizures made by Customs officers in 1985 and 1986 were 3,910 and 5,534 respectively, but a breakdown by drug category for these figures is not available.

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has hitherto put forward for the United Kingdom's contribution to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; and what proportion of the United Kingdom's contribution he intends should come(a) from the existing budget for overseas aid and development and (b) from new allocations of resources.

  Mr. Ryder
  The details of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development are still being discussed. The United Kingdom will be a generous and enthusiastic contributor. How the contribution is met will be decided in future public expenditure surveys.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish his best estimates of the effects on the retail prices index in 1990–91 of(a) the introduction of the community charge and (b) the combined impact of non-domestic property revaluation and the introduction of the uniform business rate.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]: The Autumn Statement forecast is for RPI annual inflation to fall to 5¾ per cent. by the fourth quarter of 1990. It is not the practice to provide more detail than published in table 2.7 of the Autumn Statement.

DEFENCE

  Number Plates
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of whether the use of United Kingdom number plates on cars owned by British personnel serving in West Germany represents the best available security arrangement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice to comment on security matters. However, all security measures, including the question of number plates, are kept under close and continuous review.

  Radar System, Fylingdales
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of the large phased-array radar system being installed at Fylingdales RAF station; when installation work started; what is the total cost of the installation; whether the United States of America is making any financial contribution to this installation;
  205
  whether the phased-array radar is to become part of a battle management system linked to the SDI programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) gave the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 20 June 1989 at column 71. Installation work for the modernised facility started in August 1989, and at present exchange rates is expected to cost in the order of £160 million, of which the United States will pay in the order of 70 per cent. for the radar, and the United Kingdom approximately 30 per cent. for the supporting infrastructure. The modernised radar will provide an improved early warning system. It will not form part of a battle management system linked to the SDI programme.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will outline the procedures for the sale and disposal of surplus chemical type waste of the kind found stored on the Cleveland industrial estate, Darlington on Saturday 20 January.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The material referred to comprised paints, pre-treatment solvents and adhesives. These had been purchased by a general trader from auctions held by the Ministry of Defence, which is the method by which low-value materials of this sort are disposed of. Hazardous and dangerous materials are dealt with under special disposal contracts placed by the Ministry.

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by location where creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in his Department; and if they have to make any payment for this service.

  Mr. Neubert
  We are planning to open nurseries for the children of MOD civil servants in central London and at the Royal Aerospace Establishment Farnborough. We are also considering what might be done at other locations. The level of charges to parents has yet to be determined.

  Trident
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the cost of the Trident programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I am pleased to announce that for the fourth year running there has been, in real terms, a reduction in the estimated cost of the Trident programme. The revised estimate now stands at £9,380 million, based on the exchange rate used for the long-term costing of the defence programme, which this year is taken to be £1 = $1·62.

  Although this estimate represents a cash increase of £291 million compared with the estimate announced in 1989, after allowing for the effects of inflation and exchange rate variations, there has been a real reduction of £432 million compared with that estimate, and a real reduction of £1,631 million over the original 1982 estimate. This is additional to the savings resulting from the decision to have United Kingdom missiles processed in the United States facility at Kings bay, Georgia.
  206
  The proportion of the programme to be undertaken in the United Kingdom has risen to its highest level so far—69 per cent.

  The Select Committee on Defence previously asked that when announcing the annual revised estimate, I should report on the state of the project as a whole. I am pleased to say that the Trident project remains on programme to enter service in the mid-1990s. There has been no slippage in the in-service date since the decision to purchase Trident II was announced in March 1982. I am, as in the past, sending to the Chairmen of the Select Committee on Defence and the Public Accounts Committee a more detailed report covering the points on which the Select Committee on Defence sought advice. I am also placing a copy of this report in the Library of the House.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Reconstruction Competitions
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will give the precise date or dates of the last reconstruction competition or competitions held for administrative and professional officers for the Home Civil Service, and the dates of the last appointments resulting from these competitions.

  Mr. Luce
  I regret that the information requested is not available and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost. The 88th annual report of the Civil Service Commissioners mentioned that "one or two" reconstruction" competitions for technical grades were in progress due in 1953–54, but I am advised that the Civil Service Commission has no information subsequently.

THE ARTS

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will list by location where creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in his Department; and if they have to make any payment for this service.

  Mr. Luce
  My Department does not yet provide facilities for the use of its staff, but they have access to a local holiday play scheme financed by parental and departmental contributions.

SCOTLAND

  National Health Service
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet Health Service unions in Scotland to discuss Health Service matters.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no plans at present.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the increase in National Health Service expenditure in Scotland since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Gross expenditure on the Health Service in Scotland has risen by an estimated 31 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1989–90.
  207
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was National Health Service expenditure in Scotland for 1979 and 1990; and what increase or decrease this represents over and above inflation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Gross expenditure on the Health Service in Scotland was £1,064 million in 1979–80, and is planned to rise to £3,041 million in 1990–91. This represents an increase of about 35 per cent. in real terms.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current Health Service expenditure in Scotland; and what increase this is in real terms over 1979 expenditure.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Gross expenditure on the Health Service in Scotland in 1989–90 is estimated to be £2,816 million, representing an increase of about 31 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80.

  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the National Health Service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met trade unions from the National Health Service; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met trade unions from the National Health Service; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the British Medical Association last month to discuss the new contract for general practitioners.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the current Health Service expenditure programme in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Expenditure on the NHS in Scotland will exceed £3 billion for the first time in the coming year; almost three times the budget we inherited on taking office.

  Devolution
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from the business community in Scotland on devolution.

  Mr. Lang
  The senior management of many important companies in Scotland have repeatedly expressed their concern about the adverse effects which any form of devolution would have on the Scottish economy.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed the electrification of the Edinburgh-Linlithgow, Falkirk High-Glasgow and Edinburgh-Aberdeen lines with ScotRail.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Decisions on electrification schems are for British Rail working within guidelines set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Self-governing Hospitals
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospitals have expressed an interest in the self-governing hospital proposals.
  208
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have had serious expressions of interest from Forfar and the Royal Scottish National hospital at Larbert whilst a number of others are seeking further information.

  Craig Dunain Hospital
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of Craig Dunain hospital, Inverness.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. Action is presently with the Highland health board.

  ScotRail
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the general manager of ScotRail; and what matters were discussed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I discussed various topics relating to rail transport when we met the general manager of ScotRail in the company of the chairman of British Rail, Sir Robert Reid, on 31 October 1989.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the general manager of ScotRail; and what will be discussed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I have met the general manager of ScotRail from time to time and we expect to continue this practice with Mr. Bleasdale, the new director. Discussions at such meetings normally cover a wide range of topics.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what planting incentives are currently offered by the Forestry Commission.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Forestry Commission currently offers the following planting grants, payable in instalments over 10 years, for both new planting and restocking, including natural regeneration, under its woodland grant scheme.

  Rate of Grant (£ per hectare)

  Area (hectares)

  Conifers

  Broadleaves (including Native Pinewoods)

  0·25–0·9

  1,005

  1,575

  1·0–2·9

  880

  1,375

  3·0–9·9

  795

  1,175

  10 and over

  615

  975

  A better land supplement of £200 per hectare is payable where planting under the woodland grant scheme takes place on arable land or improved grassland (as defined for the farm woodland scheme). In addition, the following grants are offered by the Forestry Commission under its woodland grant scheme for new planting in association with the farm woodland scheme.

  Rate of Grant (£ per hectare)

  Area(hectares)

  Conifers

  Broadleaves

  1·0–2·9

  505

  1,375

  3·0–9·9

  420

  1,175

  10 and over

  240

  975

  209
  The better land supplement is not available for planting under the farm woodland scheme through which annual payments are made by the agriculture Departments.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Forestry Commission's proposals for farm tree planting grants.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Grants for planting trees on farms are available under the Forestry Commission's woodland grant scheme, including grants for planting done in association with the farm woodland scheme. Full details of both schemes are given in the explanatory booklets which are in the Library.

  Kelvin Central Bus Company
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a grant to employees on the same terms as to management to assist in the preparation of an employee bid for the Kelvin Central bus company.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) on 22 January at column 545.

  National Health Service (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average waiting time for patients in the Scottish Health Service in 1979; and what it is now.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Average waiting times for non-urgent patients have fallen by 10 per cent. since 1979; around half of all patients admitted to hospital are admitted immediately.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had regarding competitive tendering in the National Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding competitive tendering in the National Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding competitive tendering in the National Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had regarding competitive tendering in the National Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding competitive tendering in the National Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding competitive tendering in the National Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer to the answer given earlier today to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg).

  Operations (Commercial Sponsorship)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there are any plans for health boards in Scotland other than Lothian to seek commercial sponsorship for operations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no plans for commercial sponsorship for operations.

  Scottish Economy
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Scottish Council for Development and Industry to discuss the Scottish economy.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend met representatives of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry when he addressed the council's international forum at Aviemore on 29 September 1989.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the rate of economic growth for Scotland for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  Using United Kingdom price deflators, the latest income-based estimate of Scotland's gross domestic product shows that in 1988 the Scottish economy grew by some 4·7 per cent.

  Transport Links (Europe)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve Scotland's road, rail and air links with Europe prior to 1992.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Current plans for the Scottish motorway network, linked to the proposed widening of the M6, M1 and M25, will substantially improve access to Europe. The Scottish Development Department is undertaking a review to ensure that the strategic Scottish trunk and key principal road network can meet demands. We are encouraging potential Scottish rail customers to make their requirements for services to the Channel tunnel known to British Rail. The Government's policy of liberalising air services will assist operators to provide improved services where demand exists.

  Regional and District Councils (Elections)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will instruct a study to be carried out of the number and characteristics such as age, sex and occupation of persons seeking election to regional and district councils in 1990 and 1992, respectively.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so at present. We do, however, have it in mind to update in due course the substantial programme of research commissioned by the Widdicombe committee of inquiry into the conduct of local authority business in 1985 and published in four volumes in 1986. Volume II contained a wide range of information on the personal and occupational characteristics of local government councillors.

  Natural Heritage Agency
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest progress towards the establishment in Scotland of a unified and autonomous natural heritage agency.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced his intention to appoint Magnus Magnusson KBE as chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, and thereafter as first chairman of the proposed Scottish natural heritage agency, provided the Government's proposals to reorganise the Nature Conservancy Council receive parliamentary approval. These proposals are provided for in the Environmental Protection Bill now before Parliament.

  Health Boards (Expenditure)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the actions which some health boards are taking to curtail their level of provision in order to remain within budget in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  All health boards are given an allocation of resources for capital and current expenditure before the start of each financial year. Boards plan their services accordingly.

  Motorways
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many miles of dual carriageway he plans to upgrade to motorway standard in 1990.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No new section of road upgraded to motorway is programmed to be opened during 1990. However, the 4·5 mile M80 Stepps bypass, which will relieve the existing heavily congested road at Stepps, is currently under construction and is expected to be open in April 1992. Further motorway schemes, including upgrading from dual carriageway, are expected to commence during 1990–91 and details will be announced in March by my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Sewage Disposal
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet Scottish regional councils to discuss the matter of sewage disposal.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. The Government are aware of developments in this field and my officials have regular meetings with regional and islands council staff at which sewage disposal matters are discussed. My right hon. and learned Friend holds regular meetings with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on local government finance matters.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Younger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a list of those local authorities in Scotland which are planning to increase their expenditure above the rate of inflation.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Once details of local authorities' budgets for 1990–91 are available to my Department, I will make a statement.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has issued or proposes to issue any regulations or guidance under section 16(1) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Regulation 9 of the Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) (No. 2) Regulations makes provision relating to community charge appeals made under section 16(1) of the 1987 Act. The notes prescribed under these regulations informing people of their register entry or an amendment to that entry include information about a person's rights of appeal.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many warrant sales have been carried out as a result of poll tax non-payment in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an estimate of the amount which a police officer in Scotland will on average have to pay in respect of the personal community charge following abolition of the rates element of the police rent allowance on 31 March.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Like other members of the community, police officers in Scotland have been liable to pay the community charge since April 1989. The level of the charge depends on the area in which they live.

  Regulations made last November had the effect of restoring the rates element of rent allowance, on an interim basis, to those officers who were in receipt of rent allowance on 31 March 1989 for such period as their circumstances remain unchanged. Draft regulations now sent to the police negotiating board provide for the sum payable by way of rates on 31 March 1989 to continue to be included in the calculation of an officer's rent allowance and in any transitional rent allowance payable from 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's latest estimate of the additional resources required to cover the administrative costs of poll tax collection in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Based on the latest local authority figures available, the increase in the administrative costs of collecting the community charge in 1989–90, as against rates collection in 1988–89, is estimated at £14·5 million.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to visit Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on the crisis in the Scottish fishing industry.
  213
  Mr. Lang
  Since the hon. Member last inquired about this on 20 December 1989 the Government have received a variety of representations from organisations representing different sectors of the fishing industry, from MPs and MEPs and from local authorities and other bodies. Many of these expressed appreciation of the success achieved by the Government at the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 18 and 19 December 1989.

  Violent Prisoners
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to publish the conclusions of the consultative document "Assessment and Control: the Management of Violent and Disruptive Prisoners".

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  We have received a wide range of comments on the consultative document which aroused considerable interest. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are still considering the responses, but we expect to reach our conclusions within the next few weeks.

  Lothian Health Board
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the finances of Lothian health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  Students (Housing Benefit)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to provide suitable low-cost accommodation for those students displaced by the loss of housing benefit from September.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government's housing policies for both the public and the private sector will help to ensure an adequate supply of low-cost accommodation. The proposed top-up loans for student support will be at a level well in excess of a student's average likely entitlement to benefits.

  Central European Time
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy towards the imposition of central European time in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The introduction of central European time throughout the United Kingdom is one of the options set out in the Green Paper "Summer Time—A Consultation Document" published last June. A decision on future summer time arrangements will not be taken until the responses, including those from Scotland, have been fully considered.

  Knitwear and Textile Industry
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the state of the knitwear and textile industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  During the past six months my right hon. and learned Friend has received representations from Berwickshire district council, Ettrick and Lauderdale district council, and the Scottish Trades Union Congress. These representations expressed concern about the current 214
  state and future prospects of the knitwear and textile industry and suggested that renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement is essential to the future well-being of the industry. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend received representations from two members of the public about the knitwear industry in the Hawick area, one of which stressed the importance of the multi-fibre arrangement.

  Farm Incomes
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussion he has had with the National Farmers Union of Scotland about the level of farm incomes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My noble Friend the Minister of State met the president and senior officials of the National Farmers Union of Scotland on 15 January for a discussion on a range of issues, including the EC price-fixing proposals, which have a significant bearing on farmers' incomes. The union represented that a substantially greater green pound devaluation than was proposed by the EC Commission was justified. My noble Friend reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the removal of monetary compensatory amounts by 1992 and assured the representatives of the union that the need for our farmers to be able to compete on fair terms in the Community would be borne in mind in the negotiations in Brussels. My noble Friend and colleagues from other Departments yesterday met the United Kingdom farming unions to discuss further the price-fixing proposals.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with people interested in forming a local enterprise company for Renfrewshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Neither I nor my right hon. and learned Friend have personally had discussions with people interested in forming a local enterprise company for Renfrewshire, but officials from my Department and from the Training Agency and the SDA have been working closely with the steering group led by Mr. John McClelland, director IBM, Greenock, which has now submitted an application for development funding for a local enterprise company for Renfrewshire.

  Maternity Facilities (Glasgow)
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve maternity facilities in the east end of Glasgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Greater Glasgow health board is presently consulting on its proposals to improve maternity services in its area.

  National Museums of Scotland
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the board of trustees of the national museums of Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the chairman of the board of trustees of the national museums of Scotland on 30 November 1989.

  Elderly People (Glasgow)
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what requests he has received from Greater Glasgow health board for additional revenue or capital allocations to meet the costs of dealing with the care of the growing elderly section of the population.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Requests for allocations of capital are contained within the health board's capital plan submitted yearly to the Department. No requests for additional revenue resources have been received.

  Ravenscraig
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what investment there has been in Ravenscraig steel plant in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lang
  Significant investment approved for Ravenscraig plant prior to privatisation of the British Steel Corporation was as follows:

  1985—nil

  1986—£17 million

  1987—nil

  1988—nil

  Since privatisation, investment decisions have been a matter for British Steel.

  North East River Purification Board
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the current situation in the North East river purification board and the situation regarding the cancelled appointment to the post of general manager;

  (2) if he will make a statement regarding the current duties and structure of the North East river purification board; and if there have been any changes in these duties and the structure of the board.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  River purification boards have powers under statute to appoint such officers as they think necessary for the proper discharge of their functions. This is not a matter for which the Secretary of State is reponsible. Any queries about the staffing of a river purification board or the duties of its officers should be addressed to the board.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the rivers the North East river purification board is responsible for; and which are used as part of the Grampian water supply.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The boundary of the North East river purification board defines the catchments draining to the coast between Hopeman and Milton Ness. These cover the Rivers Lossie, Spey, Deveron, Ugie, Ythan, Dee, Don and Bervie, together with their tributaries and the coastal streams encompassed by the boundary. Except for the Rivers Ythan and Bervie, all these rivers, or tributaries of them, are used as sources of public water supply by Grampian regional council.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for levels of manufacturing investment in Scotland in(a) cash and (b) constant prices; and what are the annual figures for each of the previous 10 years.
  216
  Mr. Rifkind
  The table gives estimates of gross domestic fixed capital formation by manufacturing industry in Scotland at current prices for each year from 1977 to 1987, the latest year for which estimates are available. There are no separate price deflators for Scotland and the use of United Kingdom deflators does not give sufficiently reliable constant price estimates.

  Gross domestic fixed capital formation by manufacturing industry in Scotland

  £ millions

  1977

  491

  1978

  523

  1979

  561

  1980

  645

  1981

  586

  1982

  541

  1983

  470

  1984

  597

  1985

  861

  1986

  788

  1987

  738

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  Trunk Road Improvements
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which trunk road improvement schemes in Scotland are expected to start in the financial year 1990–91.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects to make an announcement to the House, as is his usual custom, in March.

  Timothy Williams
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Lord Advocate will order a fatal accident inquiry into the death of Timothy Williams, radio operator on the Ocean Odyssey drilling rig.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate hopes to make an announcement shortly about this matter.

  Piper Alpha
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what surveys have been undertaken by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland in respect of pollution following the Piper Alpha tragedy; and what were the results.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 25 January 1990. The results of initial monitoring work by DAFS scientists were published on 6 June 1989 and copies of the reports were placed in the Library.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received recently about the proposed Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since the publication of our proposals to reorganise the Nature Conservancy Council in the Environmental Protection Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations covering a variety of views.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rating Revaluation
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the average revaluation factors by property type for the top 20 and the lowest 20 rating authorities in England and Wales; if he will list the national average by property type; and if he will place the complete list in the Library.

  Mr. Chope
  I have today placed in the Library a table showing revaluation factors by property type in English local authority areas and nationally. The figures are based on the 1990 rateable values for properties as shown on the rating lists deposited with local authorities on 20 December. The new rateable values are based on market rents in each area in April 1988, the date by reference to which the valuation has been carried out under the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

  The 20 authorities with the highest average revaluation factors are

  Figures

  York

  14·6

  Bath

  13·3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  13·0

  Selby

  12·8

  Chichester

  12·7

  South Lakeland

  12·6

  Canterbury

  12·4

  West Devon

  12·2

  Winchester

  12·1

  Scarborough

  11·9

  Ryedale

  11·9

  Harrogate

  11·5

  Weymouth and Portland

  11·5

  Hart

  11·4

  Runnymede

  11·4

  Medina

  11·4

  Castle Morpeth

  11·3

  North Devon

  11·3

  Tunbridge Wells

  11·3

  South Wight

  11·3

  The 20 authorities with the lowest average revaluation factors are

  Figures

  Knowsley

  4·2

  Wolverhampton

  4·5

  Sandwell

  5·0

  Derby

  5·4

  Walsall

  5·4

  Birmingham

  5·5

  St. Helens

  5·6

  Liverpool

  5·6

  Dudley

  5·8

  Halton

  6·1

  Wansbeck

  6·1

  Darlington

  6·2

  Lambeth

  6·2

  Middlesbrough

  6·3

  Leicester

  6·3

  City of London

  6·3

  Scunthorpe

  6·3

  Sedgefield

  6·3

  Gateshead

  6·4

  Wigan

  6·4

  Control of Pollution
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions to make regulations under the Control of Pollution Act have still not been used.

  Mr. Trippier
  Sections 6, 11, 18, 23, 29, 45, 68, 93, 94, 102 and 103.

  Humberside
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total cost of(a) splitting county Humberside into two new counties and (b) merging the south bank into Lincolnshire and the north bank into North Yorkshire and what central Government financing is available for such changes.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department has made no such estimates: it is one of the matters that we expect to be covered in the report on the further review of the county of Humberside which the Local Government Boundary Commission is now undertaking. Apart from grant for specific services, central Government support to local government is concentrated in the revenue support grant, which is distributed on the basis of assessed needs which contain no specific provision for the costs of administrative reorganisation.

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by location where creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed by his Department; and if they have to make any payment for this service.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My Department is undertaking a feasibility study of the provision of a nursery in Westminster and is also looking for opportunities to co-operate with other employers to provide nurseries in areas of the south-east from which staff commute into central London and at locations in the regions where the Department has offices.

  Ordnance Survey Maps
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the percentage increase, in real terms, in the retail price of the Ordnance Survey map sheets for a comparable area on the scale of 1:1,250 from 1979 to 1989; what is the current cost of maps for the parliamentary division of Finchley; and what is his policy for the pricing of this map series.

  Mr. Trippier
  The retail price of Ordnance Survey 1:1,250 quality paper maps has increased by 83 per cent. in real terms over the 10-year period between 1979 and 1989. The main use of these maps is by local authorities, land developers and utilities.

  The current cost of these maps to cover the parliamentary division of Finchley is £1,197.

  These maps form part of Ordnance Survey's core activities and are priced to help achieve the cost recovery target set by the Secretary of State.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the areas in which drinking water is contaminated with nitrates in excess of European Community limits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Copies of the undertakings accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from the water service companies under section 20 of the Water Act 1989 are available in the Library, including the undertakings in respect of those areas where there is a breach of the standard for nitrate, or where there has been a past breach which is likely to recur.

  As soon as my right hon. Friend has accepted undertakings from all the statutory water companies, which he is in the process of doing, copies of these will also be placed in the Library.

  Nature Conservancy
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what organisations were consulted prior to his Department's announcing the changes to the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)—Official Report 4 December 1989, column 39. The necessary legislation was put before the House on 20 December, and received a Second Reading on 15 January.

  Hazardous Substances (Conference)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department was represented at the conference on the control of substances hazardous to health organised by Thames Events, held on 10 and 11 January.

  Mr. Trippier
  No.

  Rates
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, further to table 4, "Changes in Rates Bills by Property Type", England and Wales, deposited paper NS5522, he will provide the changes in rates bills by property type for each economic area in England and Wales, both in percentage terms and money terms.

  Mr. Chope
  The information for which my hon. Friend asks is given in table 6 of the paper to which he refers.

  HAT (Sunderland)
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he is making towards the establishment of a housing action trust for Sunderland.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Following consultations with the tenants and after discussions with Sunderland borough council, my right hon. Friend has decided to proceed to a ballot of the tenants on the proposals to set up a housing action trust for the Downhill, Town End Farm, Hylton Castle and part of Red House estates in Sunderland. The ballot, which will be a postal ballot conducted by the Electoral Reform Society, will take place between 12 March and 4 April. The Electoral Reform Society will be writing shortly to the tenants of these estates, setting out the arrangements for the ballot.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Know-how Funds
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have any plans to alter the timing or application of the know-how fund to eastern European states.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The know-how fund for Poland is already in operation. That for Hungary starts in April. The fund will be extended to other east European countries once they are fully committed to reform. The principal aim of the fund will be the same in all cases: to provide advice and training to help with the transition to democracy and a market economy.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his assessment of the extent to which the Brazilian Government are providing the resources and manpower needed to protect the rain forests and their inhabitants.

  Mr. Maude
  The Brazilian Government have made considerable efforts to protect the rain forest and its inhabitants. The hon. Member will be aware of the creation of IBAMA—the environmental umbrella organisation—in 1988, which has levied heavy fines on a number of enterprises convicted of polluting the rainforest. He will also be aware of the decision on 24 January to relocate gold prospectors outside the Yanomami area.

  In July 1989, the then Minister for Overseas Development signed a memorandum of understanding with the Brazilian authorities, under which a number of environmental co-operation projects are being agreed. We hope thereby to contribute to a solution of these problems.

  South Africa
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn),Official Report, 16 January, columns 167–8, how many representations he has received concerning the Upington 14 in South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have received approximately 500 representations about the Upington 14. The 14 have been granted leave to appeal by the South African Appeal Court. While legal processes continue, it would be wrong for the Government to intervene.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made any representations to the South African Government concerning the treatment of their political prisoners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are concerned at the plight of political prisoners in South Africa. We have called repeatedly on the South African Government to release all political prisoners.

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by location where creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in his Department; and if they have to make any payment for this service.

  Mr. Maude
  There is no creche facility in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Cambodia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will be issuing a statement on the outcome of the Paris meeting on Cambodia on 15 and 16 January; and when the report of the British mission to Cambodia in 1989 will be published.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The informal discussions in Paris on 15–16 January were between the Asia directors of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. They agreed a set of principles to guide them in working for a resolution of the Cambodia problem, including an enhanced role for the United Nations. This has been made public, and I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  There are no plans to publish a written report on the visit to Cambodia by two British officials in December. The Overseas Development Administration briefed leading NGOs on 5 January, and will make available information of specific programme/project opportunities.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whom the Minister of State is meeting during his visit to the refugee camps on the Thai-Cambodian border; which camps he is visiting; whether he is meeting representatives of British non-governmental organisations in private; and if he will be making a statement on this visit.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  During his visit to Thailand, my noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited site 2, near Aranyaprathet, on 20 January. He was briefed by the displaced persons protection unit and the United Nations Border Relief Operation, toured the encampment and handed over a donation of British humanitarian assistance. He visited projects run by Christian Outreach and Concern, and met representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross. In the evening, he gave a private dinner for representatives of British NGOs and the British staff of other organisations.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's assessment as to the implications for the chemical weapon convention talks of the United States' policy to continue production of binary chemical weapons after a chemical weapon convention has been signed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are aware of the press speculation last year about United States policy. However, the United States has made no proposal to amend the provision in the draft chemical weapons convention under negotiation in Geneva that would prohibit the production of chemical weapons immediately upon the convention's entry into force.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Innovation Grant
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will estimate the amount of expenditure on the business innovation grant scheme to be paid out in each of the standard English regions and Wales for each year 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92;

  (2) if he will estimate the amount of expenditure on the business investment grant to be paid out in each of the standard English regions and Wales for each year 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92;

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The estimated expenditure for the two elements of the regional enterprise grant scheme for 1989–90 are £4·78 million for investment grants and £2·25 million for innovation grants for England as a whole. Information about planned expenditure on regional assistance in 1990–91 and 1991–92 was published in the public expenditure White Paper on 30 January.

  Current year figures and estimates for future expenditure in England are not broken down by regions. Questions about the operation of regional enterprise grants in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he was consulted by Sir Leon Brittan about the proposal to launch a European Commission inquiry into price fixing, monopoly practices, market shares and fee levels of the quality of audits into the accountancy profession.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. I understand that the Commission is asking outside consultants to conduct a study into the general implications for competition of the increasing concentration of the major accountancy firms. This is not a formal investigation under the competition rules of the EC treaty.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will be providing evidence for or contributing to the inquiry by the European Community Commission into price fixing and monopoly abuse in the accountancy profession; and whether he has any proposals for a similar inquiry in Britain.

  Mr. Redwood
  The United Kingdom authorities will of course give any assistance they can to those conducting the study. Neither I nor the Director General of Fair Trading have proposals for a similar inquiry in Britain.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new rules he proposes to deal with the concentration of audit business and the attendant inside information about mergers in a few large firms.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has available to him the merger control provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 to scrutinise mergers of major economic significance between accountancy firms. Auditors have a professional duty of confidence. If the hon. Member has any evidence of a breach of that confidence he should draw it to the attention of the relevant professional body; but if he has reason to believe that there might have been an insider dealing offence he should provide my Department with full details.
  223
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers he has to vet or investigate mergers of accountancy firms to prevent the concentration of power in a few firms in this area; and how many mergers or takeovers in this field he has referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the normal merger control powers available to him under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973. In accordance with the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, he has not so far decided to refer any mergers between accountancy firms to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Cambodia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Cambodia and export credit guarantees; and if he will list all instances in the last 10 years in which export credit guarantees have been granted for trade with Cambodia.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since June 1975, ECGD cover for exports to Cambodia has been limited to business on maximum terms of 180 days where payment is secured by means of an irrevocable letter of credit confirmed, before shipment, by a bank in the United Kingdom.

  On this basis, business insured in each of the past 10 years, with the exception of 1983, was less than £1,000. In 1983, exports totalling £200,000 were covered.

  No relaxation of ECGD's terms of cover is envisaged in the foreseeable future.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to develop new proposals for dealing with insider trading; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government will continue to pursue all insider dealing cases where prosecution is justified under the code of conduct for Crown prosecutors. Convictions have been obtained in 10 out of 19 cases brought under the legislation. Inspections are being carried out in a further 16 potential cases.

  In the latest two cases the outcome turned on factors which have nothing to do with the law on insider dealing, namely the law on public interest immunity, and procedural matters relating to the conduct of criminal trials.

  As I told the House on 8 December (OR column 407) the Government that day published a consultative document on proposals for changes to the insider dealing law, and a copy is in the Library. The proposals reflect the requirements of the EEC insider dealing directive and experience of the present law. The Government will consider carefully any constructive proposals that may emerge from the consultation.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases of insider dealing have been brought since the introduction of the legislation; how many cases are outstanding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Insider dealing became a criminal offence since July 1980. Since then there have been 19 224
  prosecutions for insider dealing offences, involving 26 defendants. Ten cases produced convictions. At present there are three cases where prosecutions have begun but not concluded. The Government will continue to pursue all insider dealing cases where prosecution is justified under the code of conduct for Crown prosecutors.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether all investors in Barlow Clowes should now have received the offer letter promised in his statement to the House on 19 December; and by what date his Department requires their response.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 30 January to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson).

  Single Market
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the nature of the help provided by his Department to the organisation of conferences and seminars on the 1992 proposals; and if he will make a statement on the organisation of 1992 clubs.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 30 January]: Since the launch of its campaign "Europe Open for Business", the Department has provided speakers (both Ministers and officials) at 1,445 single market conferences and seminars. Organisers of these events can obtain, free of charge, copies of our wide range of single market literature for distribution to delegates plus free publicity for the events in the campaign's quarterly newsletter "Single Market News" (distributed to over 200,000 organisations). A range of videos produced by the Department, suitable for showing at single market events, can also be bought or hired. In 1988, the Department itself organised 20 regional breakfast conferences and more recently ran a major conference on "Europe Open for Professions" in London.

  The Department has no role in the organisation of 1992 clubs though officials have spoken at events put on by individual clubs. I understand that the 1992 club national co-ordinator is Mr. Edward McMillan-Scott MEP.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a list of the various publications and briefing notes which his Department makes available on the 1992 proposals.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 30 January]: A list of all the single market publications and video material provided under my Department's "Europe Open for Business" campaign is included in our single market information pack. A copy of the information pack has been placed in the Library. Further copies can be obtained through our 1992 hotline 01–200 1992.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the measures so far adopted by the Council of Ministers on 1992 which will assist the development of industry and commerce in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 30 January]: Progress continues to be made on the single market programme. One hundred and sixty-four out of the 279 measures in the Commission's white paper, "Completing the Internal

  225
  Market", have now reached a common position in the Council of Ministers, or been agreed in principle. This means that almost 60 per cent. of the single market programme is now complete.

  For information in greater detail, I have placed in the Library of the House a summary table setting out for the measures in the Commission's white paper those which have been adopted by the Council of Ministers, those which have been proposed by the Commission and those which are projected. Clearly not all these measures are of equal importance, but taken as a whole programme, the Government believe they represent good progress, and will bring benefits to industry and commerce in the United Kingdom, especially where they succeed in opening continental markets to British businesses.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Postgraduate Degrees
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many postgraduate degrees, and in what subjects, were awarded in the last year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable numbers in 1979.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information is given in the table. A new classification was introduced in 1985–86 for the recording of university students' subject of study. For broad comparison purposes additional information has been given for the last year of the previous subject classification (1984) and the first year of the new classification (1985).

  Universities Great Britain—Higher Degrees1 awarded

  Calendar year

  1979

  1984

  Education

  1,999

  2,673

  Medicine, dentistry and health

  1,206

  1,521

  Engineering and technology

  3,090

  3,226

  Agriculture, forestry and veterinary science

  501

  643

  Science

  4,374

  4,654

  Social, administrative and business studies

  4,145

  5,327

  Architecture and other professional and vocational subjects

  588

  648

  Language, literature and area studies

  1,292

  1,358

  Arts other than languages

  885

  1,018

  All subjects

  18,080

  21,068

  Calendar year

  1985

  1988

  Medicine and dentistry

  803

  1,264

  Studies allied to medicine

  729

  800

  Biological sciences

  1,554

  1,784

  Veterinary science, agriculture and related studies

  602

  764

  Physical sciences

  2,239

  2,557

  Mathematical sciences

  1,197

  1,495

  Engineering and technology

  3,526

  3,760

  Architecture and related studies

  480

  610

  Social sciences

  3,477

  3,992

  Business and financial studies

  2,033

  2,841

  Librarianship and information science

  297

  364

  Languages and related studies

  1,446

  1,635

  Humanities

  1,061

  1,238

  Creative arts

  195

  235

  Education

  2,860

  2,986

  Multi-disciplinary studies

  513

  678

  All subjects

  23,012

  27,003

  226
  Note: Higher degrees comprise MSC's, PHD's Higher doctorates (DSc, DLitt etc.)

  Source: Universities statistical record volume 1 university statistics: students and staff.

  Examination Boards
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) for how long the examination board is required to keep papers in an examination the result of which is in dispute;

  (2) how many schools queried the Midland examining group's assessment of the marks to be awarded for the English examination of GCSE (a) in 1988 and (b) in 1989;

  (3) whether an examination board is under any obligation to notify a school when its pupils' exam papers are to be destroyed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The groups are indepedent bodies, wholly responsible for the administration of their own examinations. Queries concerning grading decisions are entirely a matter for the group and the school concerned, and the Department does not collect information about the number of queries or appeals at group level.

  I understand that, where results are in dispute, examination scripts are kept for as long as a formal appeal is under consideration. Once the appeals procedures have been exhausted, or it has become apparent that a school intends to take no further formal action, the examining group normally destroys the scripts, but it is under no obligation to notify a school that it has done so.

  Kuru Disease and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research h as been conducted to establish the cause or causes of(a) Kuru and (b) Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease; what results have so far been forthcoming; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease and Kuru belong to a family of diseases thought to be caused by "slow viruses" which include scrapie in sheep and bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle.

  As a result of recommendation 8.5.2 (viii) of the Tyre11 report (report of the working party on bovine spongiform encephalopathy), the Department of Health has commissioned a research project to review the incidence, prevalence and trends of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in order to help determine whether there is a link with bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  From 1979 until 1987, the Medical Research Council funded an epidemiological study of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. No consistent risk factors were identified. The neuropathogenesis unit in Edinburgh is undertaking a programme of research on scrapie which is also relevant; the unit is jointly funded by the Agricultural and Food Research Council and Medical Research Council.

  Research on Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease and Kuru may be being pursued by university departments and medical schools with support from the University Funding Council block grants and by health authorities; but information on this is not collected centrally.

TRANSPORT

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of casualties among pillion passengers carried on motor cycles driven by learner riders, indicating the number who were holders of full motor cycle driving licences and the number carried illegally without a full licence in each of the last five years in repect of which information is available.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information is not available on the type of driving licence held by drivers of vehicles, or their passengers, involved in road injury accidents. Therefore, it is not possible to estimate the number of pillion passengers carried on motor cycles being driven by learner drivers, nor to tell whether these passengers were being carried illegally.

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by location where creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in his Department; and if they have to make any payment for this service.

  Mr. Atkins
  No creche facilities are provided by my Department at present, although possibilities are being investigated.

  Severn Bridge Signal Box
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will take steps to save the Severn bridge signal box at Shrewsbury, Shropshire for the nation as a national heritage; whether he has discussed the matter with the National Railway museum at York; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  These are matters for British Rail. I understand from BR that, under current plans, the signal box is likely to continue to be required for railway operational purposes until late 1991. BR and other interested parties will therefore have ample time to consider these issues, including possible arrangements for preservation.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to resist all proposals from airlines to increase night flights or to reduce the period covered by night flight restrictions at Heathrow airport.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The present night restrictions regime at Heathrow was introduced in 1988 and runs until 1992–3. We have no plans to alter it.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to resist all proposals to end the daily runway alternation at Heathrow airport.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Government policy on aircraft noise is as set out in the White Paper "Airport Policy", published in June 1985 (Cmnd. 9542). Runway alternation at Heathrow is cited as an example of a noise abatement measure that the Government will continue to encourage (para 8.8).

  Airline Punctuality
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library on a regular basis a copy of the Civil Aviation Authority's report on airline punctuality records; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  These reports are published monthly by the Civil Aviation Authority, on the basis of information provided by certain airports and by the relevant scheduling committees (comprising representatives of airlines using the airports). I have told the authority of my hon. Friend's request.

  Transport (London)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what are his Department's estimates for the number of cars entering London on a regular basis for each of the next five years;

  (2) what is his Department's estimate for the number of commuters using all forms of transport with a London destination for each of the next five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 26 January 1990]: Figures are not available in the form requested. Estimates for commuters entering central London show that between 1983 and 1988, commuting by each of the modes changed as follows:

  Per cent.

  Cars

  -11

  BR Rail

  +22

  Underground

  +27

  Bus

  -18

  Large-scale investment is taking place to increase the capacity of the rail systems to accommodate increasing demand. It is not the Government's policy to encourage commuting by car into central London. The report of the central London rail study, published in January 1989, forecast that, between 1987 and 2001, BR trips would increase by some 20 per cent. and Underground trips by about 13 per cent.

HEALTH

  Hospital and Community Health Services
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will show in the Official Report the increase in purchasing power made available for hospital and community health services, excluding the cost improvement programme and income generation, for the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989, estimated, using an index which would show 1980 as 100.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Year

  1980–81

  100·0

  1986–87

  104·7

  1987–88

  109·9

  1988–89

  113·2

  1989–90

  1 114·1

  1 Estimate.

  Notes:
  229
  1. Based on health authorities' total revenue cash limits, inclusive of all in-year adjustments, carry forward from previous financial year, and in year transfers between revenue and capital.

  2. Increase in purchasing power measured by GDP deflator.

  Homes for the Elderly
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make it his policy to ensure that elderly people resident in homes for the elderly are provided with equivalent support from public funds irrespective of whether the homes are publicly or privately run.

  Mr. Freeman
  The White Paper "Caring for People" explained that we intend to bring the local authority rules for working out how much people in homes can afford to contribute towards their care and support into line with those used for income support purposes. Under our community care proposals local authorities will have to contribute more to the support of people in homes under their own management than to that of people in private homes but the personal financial position of residents will be the same.

  Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has carried out into a connection between Creutzfeld-Jakob disease and bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  As a result of recommendation 8.5.2 (viii), of the Tyrrell report (report of the working party on bovine spongiform encephalopathy) the Department of Health has commissioned a research project to review the incidence, prevalence and trends of Creutzfeld-Jakob disease in order to help determine whether there is a link with bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Area Health Authorities
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instruct area health authorities to pay due heed to local authorities and public opinion when they decide to construct buildings such as incinerators which can have an adverse effect on the environment.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities are already instructed to consult local planning authorities where a proposed development is one for which planning permission would normally be required.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will request the South Warwickshire health authority to refrain from proceeding with the building of a large incinerator and chimney at the South Warwickshire hospital until the powers of control and licence for such a project have passed to the local authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  The responsibility for strategic planning and operational policy of waste disposal rests locally with the West Midlands regional health authority. South Warwickshire health authority has acted throughout in a responsible way. For further information my hon. Friend may like to consult the authority concerned.

  Abortion
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the places approved by him under section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967.
  230
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The following places have been approved for the period 1 February 1990 to 31 January 1992:

  Acland Nuffield, Hospital, Oxford

  AMI Alexandra Hospital, Cheadle, Cheshire

  BUPA Alexandra Hospital, Walderslade, Kent

  Avenue Clinic, Hove, Sussex

  Bath Clinic, Combe Down, Bath

  AMI Beechwood Hospital, Norton, Sheffield

  BUPA Belvedere Hospital, Scarborough

  Blackdown Nursing Home, Blackdown, Leamington Spa

  AMI Blackheath Hospital, London SE3

  Bromhead Hospital, Lincoln

  BUPA Hospital, Bushey, Watford, Hertfordshire

  BUPA Murrayfield Hospital, Thingwall, Wirral, Merseyside

  BUPA Hospital, Norwich, Colney, Norwich

  BUPA Hospital, Portsmouth

  Calthorpe Nursing Home, Edgbaston, Birmingham

  BUPA Chalybeate Hospital, Southampton, Hampshire

  Chatsworth Clinic, New Barnet, Hertfordshire

  AMI Chaucer Hospital, Canterbury

  Chesterfield Nuffield Hospital, Bristol

  Christchurch Park Hospital, Ipswich, Suffolk

  BUPA Hospital Clare Park, Farnham, Surrey

  Clementine Churchill Hospital, Harrow

  Cleveland Nuffield Hospital, Stockton-on-Tees

  Danum Lodge Nursing Home, Doncaster

  Dean Park Nursing Home, Bournemouth, Dorset

  Doncaster Independent Hospital, Doncaster

  Droitwich Private Hospital, Droitwich, Worcestershire

  Duchy Hospital, Truro, Treliske, Truro

  Duchy House Nuffield Hospital, Harrogate,

  Evelyn Hospital, Cambridge

  Exeter Nuffield Hospital, Exeter

  Fairfield Nursing Home, Buckhurst Hill, Essex

  Fallodon Private Nursing Home, Leeds

  Fitzwilliam Hospital, South Bretton, Peterborough

  Foscote Private Hospital, Banbury, Oxfordshire

  Fulford Grange Hospital, Rawdon, Leeds

  Garden Hospital, London NW4

  Gisburne Park Hospital, Clitheroe, Lancashire

  BUPA Glen Hospital, Bristol

  Hampshire Clinic, Basingstoke

  Highfield Private Hospital, Rochdale

  HRH Princess Christian's Hospital, Windsor, Berkshire

  BUPA Hospital Hull and East Riding, Hull

  Hull Nuffield Hospital, Hull

  Humana Hospital, London NW8

  King Edward VII Hospital, Midhurst

  Leicester Nuffield Hospital, Leicester

  Leigham Private Clinic, London SW16

  Marie Stopes Nursing Home, London NW2

  Merseyside Nursing Home, Liverpool

  Newcastle Nuffield Hospital, Jesmond, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  New Hall Hospital, Salisbury, Wiltshire

  New Victoria Hospital, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey

  BUPA North Cheshire Hospital, Warrington, Cheshire

  AMI Park Hospital, Arnold, Nottingham

  Parkfield Private Hospital, Rotherham, South Yorkshire

  Parkview Clinic, London W5

  Plymouth Nuffield Hospital, Derrifold, Plymouth

  AMI Portland Hospital for Women and Children, London W1

  Raleigh Nursing Home, London SW2

  Robert Nursing Home, Kings Norton, Birmingham

  Rosslyn Nursing Home, East Twickenham, Middlesex

  Royal Masonic Hospital, London W6

  Salop Nuffield Hospital, Shrewsbury

  Sarum Road Private Hospital, Winchester, Hampshire

  Somerset Nuffield Hospital, Taunton, Somerset

  BUPA South Bank Hospital, Worcester

  South Manchester Private Clinic, Stockport

  BUPA Wellesley Hospital, Southend-on-Sea

  Wessex Nuffield Hospital, Eastleigh, Hampshire

  231

  Winterbourne Hospital, Dorchester, Dorset

  Wistons Nursing Home, Brighton

  Woking Nuffield Hospital, Woking

  Wye Valley Nuffield Hospital, Hereford

  Yorkshire Clinic, Bingley, West Yorkshire

  As part of the Department's control of the private sector all these places have been subject to unannounced visits of inspection during the previous approval period. Those places specialising in abortion have been visited more frequently by both medical/nursing and investigative officers. During these visits the operation of approved places is closely observed to ensure they meet the condition required in respect of medical and nursing practice, administrative and financial arrangements and facilities and equipment provided.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the extent to which the production of safe and efficient factor 8 concentrates from United Kingdom national fractionation centres meets the need of haemophiliacs in the United Kingdom;

  (2) when he expects the United Kingdom to achieve self-sufficiency in blood products;

  (3) at what date United Kingdom haemophiliacs will be able to receive factor 8 made solely from the plasma of unpaid donors to the national blood transfusion service.

  Mr. Freeman
  At present in England and Wales approximately 70 per cent. of the factor 8 used to treat haemophiliacs is produced at the blood products laboratory from the plasma of unpaid donors to the national blood transfusion service. The remainder is commercially produced factor 8 which is imported into the United Kingdom. The imported products are being prescribed as a result of the preference of individual clinicians. The blood products laboratory is, therefore, meeting in full the demand for its factor 8, as it is for virtually all other blood products. It is making efforts to increase its share of the blood products market in this country, but the choice of product remains with the clinician.

  The information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Organ Donations (Payment)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to prohibit payment for donations of human organs, blood and plasma in the United Kingdom; and if he has any plans to restrict the processing and distribution of such donations to a publicly controlled agency within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  Our donors give blood and plasma freely, and have always done so. The Government are committed to maintaining this principle of voluntary and unpaid donation. There are certainly no plans to privatise blood collection and supply of blood products in this country.

  The Human Organ Transplants Act 1989 prohibits commercial dealings in human organs intended for transplant. Donations of human organs will be carefully monitored under the Act and its regulations. The Act introduced controls to ensure that human organs are donated freely and according to certain conditions.
  232
  Organ donations from live donors are subject to particular regulations which have been approved by Parliament and will come into effect on 1 April 1990. The Unrelated Live Transplant Regulatory Authority (ULTRA), which is being set up under this Act, will have to be satisfied that certain conditions are met in cases of donation of organs between persons who are genetically unrelated before the proposed transplant will be able to take place.

  The information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mentally Ill People (Basingstoke and North Hampshire)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many beds for long-term mentally ill patients provided by the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority are currently occupied by patients from other health districts;

  (2) how many long-term beds for mentally ill patients are provided by the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority other than those provided by the psychiatric division, Park Prewett;

  (3) how many long-term beds for mentally ill patients are provided by the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority at the psychiatric division, Park Prewett;

  (4) how many National Health Service-funded mentally ill patients from the Basingstoke and North Hampshire district are currently accommodated in National Health Service hospitals or private nursing homes in other districts;

  (5) if he will list the private nursing homes in the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health district which are registered for the mentally ill; how many mentally ill patients each can accommodate; how many each is currently accommodating; and how many of these are National Health Service funded.

  Mr. Freeman
  During the year 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989 there were on average 318 beds available daily in NHS wards for long-stay mental illness patients in Basingstoke and North Hampshire health district. All these beds were at Park Prewett hospital. The number of beds occupied by patients from other districts is not available centrally.

  Figures for the numbers of patients with a mental illness, from the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health district, who are accommodated in hospital and units outside the district are not available centrally.

  As at 31 March 1988, none of the private institutions in the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health district, registered under section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984, contained beds specifically for mental illness patients. Information is not available centrally on mentally ill patients that may be resident in these institutions.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of the provision of care for mentally ill patients in the Basingstoke and North Hampshire district.
  233
  Mr. Freeman
  It is for the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority to decide the level of provision of care for mentally ill patients in its district, taking account of local needs and priorities.

  Acute Services
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the decision of the East Anglian regional health authority that its future planning should be based on the assumption that hospitals providing acute services for East Anglia must have a minimum of 550 to 600 beds for long-term viability; what is Government policy on this matter; how many existing acute hospitals in all parts of the country have fewer than 550 to 600 beds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The appropriate size of an acute hospital is a matter for local decision, in the light of particular needs and circumstances including the 24-hour provision of equipment and skilled staff. I understand that at its January meeting the East Anglian regional health authority endorsed, for planning purposes, the principle of a minimum size for future general acute hospitals.

  At the beginning of 1987 there were in England 431 acute hospitals1 (not necessarily all offering district general hospital facilities) with less than 600 beds in total. Departmental policies require authorities to consider the financial, manpower and interdependent service consequences of their planning options.
  1 This is based on the definition that such hospitals should have at least 85 per cent. of their beds in the acute specialties.

  Budgets and Forecasts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his Department's procedures for producing budgets and forecasts; what guidance is issued on the use of those procedures; what criteria are applied when judging cost effectiveness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 19 January 1990]: It is for district health authorities to draw up their own budgets in the light of the resource allocations they receive from the regional health authority.

  The setting of budgets is part of the planning cycle. Regional health authorities submit annually to the NHS management executive their programmes for the next financial year. These programmes provide the basis from which budgets are drawn up. The management executive issues guidance on what programmes should cover including quantified information on planned levels of activity, finance and manpower.

  Health authorities' cost improvement programmes deliver a fundamental and continuing challenge to their cost base. Health authorities decide the level of cost improvements they can achieve. The management executive, where necessary, challenges the adequacy of the level proposed and monitors its delivery, as it does other key aspects of programmes.

  Leeds Health Authorities (Merger)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the possible merger of Leeds Eastern and Leeds Western health authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: I understand that regional and district officers are
  234
  currently considering the possibility of such a merger. However, merger proposals will be considered only where there is a compelling case for change. Before any case for a merger could be accepted it would need to be considered by the regional health authority and then submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for final decision. The case would be subject to full public consultation and the Secretary of State would need to be sure of its merits before approving it. The Health Service reforms are not about widescale restructuring but are designed to concentrate management on improving health care for patients.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Forestry (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to develop forestry in Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are actively promoting both the woodland grant scheme and the farm woodland scheme, and 37 applications have been submitted under these schemes in Nottinghamshire, covering an area of over 100 hectares of new planting. The Forestry Commission is currently developing proposals with British Coal for further tree planting on colliery spoil tips. I have also seen a copy of the Countryside Commission's consultation document on its proposal to create a new forest in the English midlands, in which Sherwood forest in Nottinghamshire is identified as one of the possible sites.

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by location where creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in his Department; and if they have to make any payment for this service.

  Mr. Curry
  All office managers have been encouraged to consider carefully the provision of nursery facilities. A feasibility study is currently being undertaken on the setting up of a day nursery at Guildford where there is already a successful holiday play scheme. The study will include all aspects of the matter, including costs to parents. The possibility of providing nursery facilities is also being investigated by regional management at Cambridge who are taking the lead for all Departments in the town. Similar investigations are being carried out in the Tolworth-Chessington area. The Department is also participating in the project to determine the feasibility of providing child care facilities in and around London for the employees of all Departments.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a further statement on whether bovine spongiform encephalopathy can be communicated to humans in the light of the comments of the Government's Chief Veterinary Officer.

  Mr. Maclean
  All Ministers in this Department and the Chief Veterinary Officer have continually emphasised that there is no evidence of a risk to human health from BSE
  235
  and that the Southwood working party regarded such a risk as remote. None the less, precautionary measures, including the slaughter and destruction of affected cattle and the banning of certain offals for human consumption from all others, has been taken to counter even that remote and theoretical risk.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected cattle have so far been destroyed with farmers receiving Ministry compensation; and how much this compensation has cost so far.

  Mr. Maclean
  From 8 August 1988, when the compulsory slaughter policy was introduced, to 31 December 1989, a total of 9,884 suspected BSE cases were slaughtered in Great Britain and £3,353,928 paid in compensation.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much it would cost to pay(a) 100 per cent. for cattle affected by bovine spongiform encephalopathy and (b) for the slaughter of female offspring from cows affected by bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is not possible to estimate such costs in the future, as these would depend on the number of animals slaughtered, and the market price of cattle on which the maximum level of compensation payable depends. But if compensation for all the infected animals compulsorily slaughtered up to the end of 1989 had been at 100 per cent. of their value, subject to existing ceiling arrangements, the cost would have exceeded £6 million.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the possibility of the passing of the infective agent associated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy from one generation of cattle to the next.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 18 December 1989,Official Report, column 30.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected cattle reaching market and being sold for human consumption.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since BSE became a notifiable disease on 21 June 1988, up to 30 September 1989, the end of the last quarter for which figures are currently available, 81 suspected cases of BSE were identified at markets. Of these, 56 were subsequently confirmed as having BSE. All animals concerned were slaughtered and their carcases destroyed. Of course the removal of specified offals from all cattle more than six months old ensures that there is no risk to human health.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the National Farmers Union in respect of(a) the ban on the sale of bovine offal for human consumption, (b) the exclusion to the above ban granted to calves under six months, (c) the compensation levels set for bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected cattle, (d) the level of research into the causes of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and (e) the ban on imports by West German Government.
  236
  Mr. Maclean
  I have received representations from the National Farmers Union expressing support for the ban on the use of certain bovine offal for human consumption and for the research being conducted into BSE; expressing concern at the West German restrictions on beef imported from Britain, and disagreeing with the level of compensation payable for cattle infected with BSE.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to prevent the sale of bovine spongiform encephalopathy-affected cattle through non-European countries' slaughterhouses.

  Mr. Maclean
  All cattle suspected of being infected with BSE are compulsorily slaughtered and their carcases burned or buried. In addition to checks carried out by environmental health officers, cattle at non-EC approved slaughterhouses are subject to random ante-mortem inspections by veterinary inspectors.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has made an assessment of the implications(a) for the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, (b) for the farming community and (c) for the level of exports of British beef, of his policy not to compensate farmers in full for cattle infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  I do not believe that existing levels of compensation have any effect on the spread of BSE or on British beef exports. Compensation is intended to provide farmers with a fair recompense for cattle slaughtered as BSE suspects at the Ministry's behest.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will implement the recommendations of the Tyrell committee that random sampling of the brains of cattle routinely sent for slaughter should be carried out to test for the presence of subclinical bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 23 January at column 645.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he has received any representations from Proten in connection with its product Papain; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he last met representatives from Proten; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Maclean
  The company that owns the patent rights to Proten has expressed disappointment with our decision not to seek provision for the continued use of this pre-slaughter treatment under the rules which are to be adopted for the single market. My right hon. Friend the Minister last met representatives of the organisation concerned on 22 November 1989 to discuss a range of issues relating to their slaughter interests.

  I have nothing to add to the full statement I made on this matter during the Adjournment debate on 7 November 1989.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the visits made in 1989 to slaughterhouses in East Sussex by officers of the state veterinary service.
  237
  Mr. Maclean
  In 1989 the following visits were made by officers of the state veterinary service to red meat slaughterhouses and licensed poultry premises in East Sussex to advise on standards:

  Dates

  Tottingworth Farms Ltd.

  Little Tottingworth Farm

  Broad Oak, Heathfield

  22 February 1989

  T. Borthwick & Sons (UK) Ltd.

  The Abattoir

  Norlington Lane, Ringmer

  23 June 1989

  Mr. M. Vine

  Slaughterhouse

  Garfield Lane, Hailsham

  20 June 1989

  Mayhew's Chicken plc

  Five Ash Down, Uckfield

  25 January 1989

  25 April 1989

  19 July 1989

  21 November 1989

  Sovereign Chicken plc

  Burwash Common, Etchingham

  21 February 1989

  31 October 1989

  Bridge Poultry Supplies Ltd.

  Horam, Heathfield

  10 February 1989

  In addition, some 30 visits were made by state veterinary service officers to undertake ante-mortem inspections and to carry out duties associated with the collection of samples for testing for the presence of drug residues.

  Organic Production
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the European Community draft regulation relating to organic standards in respect of the length of the proposed conversion period from conventional to organic production.

  Mr. Curry
  The European Community proposals on organic foodstuffs, as currently drafted, provide for a conversion period of at least one calendar year. In line with the standards set by the United Kingdom register of organic food standards, the United Kingdom and a number of other member states have suggested that conversion should be for a minimum of two years.

  Organic Livestock
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the formulation of organic livestock standards.

  Mr. Curry
  Voluntary national standards for the production and processing of organic foods, including livestock standards, were launched by the United Kingdom register of organic food standards in May last year. A copy was placed at that time in the Library of the House. In addition, the EC Commission issued proposals for a regulation on organic foodstuffs covering crops and products of plant origin in December. It has indicated that if the regulation is adopted it will submit parallel proposals for statutory organic livestock standards in due course.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the partial ban on imports of British beef by West Germany.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no scientific justification for the West German restrictions on imports of beef from this country. This view was endorsed at the meeting of Agriculture Ministers which my right hon. Friend the Minister attended last week where the Commissioner confirmed that expert scientific advice was that British beef did not pose a risk to human health and that any interference with trade would be contrary to Community law. The German authorities will be reflecting on this and I hope they will soon remove their restrictions.

  Hill livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement regarding the hill livestock compensatory allowance for the coming year, indicating whether there is to be any increase in the allowance.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Minister made to the House on 30 January 1990 at columns 159–70.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what help he proposes to give to those in horticulture and agriculture who have sustained heavy losses through the recent severe storms.

  Mr. Curry
  I have the greatest sympathy for farmers and growers who have been badly affected by the recent severe weather. My officials will operate the farm capital grant schemes as flexibly as possible within the rules of those schemes in order to take account of the effects of the storm. But it has been the longstanding policy of successive Governments not to pay compensation to farmers for the effects of severe weather, particularly where risks are insurable.

  North-East Drift Net Fishery
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimate his Department has formed of the value of the catch of salmon from the north-east drift net fishery in the last year for which figures are available and in the corresponding period 10, 20 and 30 years ago;

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of the number of (a) full-time and (b) part-time jobs created by the north-east drift net fishery salmon catch in the latest year for which figures are available and in the corresponding period 10, 20 and 30 years ago;

  (3) what socio-economic studies his Department has undertaken in anticipation of the publication of the report of the inquiry into the north-east drift net fishery to establish the likely impact of phasing out this fishery.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]: My Department has information on the numbers of salmon drift net licence holders (and endorsees), and catch statistics which are published regularly.
  239
  We do not have data on the values of catches of salmon taken by drift nets in the north-east England fishery—nor information on the jobs dependent upon salmon drift net fishing—for the years in question. We have no plans to mount a socio-economic study in anticipation of the report to Parliament on the north-east coast salmon net fishery. Section 39 of the Salmon Act 1986 requires Ministers to
  "prepare a report which, in the context of the need to ensure—

  (a) that sufficient salmon return to spawn in the rivers wholly or partly situated in the areas and districts specified in subsection (3) below; and

  (b) that fishing for salmon by means of nets is properly managed in those areas and districts,

  reviews the nature and extent of all such fishing in those areas and districts."

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline the procedures undertaken for(a) a partial review and (b) a full review of pesticide active ingredients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: A full review covers all aspects of consumer, operator, and environmental safety. A partial review addresses only those aspects that may suggest a cause for concern. In both cases experimental data will be requested and evaluated and a recommendation made to Ministers by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

  Cattle Offal
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries which have been importing cattle offal from the United Kingdom since 8 November 1989.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: The available information relates to the calendar month of November 1989 and shows that the United Kingdom exported edible offal of bovine animals to the following countries:

  France

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  Italy

  Irish Republic

  Portugal

  Spain

  Finland

  Japan

  United States of America

  Information for later months is not yet available.

  Veterinary Manpower
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will make a decision on the Page report on veterinary manpower.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to the reply, 22 January 1990, c. 572]: I would like to thank Dr. Ewan Page, vice-chancellor of Reading University and his committee for their careful and thorough examination of the issues put to them and for producing well-argued recommendations.
  240
  Dr. Ewan Page and his committee were asked by the Government to chair a committee to assess the need for veterinary manpower and demand for veterinary education and in the light of this to make recommendations on how increased manpower requirements might be met having regard to funding constraints. The committee was also asked to consider future arrangements for assessing the demand for veterinary manpower and determining the number of student places. Dr. Page's report has been published and copies are being placed in the Library of the House. The report concludes that there is likely to be a significant shortfall over the next decade and makes a number of recommendations directed at the Government, the Universities Funding Council, veterinary schools and the veterinary profession to rectify this situation.

  The Government have considered the report carefully. They have decided to lift the restrictions on the freedom of veterinary schools to increase student intake in response to demand from the market by removing the ceiling on intakes to veterinary schools. The Government also accept the recommendation that they discontinue five-yearly manpower reviews and let student demand have a greater role in determining the intake of veterinary schools. However, as it is important to maintain a core of veterinarians trained to help ensure that animal health and public health requirements are met, the Government will review the position if it appears that these needs are in jeopardy.

  The Government recognise that any expansion of veterinary schools will not have an immediate effect on supply of veterinarians. They therefore accept the Page committee's recommendation that in the short term increasing immigration of foreign veterinarians could be an important means of meeting any shortfall. The Government are currently considering a number of measures that would reduce the burden on employers making work permit applications and enable veterinarians' applications to be processed more quickly, as suggested by the Page committee.

  I am asking the veterinary profession to consider carefully those recommendations that the Page committee asked it to examine. These include the question of immigration of foreign veterinarians, exploring effective ways of encouraging part-time working and later retirement and monitoring of manpower supply and demand data. My Department will also be consulting interested organisations about the Page committee's proposals to review the role of veterinary nurses and make greater use of lay persons.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is asking the Universities Funding Council and veterinary schools to consider carefully those recommendations in the Page report that relate to the funding and teaching of an increased student intake at veterinary schools.

  The Universities Funding Council postponed consideration of the Riley report, which recommended reducing the number of veterinary schools, pending the results of the Page review. These recommendations will now need to be reassessed and the UFC has been asked to resolve this matter as soon as possible.

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

Regional Unemployment
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to correct the present imbalance in regional unemployment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government have a wide range of employment, training, enterprise, regional and urban measures which all help in creating employment opportunities and reducing unemployment throughout the United Kingdom. During the three years to December 1989 unemployment rates have fallen in all regions and by most in the West Midlands, in the North and in Wales.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as the unemployment rate in the South-East region is 3·7 per cent. and in the northern region 9·1 per cent., can the Minister say why after nearly 11 years of unrivalled power there is still such a chronic discrepancy?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord should concentrate so much on the discrepancy; he should concentrate upon the fact that the rate is falling much faster in the North than in the South.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the CBI said in a survey recently, I think it was yesterday, that it saw unemployment as rising. Has the Minister any comment to make on that?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is well aware that we never make forecasts on unemployment trends.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will consider whether some of these areas could do a great deal to help themselves by making their regions more attractive to prospective employers? Further, does he recall how Dundee lost the Ford factory, together with 1,000 jobs, solely because of obstruction by the Transport and General Workers' Union?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point. Moreover, that is a question which the unions themselves should consider when seeking to look after the interests of their members. However, the point I think he was trying to make is that regions should make themselves look more attractive to potential employers. Indeed, the
294
Government provide a great deal of assistance by way of schemes in order to achieve that aim.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Labour-controlled council of Wigan made a very attractive show of developing its area, so much so that the Tote, of which I am chairman, moved the whole of its credit headquarters to that region because of the inducements offered.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is very welcome and useful information.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, the original Question was about the imbalance in regional unemployment. Although the national percentage may be about 5·6 per cent., is the Minister aware that in South Yorkshire it is 10·5 per cent. and that in the Barnsley travel-to-work area it is 11·8 per cent.? The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, should be aware that the policies of Her Majesty's Government and the rapid closure of coal mines have created this enormous increase of unemployment in those areas. The question is, what are they going to do to balance regional unemployment differences? Further, what part are Her Majesty's Government playing, especially the Department of Trade and Industry, in encouraging the Common Market to introduce the IDOP scheme (the integrated development operations programme) and RECHAR in order to help those areas where the traditional industries are dying?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the mineworkers and the fact that some coalmines had been closed. However, he should remember that it was actually the strike of 1984 and Mr. Arthur Scargill that led to more mine closures than anything this Government have done.
As regards regional development we have a number of schemes. For example, we have regional selective assistance, English Estates, urban programmes and enterprise zones. Moreover, the employment service provides the Restart scheme, job clubs, YTS, employment training and business growth training——
Lord Mason of Barnsley: They are not working!
Lord Strathclyde: All those initiatives are working because unemployment is coming down. The rate is coming down fastest in the areas of greatest need. The noble Lord asked about IDOP. I shall have to look further at that scheme and perhaps I may write to him.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, in view of the perfectly legitimate interest of noble Lords on all sides of the House as regards various portions of mainland Britain, will my noble friend bear in mind the peculiar situation and needs of Northern Ireland and recognise the fact that the communal difficulties there are not the only cause of the economic troubles? Further, will he also recognise that cure of the economic troubles might assist in resolving the communal differences?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for raising that subject. The situation in Northern Ireland is sometimes forgotten.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government's own figures ——
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I must point out to the noble Baroness on this occasion that the noble Lord who also wishes to speak at this point has been trying continually for some time to do so.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the Minister has given the House an impressive list of various initiatives. However, perhaps he will confirm that they are not in fact working. Is he aware that 15,000 young people emigrated from Scotland to the South last year, as against 5,000 in the year 1976? The National Institute of Social and Economic Research says that between now and the year 2000 there will be a growth in the South-East of 8.1 per cent. as against 2·6 per cent. in the Scottish region. When will the Government take stock of whether their regional policies are working?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as an immigrant from Scotland I do not see that there is anything particularly wrong in young Scots men and women coming south of the Border. Government policies are working as part of the total renewal of the economy which is why unemployment is coming down and the economy continues to grow.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware, particularly in the light of his last statement, that according to the Government's own figures the number of jobs in manufacturing industry fell by 42,000 in the year to November 1989? Does not that support the concern that the CBI expressed yesterday that manufacturing industry is standing on the brink of a recession which will result in further job losses? Is not the decline in manufacturing industry a reflection of what is happening in the regions, because it is in the regions where manufacturing industry employment was strongest?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot comment on the CBI, but generally speaking we must look at employment issues in the context of rising employment. Figures for the previous quarter show an increase of 429,000 over the previous 12 months in the number of people joining the workforce. We are doing everything we can to ensure that people who have jobs retain them and that those who are unemployed soon find jobs.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the complaints from Yorkshire and the north of England are pretty parochial when one considers that high unemployment existed in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland for a long time but that the Government's encouragement of the oil industry made an enormous difference so that they too are flourishing?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am pleased to hear my noble friend's comment. I suspect that whenever we deal with regional issues to a certain extent we are bound to deal with parochialism.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords——
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance that at some time the Government will examine the CBI's views? Secondly, will they also examine the fact that unemployment by itself brings thousands and thousands of families unhappiness and sometimes internal rows and great unpleasantness? Will the Government now stop saying what a wonderful job they are doing by reducing by thousands the millions of unemployed they created five or six years ago?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government have never created unemployment. The Government are well aware of the unhappiness caused by unemployment which is why we have schemes designed to get long-term unemployed people back to work.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I recognise the great effect of the Government's efforts in the North-East, from where I come, where lots of new industries have started. Does my noble friend agree that many of the problems there are caused by small black spots of high unemployment which ruin the figures for the rest of the area? The problem is not solely a matter of jobs but of motivating people who have had a tradition of not working for several years and who therefore experience difficulty getting started in work.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a fair point. The regions hide areas of substantial prosperity as well as severe black spots.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords ——
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords ——
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has been trying to put a question. Perhaps I may suggest that after 10 minutes we take the noble Lord's question and then that of the noble Viscount before moving to the next Question.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. Is the Minister aware that it would make sound sense to take seriously the point made by my noble friend and other noble Lords? Is it not a fact that regional imbalances affect the whole of the country and not merely the north of England? Would not the great congestion on the roads and in the demand for services in the South and South-West be ironed out if industry and services were to move to the North? We should all have a much better environment then.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, relocation is obviously one way to help the statistics along. The noble Lord will no doubt be pleased by the announcement made on 17th January by my noble

297
friend the Paymaster General that well over 16,000 government posts are being relocated from London over the next few years.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, as I have only just arrived——
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, when listing the various advantages that the peripheral areas will have, will the Minister say what effect the community charge will have on those areas?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is an interesting question but entirely different from the one on the Order Paper.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, may I refer ——
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thought that the original questioner was normally allowed a ——
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, not even on this occasion?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think I am intervening more than I should. The answer to what the noble Lord suggested is: no. However, the House would, I think, wish him to ask one question; then perhaps we can proceed to the next Question.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I wish quickly to refer to the Minister's reply to my first supplementary question. He said that the rate of unemployment in the northern region was falling fast. Is the Minister aware that, if the rate of employment in that region falls, as it has been doing for some time, it will reach the 1979 level in the year 2002? Is he satisfied with that?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are doing our very best to get people who are unemployed back to work. The noble Lord may wish to know that in the northern region one-third of all unemployed people between the ages of 18 and 59 have started training on ET. It has the highest penetration rate throughout Great Britain and represents an 18 per cent. increase since April 1989. I hope that the downward trend will increase.

Industrial Relations Law
2.51 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they can confirm the statement of the Secretary of State for Employment on BBC Radio Four on 4th January 1990, to the effect that when the Employment Bill now before Parliament
298
becomes law "the desired balance of industrial law will have been achieved."
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Employment Bill published on 21st December deals with the outstanding problems of the pre-entry closed shop, secondary action and unofficial action. At this stage the Government have no plans for further industrial relations legislation but we have always made it clear that we are prepared to introduce legislation to deal with any new problems which may arise in the future.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. However, how does he square what he has just said with the widespread reports of the Secretary of State's interview mentioned in my Question? In The Times it was said that he had stated that the framework of legislation for the unions would be about right after the present legislation. In the Financial Times he was reported to have said that once the measures had become law the Government would consider that the industrial relations legislation would be about right. In the Guardian and the Independent he is reported to have said the same. Is what the Secretary of State said correct or is what the Minister has said today correct?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I rather suspect that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is trying to make cheap political points. He is full of facts that do not stand up to examination. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State actually said:
"I think when those reforms are in place, we shall have the right framework with which to move forward into the 1990s".
That confirms what I said in my original Answer.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister consider that perhaps we have rather too much trade union legislation? It might be a good idea to look at repealing some that does not seem to have had much impact. For example, the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members has had little work to do. Would it not be a good idea to transfer some of the resources to the Equal Opportunities Commission, which has a great deal of work to do and very little money with which to do it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have so much employment legislation only because of the abuse of powers by trade unions over several decades. As for the other point raised by the noble Baroness about whether we should look at adjusting the existing legislation, no doubt we shall be able to discuss it in detail when the Bill arrives in the House later this year.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Mr. Kinnock has promised that when he is elected to power he will abolish all trade union legislation introduced by this Government since the winter of discontent in 1979?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I suspect that Mr. Kinnock and the Labour Party are slightly confused on the issue. Mr. Tony Blair, who speaks on the Labour Party's behalf in another place, recently said

299
that he supported our views on banning the closed shop. It remains to be seen exactly what would happen if the Labour Party should ever gain power.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, do the Government recognise that, if legislation on industrial relations is to be effective, it must strike a fair balance between the interests of employers and those of employees and their representatives? When can we expect legislation in this field to be followed by the Government making positive moves to encourage greater co-operation between management and employees?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I must say from this side of the House that that is precisely what we think we have achieved. The legislation that we have introduced over the past few years has been extremely successful. I hope that that will continue.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Lord a specific question. The Government have made two general statements about future legislation in this field: to abolish wages councils and to introduce legislation on emergency disputes. Is the Secretary of State now saying that that is not being proceeded with, or is the Minister today saying that it will be proceeded with? Which is it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord will have to wait. No decision has been taken on either of those two issues. He has seen the Employment Bill which was published on 21st December and which deals with the problems that I outlined. Any further action which the Government feel should be taken will have to wait for the future.

Tuberculosis: Schools Vaccination Programme
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they discontinued the Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG) school vaccination against tuberculosis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the routine schools BCG vaccination programme has not been discontinued permanently. Because of supply problems and the need to conserve existing stocks of vaccine in order to protect high risk groups, a postponement of one year has been made for the group of children due to be vaccinated in the autumn of 1989. The programme is due to resume this autumn.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware that there has been an increase in tuberculosis in many countries with the emergence of the HIV infection? That includes America. Does she not agree that it is very important to protect our children against the infection of tuberculosis?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness that there has been no increase in the incidence of tuberculosis in this country. Nevertheless we recognise that people with AIDS are vulnerable to tuberculosis. It can be the first manifestation of the problem. However, they themselves should not be given BCG because it may cause widespread disease in those who are immunosuppressed. A high level of protection from the BCG vaccination in young people in the community is therefore all the more important now because of the higher incidence of HIV-positive people.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what caused the shortage of the vaccine?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. The UK suppliers, Evans Pharmaceuticals, had production problems because of a change of location.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister saying that we are totally dependent upon one supplier for this vitally important programme for the health of children? Do we in Britain supply other countries from that supplier? Is it wise to be dependent upon one supplier for a programme as important as this, whether or not other countries are also dependent upon us? Our own schoolchildren depend upon this vaccine. The noble Baroness herself knows the importance of the programme. I am glad that she gave us the date for the autumn. But is it not very unwise to be dependent upon one producer?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, no problems have arisen in the past over the BCG vaccine. The UK manufacturer is now resuming production. This is a good product which is exported to other parts of the world. No other UK manufacturer has sought a licence to manufacture it. If overseas suppliers sought to do so, the necessary licensing arrangements exist in order to make sure that clinical trials support the application.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does that mean not only that there was a delay of a year in availability of supplies in Britain, but also, as a consequence, a similar delay in other countries where the incidence of tuberculosis is very much higher than here?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there are other world suppliers.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, can the Minister give figures showing the extent of tuberculosis in this country in comparison with similar countries?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I cannot supply my noble friend with the comparative figures, but I can say that notifications in England and Wales have declined from 14,600 in 1966 to 5,085 in 1987, 5,161 in 1988 and approximately 5,157 in 1989.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her reply will allay the concern which exists in Wales as a result of the announcement

301
that the vaccination was to be discontinued in schools? Is the noble Baroness also aware that before the war tuberculosis was the scourge of Wales as the Clement Davies report of 1937 showed very clearly? Will the noble Baroness give some indication of what the notifications are in respect of Wales alone as compared to England and Wales?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I do not have the separate figures but if they are available I shall write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, will the Minister tell us the cost of the programme? Has she any information on the best age to vaccinate a child?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the average total cost of BCG vaccine for 1986 to 1988 was £241,800. I understand that the programme that is applied to schoolchildren comes within the age range of nine to 14.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, is the Minister telling us that the stoppage of supplies from the one manufacturer in this country came out of the blue and that we were not given any warning to enable us to plan imports from alternative sources?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that the department was first notified of the problems in early May 1989. The first reaction was to ensure that there were adequate supplies for high risk groups. That was done. We were confident that the high risk groups were fully catered for and that there would only be a short postponement of the schools programme.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as there are other world suppliers why did we not turn to them immediately?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we did not do that because, as I mentioned, there are considerable importing and licensing procedures involved. Any non-UK supplier would have to apply for a product licence and might have to conduct the necessary clinical trials to support the application. We were confident that we were covered for the high risk groups and that only a short postponement of the schools programme was involved.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, to try to put things in perspective does the noble Baroness accept that the really sensational reduction in the incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis during this century has not been greatly due to the BCG vaccine but to other factors altogether such as improved housing, improved nutrition and a vast improvement in therapy? Therefore, the vaccine itself is becoming gradually less important and one hopes that fairly soon it will not be needed at all.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are always grateful to the noble Lord for giving us the benefit of his expert advice. The fact that the incidence of the disease is continuing to decrease proves his point.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness not aware that nowadays travel has become very much more widespread and that people go abroad, especially to Asian countries, for holidays with their families, much more than previously was the case? Therefore they can bring the disease back to this country.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am aware that as communications have improved the incidence of travel has increased. Recently arrived immigrants from developing countries for example are considered to come within the high risk groups I mentioned because of the high prevalence of tuberculosis in those countries.

Chemical Waste: North Sea Dumping
3.5 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they are continuing to allow chemical waste to be dumped in the North Sea when they signed the European ministerial declaration in 1987 agreeing to cease this practice at the end of 1989.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government are firmly committed to end the sea disposal of chemical waste and we are making very good progress. The materials dumped cause no harm in the sea. We are fully complying with our international commitments.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that the British Government agreed under the Oslo Commission and under the North Sea anti-waste agreement to cease dumping in the North Sea from the end of 1989? Is it not also the case that Sweden, Norway, Holland, Denmark and Germany have all protested about our continuing dumping in the North Sea? Is that not yet another case where the British Government are out on their own and believe that they are right and all the rest are wrong?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the North Sea countries asked the Oslo Commission to set up a procedure for exemptions. That procedure was agreed only last June and it is the procedure that we are currently using. The ministerial declaration from the North Sea Conference exempted from the ban:
"materials which can be shown in the competent international organisations to cause no harm in the marine environment … unless there are no practical alternatives for disposal on land".
The four countries that the noble Lord mentioned of Denmark, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands have raised objections to some of the licence applications about which the Government have provided information. Those objections have been carefully considered and answered. Some countries have called for further discussions, and a meeting of the Oslo Commission's ad hoc working group on dumping has been convened for 14th February. None of the objections raised contain valid grounds for not issuing the licences concerned.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while there is pollution in the North Sea, our country is only one of many bordering the North Sea and our contribution to pollution is a great deal less than that of other countries with great rivers like the Rhine? The greatest amount of waste dumped in the North Sea by Britain would be only a fraction of that emitted by the River Rhine. Is he aware that the dumping of sludge in the North Sea is carefully monitored by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and that there is no sign of a build-up of toxicity in that area or of any effect on fish stocks? While it is true that the dumping of chemical waste will have to come to an end, we would be wise to wait until the five-year survey that is being carried out by the Natural Environmental Research Council is completed so that we know what exactly is happening in the North Sea and who is responsible for most of the pollution.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those comments. The continental coast line is indeed affected. As he mentioned, the main problem is river discharges of which 80 per cent. come from continental countries. Half of the total river discharges come from the Rhine and the Meuse.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, in anticipation of the fact that eventually the dumping of chemical waste in the North Sea will have to end, are the Government actively pursuing alternative sites? In that pursuit will they take account of the importance of finding sites adjacent to the factories where waste is being generated? Will the Minister also give us an assurance that those who generate chemical waste will be obliged to meet the full costs of disposal, including the environmental costs?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, we are committed to stopping sea disposal of industrial waste as soon as possible. We have already withdrawn more than half of the 20 liquid waste licences which existed at the end of 1987. An example of that is that one licence application for sea waste disposal from Fisons that we put to the Oslo Commission will not now after all be renewed as an acceptable alternative treatment now exists.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the environmental condition of the North Sea is a matter of some argument, as is the proportion of waste that is emitted from rivers and that which is dumped there? Is it not the case that the British Government agreed to end dumping by the end of 1989 but that they have not done so? Will the Minister tell the House what advice and instructions are given by the British Government to those companies which are concerned about dumping? Have they warned those companies that dumping must come to an end or are they just telling them that the Government can cover the matter up for them?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government are fully committed to phasing
304
out the dumping of industrial waste. The wastes currently being dumped are not harmful and we are following the procedures agreed to last summer. As my right honourable friend Mr. Curry said in another place, we agree with the tide of public opinion that thinks industrial dumping should stop. As he also said, we are committed to stopping it at the earliest practical date.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that is the Government acting as judge and jury. Apparently the Government are saying that the waste is not harmful. The other members of the Oslo Commission say that it is harmful. Apparently, international supervision has broken down.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government consider that our case is very strong and has a secure basis in science. We shall discuss the cases further with other countries and shall listen carefully to their views. Ultimately the agreed procedure leaves the decision on licensing to the Government.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, before we pass to the next business perhaps I may apologise to the House and to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for trying to intervene at Question Time, which I was told was out of order. Duties of hospitality resulted in my arriving somewhat tardily in your Lordships' House. I was dismayed to find that we were in mid-Question after 12 minutes, which continued for a further two or three minutes. I rose in protest, unaware that a protest had already been lodged. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my apologies.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has just said. I shared his objective but his method on that occasion was inappropriate.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a brief word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. On the principal that the mover is allowed approximately 20 minutes to open and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, all other speeches should be limited to a strict upper limit of nine minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length he would be doing so at the expense of other speakers in the debate.

Education and Training
3.12 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston rose to call attention to the importance of education and training for the success of the economy and society; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing the debate, I hope that I have no need to persuade noble Lords of the importance of its subject matter. We may disagree politically and philosophically on what is to be done, but of the central role of education and training in ensuring the future of our country there can be no doubt. That is why I particularly welcome the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, has chosen to make his maiden speech in this debate. Like all noble Lords I look forward very much to hearing what he has to say.
I begin my own contribution by emphasising some broad propositions to which I hope we can all assent. First, we must consider education and training together; we must not act as though one can take place only at the expense of the other. As an example, the innumerate will find it hard, if not impossible, to work with the technically advanced processes that are now available, let alone those that will emerge soon. A great part of the intellectual achievements of our civilisation will also be closed to them.
Secondly, the focus must be on economic and social needs. Affluence can turn to ashes if the society in which we live is unattractive and immoral. I am at one with most of our fellow citizens who do not regard poverty as a prerequisite of the good life. To put the point crudely, I would rather read Shakespeare with a full belly than an empty one. I believe that I could persuade a person more easily of the merits of the sonnets if he or she were well fed and well housed.
In that economic and social context I must also mention the problem of discrimination against women. The subject has received its most recent airing in the excellent Hansard Society publication Women at the Top. The biases which women have to overcome may be deplored simply on the grounds of unfairness—namely, as a social problem. However, the fact that women are not employed or promoted on merit means that they are prevented from making their full productive contribution to the economy. In other words, the consequence is a deadweight economic loss. My own view is that neither our education nor our training system responds properly to the needs of women.
Thirdly, all age groups matter. Of course the young must be given priority. They are dependent on us and we have a duty to them. If Great Britain is to survive into the next century as a leading nation it is the young of today who will take the ultimate responsibility. That is why we are shocked at the physical conditions in which too many of them are taught. When they are grown up what will they think of a government that allowed their primary education to take place in buildings with leaking roofs and holes in the walls?
Having said that, no age group can be neglected. The productivity of adults can be raised so that they can make a needed extra contribution to the economy. Adults returning to education full or part time can improve the quality of their lives. There is still time to remedy the deficiencies of the past. My noble friend Lady David will have more to say on that matter.
Fourthly, all levels of education and training are important, whether we are talking of the nursery school at one extreme or postgraduate research at the other, of simple instructions to get someone started at the checkout at the supermarket or the most advanced managerial functions. None of what we do is so good that it need not be subject to critical scrutiny with a view to improvement. None is so unimportant as to deserve neglect.
This is not a debate primarily about higher education. However, there is one part of the higher education system to which I must refer. The Open University has been a great success. It has been one of the lasting contributions of the first administration of my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. After 19 years, the university has just celebrated the achievement of 100,000 graduates. It is to be congratulated on that achievement. In that connection I cannot help coming back to the contrast between the maintenance grants and free tuition received by students in conventional higher education and the burden which Open University students have to bear. While I sympathise with the plight of all students, if there is any spare money I know where my priorities lie.
Fifthly, while we must press for greater efficiency in the use of existing resources, we cannot get far without committing a great deal more. Good education and training cannot be obtained on the cheap. I shall return to that theme later.
Sixthly, I must enter my usual plea for the mixed economy. The benefits which result from a training system larger in scale and superior in quality accrue to the individuals directly involved and to the rest of society. It is right, therefore, that the financing of training should be mixed —part public, part private. That is also true of provision. Neither side, public sector or private sector, should do what the other can do better. However, neither should be prevented from making its contribution by those who prefer ideological postures to effective action.
Seventhly, in a long list, I must remind noble Lords of the regional aspects of the matter we are discussing. Education and training must not be London biased. It must not even be England biased. I shall put in a special plea for Northern Ireland, where many of the sectarian problems could be at least alleviated in the schools and also by improved training facilities in the workplace.
Turning to resources, regrettably, over the past decade education expenditure has fallen relative to total public expenditure and gross domestic product. Capital expenditure was falling in the 1970s. I freely admit that. However, the trend has become worse, leading to the dreadul state of some school buildings to which I have already referred. Teachers at all levels have not been allowed to participate in whatever prosperity has been available to the rest of the community. We have been obtaining our education on the cheap on the backs of our teachers. Moreover, no one could be happy with the lack of provision of up-to-date school books and the poor state of libraries. On this side of the House we are aware that it will take a decade to reverse the damage that the Government have done. A start must be made to put things right, and the sooner the better.
The public expenditure White Paper appeared only yesterday. I have had little time to scrutinise it in detail. It is clear, however, that it proposes to cut back on public expenditure on training. The Government have surely taken leave of their senses. In saying that, I speak not only for myself but for all those who, independent of party, have taken an interest in the matter. I must go further. I must mention what can only be called the irrationality of parts of the Government's education policy. I shall not dwell today on the higher nonsense of the student loans Bill. There will be plenty of time to indulge our sense of the ridiculous in the next few weeks when that Bill comes to your Lordships' House.
However, the failure to accept a more sensible view of the national curriculum, especially as it had all-party support when we discussed the Education Reform Bill, now looks absurd. The Secretary of State for Education and Science is currently pursuing artificial ways of reducing the burden of the compulsory curriculum in order to safeguard other subjects. It is a pity that his predecessor did not take the good advice offered by noble Lords in 1988.
Furthermore, there is a danger that young people will be over-examined, over-assessed and over-specialised, with the examiners determining the curriculum instead of the other way round. Another example of irrationality, of which I do not expect to persuade noble Lords opposite, is the commitment of public capital funds to city technology colleges when neighbouring schools are badly neglected.
Finally, on that theme, the rigidity of the rules determining the form for budgets for locally managed schools will create quite unnecessary difficulties for some of them. It is perhaps ironic that those criticisms are shared by a great many conservatives, especially in local government.
I must say a few words, but, I hasten to add, only a few, on the economy. Economic performance has improved in some dimensions, but clearly deteriorated in others. It is apparant that there has not been an economic miracle unless rising inflation with unemployment at more than 1.6 million as measured by the Government (or at more than 2 million if measured correctly) is a miracle. As a teacher of economics, I must say that it is a kind of miracle. Again speaking as an economist, to produce the largest deficit relative to national income in modern history, despite North Sea oil, also strikes me as being miraculous.
However, my chief concern is with the future and especially with technology. That is where the economic battleground of the next century lies. Its foundation is science on which technological progress is built. Those who seek to create a conflict between the two are mistaken; they go hand in hand. We need more of both. Science is concerned with the precision of thought and careful experimentation. In its most creative guise, as Karl Popper reminds us, science also involves the most outrageous flights of fantasy and intellectual risk. In that mode it is most akin to entrepreneurship. My worry about British business is how cautious it is and how fearful of taking risks, especially those involving long-run commitment. Our businessmen compare
308
unfavourably with their Japanese counterparts, as your Lordships' Select Committee was obliged to report last year.
However, above all, the next phase of economic development requires a transformed labour force. Physical capital is important, but no more so than human capital. The days of unskilled labour are over or, if they are not, our country is in even greater peril. In that connection, I lay particular stress on the 16-to-19 age group. My noble friend Lady Blackstone will discuss that issue in detail, as will other noble Lords.
I have been impressed by what has been revealed about Germany's efforts in that field by, for example, Professor Prais at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. The German model is not the only model worth examining. Certainly, the school-based Swedish model is equally significant, but the Germans seem to have united public and private sectors in a joint effort, have not become over-centralised, do not allow themselves to become bogged down in doctrinaire dispute as to who should pay and, while pushing the vocational side, have not neglected the more properly educational.
I have two other fears to draw to the attention of noble Lords. The first is the emerging cult of mediocrity. We accept in more and more parts of our society that we are not and cannot be at the top. That has been obvious in science and technology for some time, whether we think of computers, space and proposals that we should give up so-called big science. It is said that we should abandon our remaining world-class positions in the pure sciences and humanities for the sake of better performance in engineering. I do not believe that we need to do so or should do so. I regret to say that the Government seem to care not at all for our universities and are unappreciative of the great contributions of our leading academics. They are willing to imperil the setting of the highest standards to save a little public money. That may not matter in itself for governments come and go, but, if the public are persuaded to settle for mediocrity, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to restore the old standards. If I may be permitted an analogy, relegation is a good deal easier to obtain than promotion, as many a famous old football club has found to its cost.
My final fear concerns society. I understand that there are those who say that there is no such thing. Such a nonsensical view would have been rejected by Aristotle and, perhaps more significantly, by Adam Smith. Let us not misunderstand the Robinson Crusoe abstraction so beloved of economists. Robinson Crusoe inherited all the social artefacts. He was constrained by language, technical skills and existing knowledge. His very being was social in nature. Individualism, interpreted either as a scientific proposition or as an ethic, is predicated on the existence of society. Perhaps I may rub the point home: the free market and its essential constituents, exchange and the division of labour, are social phenomena. Education must reflect that. Only the most flawed of individuals pays no attention to the plight of his fellow citizens. If we neglect that, what is our education for? What do we seek to pass on to

309
our children and grandchildren? We must have a sense of the value of the society to which we belong, despite its imperfections, and even though there is so much more to be done.
I am therefore led to some concluding remarks on policy. They are just suggestions. Unlike the Government, I do not claim to have the last word on anything. I am open to persuasion. Let me say immediately that this is an area in which no government have done enough. Criticism is made of the present Government because they are there, albeit temporarily. I am not saying that policy in the 1960s and 1970s was altogether satisfactory. After all, it was my noble friend Lord Callaghan who initiated the great debate on those matters in 1976. He said:
"I am concerned on my journeys to find complaints from industry that new recuits from the schools sometimes do not have the basic tools to do the job that is required".
He also referred to:
"insufficient co-ordination between schools and industry".
Our present under-trained and under-educated working population goes back to the beginning of the Second World War. The overall problem can be traced back to the 19th century. Our antipathy to formal training originates then, as does our lack of commitment to a first-class education system catering to the needs of all.
I accept that the present Government have tried to change attitudes. I also accept that, while we on this side would significantly raise public expenditure on education and training, our opponents do not agree. I am probably wasting my time by emphasising that matter. However, there is one other aspect of policy on which I must ask the Minister to comment. It concerns the new Engineering Training Authority. I cannot pretend to approve of the ending of the EITB. I am concerned that the new body might not include representatives from education. How well will it be funded? The EITB supported excellent research in the training and skills area. Will the new Engineering Training Authority be able and willing to do the same? More generally —I hope that this will not be regarded as pure cynicism —if all activity in that area is to be employer-led, as the Government seem to want, what grounds have we on past experience for believing that the highest international standards will be aimed at, let alone reached?
Our system of education and training must expand. It is to be hoped —I am not doctrinaire on this point —that there will be more private funding, especially of training, but a great deal of public money is needed. Some of the funds will come from ending CTCs and the assisted places scheme. The Exchequer will also gain from ending the privileged tax status of the private school sector. I am not in a mischievous mood today, but, if military expenditure is to be reduced, this country will be made a great deal more secure in the economic fight ahead by a retrained labour force than by tax cuts which stimulate a new import-intensive consumer boom. However, in the end, a first-class public system of education and training requires public
310
money. Interestingly enough, it is apparent that most people recognise that and are willing to meet the cost. They are especially willing to do so if they are convinced of the effectiveness of the job that is being done.
Let us look more closely at training and retraining. There is the employment principle which has been advocated by the Campaign for Work. It is predicated on the active pursuit of full employment. Workers not in a job would be offered training or education and the payments system would be made more generous, acting as an incentive for them to accept it. We are not discussing "workfare", which is the insistence on the unemployed working for dole or being obliged to accept a job however unsuitable or badly paid. We propose a positive approach based on the idea that the unemployed want and need a credible counselling and training route.
Perhaps I may once again put on my economics hat. What has not been fully appreciated is both what a productive use of public money that is and how the Exchequer gains. An unemployed worker implies an annual economic loss of some £20,000. The effect on the Exchequer of reduced tax payments and higher social security benefits can be estimated conservatively at some £7,000 to £10,000 per annum. To educate and retrain someone even for a whole year at that cost, thereby preventing them from joining the army of the long-term unemployed, pays for itself very rapidly. A similar proposition applies to the 16 to 19 year age group.
It is not simply that the Government can afford to be generous to those young people. If the training and education that they receive is effective, it becomes a profitable investment. I am impressed with the similarity of the initiatives by the TUC and the CBI. Where I differ from the CBI is its fear of a mandatory approach. In my view, education and training must have a statutory basis and must be mandatory.
Before concluding I should like to pay tribute to the work of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. It has done excellent work in what was initially a not very welcoming environment. I contrast its carefully thought out and moderate approach, based on persuasion, as it were, with such educational bodies as the Schools Examination and Assessment Council, the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnic and Colleges Funding Council. Those latter organisations, not to put too fine a point on it, seem to have gone completely haywire. They show all the signs of an uncontrolled bureaucracy, which is precisely what I thought this Government were opposed to. We are in danger through those bodies of being over-regulated in the field of education and training. We need to act quickly to rein them back, at least to some degree.
I do not wish to conclude on a negative note. I can do no better than quote again my noble friend Lord Callaghan. He got the balance right when he said:
"There is no virtue in producing socially well adjusted members of society who are unemployed because they do not have the skills. Nor, at the other extreme, must they be technically efficient robots".
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity presented by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, whose most interesting speech I thought contained some rare glimmers of vision, to record the Government's commitment to continuing to improve the education and training system of this country, to highlight some of our considerable achievements in the past decade and to point up the ways in which we are preparing to meet the challenges of the next decade and beyond.
I should also like to take this opportunity of welcoming the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, who will make his maiden speech today. The noble Earl has a wide experience of the City, and I look forward to his contribution with great interest.
There has never been a time when education and training have been more central to the continued economic success of this country. We face an increasingly sophisticated and technical world of work. We face fierce international competition, from Europe and from further afield. We have the prospect of fewer young people joining the workforce than at any time since the war. Competitors in the developing nations will continue to have a plentiful supply of cheap labour. We cannot compete on their terms.
Our continued prosperity depends on our becoming more and more an economy of high productivity, high skills and high wages, but only if they are earned. The alternative is low productivity, low skills and high unemployment. We must create a flexible, well motivated and multi-skilled workforce, producing high quality goods and services. Education and training are the key to that.
There is much to be proud of in our education and training system. Our best is as good as anyone's best, if not better in some cases. We have made good progress during the 1980s but we cannot put right in one decade what we, as a nation, have neglected for a century. The changes that we are introducing demonstrate our commitment to standards, quality and raising the levels of achievement of all our people —not just young people but adults as well. We must create a culture of learning throughout life.
It is a sad fact that for at least a century our participation rates in post-16 education and training have lagged behind those of our major competitors. However, in the past decade we have seen a 25 per cent. increase in participation in full-time education by 16 year-olds. That is a good start but it is not enough. We must accelerate that trend. The facilities and the opportunities are there.
No one can doubt this Government's commitment to education. We have increased spending per pupil by 42 per cent. in real terms on the 1979 level; pupil/teacher ratios have been reduced from 19 to 1 in 1979 to 17 to 1; we are giving schools and colleges greater independence and the stimulus to attract more students; we have introduced the GCSE exam and the national curriculum to raise levels of attainment; and we are producing a rational, coherent system out of the present jungle of vocational qualifications.
312
Education is not simply about equipping people for work, but I suggest that we neglect this aspect at our peril. I do not believe that helping to prepare young people for the demands of working life is in any way incompatible with encouraging them to develop their wider individual potential or to pursue academic excellence. We should do both. This Government have paid particular attention to ensuring that learning in school is relevant to the world of work and to building bridges between schools and industry. I will highlight just two examples.
Over half a million 14 to 18 year-olds are already benefiting from TVEI, the technical and vocational education initiative, which will be extended to all schools and colleges by 1992. This is not an alternative to the academic route. Indeed, it is playing a vital role in enriching the curriculum so that young people's experiences of work can also be related to their programmes of study.
Compacts too are making a major contribution to forging closer links between schools and employers. There are now 3,800 employers and more than 36,000 young people involved in the programme, which is playing an important part in our inner city areas in meeting the rapidly accelerating demand for adaptable and motivated young people able to reach the levels of skills required.
This Government's commitment to training is clearly demonstrated by YTS. Since its introduction in 1983, YTS has been a triumph. There are currently 400,000 youngsters in training —more than ever before. Eighty per cent. of YTS leavers go into jobs or further education and about 40 per cent. gain a qualification.
However, we cannot stand still. As the number of young people falls, it is even more important that they are well trained. We are therefore introducing greater flexibility into youth training, moving away from time serving to the achievement of recognised standards. Our objective is to increase significantly the number of young people with a recognised vocational qualification. The new youth training must build on the success of YTS and raise the proportion of participants gaining qualifications.
To achieve that, meaningful, widely recognised and relevant qualifications are a must. Four years ago the Government set in train a fundamental reform of vocational qualifications. We are rapidly moving to a situation in which vocational qualifications reflect the standards of competence required by employers. By the end of 1992 a system of qualifications will be in place covering all types of employment and all occupational levels—including the professions —which will prove practical competence and enable individuals of all ages to progress unhampered by petty restrictions and so broaden their skills.
Qualifications and training are for everyone, not just for the young or the unemployed. If unemployment were to disappear, there would always be a need to train and retrain our adult working population to help them to develop the skills that are in demand. Employers recognise that. A recently published report showed that in 1986–87

313
employers in Britain spent £18 billion on training. That is a massive investment in people. Employers make the demands for skills and it must be they who take the primary responsibility for ensuring that their workforces have the necessary skills. I know that some noble Lords opposite will say, "You cannot trust employers." But this Government believe that you can. The evidence is that employers are already responding to the challenge. Compulsion —through the ITB levy schemes —has been tried and it has failed. We must therefore create a framework within which industry and enterprise can thrive and which employers can lead, shaping local training and enterprise provision to meet their needs.
Our plans for this framework are well advanced. At the national level we have the Training Agency and the National Training Task Force, within industry the 100 or so industry training organisations, and, most exciting of all, at the local level the network of training and enterprise councils —in Scotland, the local enterprise companies. TECs are not another scheme. They are not another initiative. They will be the motors of economic growth in their area, with business in the driving seat. The response from business leaders has been magnificent. There are now 55 TECs in the development phase and we expect to complete the national network well ahead of schedule. Each TEC—and there will be about 80 of them nationally —will have the freedom and resources, on average about £20 million a year, to shape training provision and business growth services to local needs. They will also be required to address the needs of women, the long-term unemployed, ethnic minorities, and people with disabilities. In doing so, TECs will make a major contribution to the regeneration of the local community which they serve and collectively will play a significant role in providing the adaptable, multi-skilled and qualified workforce that is undoubtedly the key to our continued economic success.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who framed the title of this debate:
"to call attention to the importance of education and training for the success of the economy and society".
The importance of these matters has been and will remain at the forefront of the Government's attention. We are now as a nation reaping the benefits of the Government's approach to the economy and industry. The reforms in education and training that I have outlined are right for the 1990s and will lead to the raising of standards that we all agree are vital to our continued economic success.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, one would indeed think from listening to the Minister that everything is all for the best in the best of all possible worlds. I am afraid that I shall sound a less optimistic note in some of the things that I have to say.
What is wrong with our education service at the moment? We could talk about it for twice as long as
314
we are allowed to today. I shall mention the two areas to which most of us would refer if pressed. First, why is it that so few of our young people stay on at school after the age of 16 in order to acquire higher qualifications? The number is so depressingly few compared with West Germany, Japan, America, France or any other highly civilised coutry. Secondly, how on earth is it that after 11 years of schooling such a significant proportion of our young people leave school semi-literate and semi-numerate?
How far can or will the education format improve the situation? There is no time to discuss that unfortunately. The national curriculum —when its multifarious problems have been sorted out —may help. But what worries us on these Benches are those provisions —like the old execrated 11-plus—which seem likely to encourage the notion that some children deserve a better education that others. I am referring to the grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges. They seem to be a sanction for the old outmoded idea of elitism. There may be good reasons for elitist education at certain periods in certain countries. For example, in a country with an agrarian economy depending on a vast agricultural labour force, it might be quite inappropriate for the whole population to be equally well educated. It may be that in such a country only the professions and the politicians need to be highly educated and to form an elite governing class. But we need a high quality workforce for the entire population to compete in a high technology market, as in Japan, West Germany, the United States and France, not a workforce composed of some of the nation, the chosen few, but of all.
I know that to undertake that would be a massive task. By way of illustration I shall tell noble Lords of our difficulties with regard to a school that I visited the week before last. I talked at length to the headmaster and subsequently to the education social worker, as they are called in London. Let no one suppose that social deprivation and emotional disturbance in children is without a damaging effect on their education. In this school a high percentage of the children come from one-parent families—at least 40 per cent., probably more. In many cases these children arrive back from school to an empty house, the single parent being out at work. It may be as early as three o'clock in the afternoon, for a reason that I shall explain in a moment. Such children are able to wander the street, a prey among other things to the drug pushers who abound in the area. I happened to see two when I was there.
There are children with two parents who are left for many hours in the evening because those parents are in the pub. There is also a high incidence of poverty. Of the first and second-year children, 47 per cent. are entitled to free dinners because their parents are on income support. In this school there is a permanent shortage of seven teachers. Two of them are long-term casualties from stress. One measure to which the school has had to resort in order to cope with the situation has been to finish the day at 2.45 p.m. so that the staff can plan and prepare for the next day. That is why some children arrive home at about 3 p.m. It also means that teaching time has been lost.

315
I have mentioned the stress of teachers. That of course affects the children's welfare and learning prospects. One form in the school has had five different form teachers in its first four terms of secondary schooling. Lack of staff increases the pressure on staff who are present. They have to do what they can to cover teacher-less classes. They are also faced at the same time with the new demands of the national curriculum: the preparing, marking, assessing and recording.
This pressure on teachers has a damaging effect on the welfare of children. Teachers are no longer able to give thought and time to the crucial pastoral work that at one time all the best teachers shouldered unquestioningly. The education social worker has to see many children who before would have been seen by the head of year. Form teachers simply do not have the time to investigate cases of truancy, for example, as they formerly did. When a case of truancy has not been investigated —as we saw on the "Panorama" programme on Monday night —that is likely to be the reason.
One of the joys of teaching has traditionally been the running of clubs after school hours—chess, drama, ping-pong or whatever it may be. I used the word "joy" because the teacher then has the opportunity to be with a group of children in an informal situation, with all of them sharing the same enthusiasm. He or she has the opportunity of forming a bond with those children that is much less easily formed in the classroom. For the children too such activities are very therapeutic. I would almost go so far as to say that they are the most important things that happen in the day; certainly for many children they are the most memorable. But they have largely had to go and the quality of education is that much the poorer.
I have touched on some of the problems of one school in order to give a concrete example —rather than a list of meaningless statistics —of the real situation in a great section of our education service, the inner city schools, as a corrective to the Panglossian claims of the Government about their education policy. The Eduction Reform Act will do little to break this cycle of deprivation whereby a child's social background impairs his chances at school, and his resulting damaged education prevents his escape from that environment. Some will be helped, but most will not.
Of course I met the teachers at this school. I had the impression that I always get: they are totally dedicated to the interests of their pupils —who sometimes, it must be said, constitute the most intractable material —in the most adverse circumstances; poor pay, under-valuation, and unappealing environment. The school has an excellent reputation in the borough and beyond. It is much in demand for its high standards and caring headmaster and staff. I was attracted to visit it because of the high standard of the art department.
I asked the headmaster what he reckoned the education service needed. Without hestitation he replied, "More high-quality teachers". We know that not all teachers are of high quality. The headmaster knows that if he employs certain supply teachers the
316
pupils will vote with their feet and absent themselves. That is one reason why his staff are so hard pressed; where possible they cover classes themselves rather than turn to weak substitutes from the authority.
Teachers will be of high quality only if they are highly paid and honoured. That and generous resourcing are the vital elements which appear to have been left out of the equation in the Government's education policy. They are incomparably the most important. We on these Benches have consistently said that, of all things, education should be the target for investment. What is more important —except perhaps health —than a nation's education? By that I mean the education that will be needed in the years to come; not the education of an elite, such as had to be accepted as good enough for the 19th century, but an education for the whole nation. Nothing less than that will be good enough for the 21st century.
3.51 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of
Guildford: My Lords, the churches have long had a stake in the education of the people of this country. Increasingly the word that has crystallised our approach has been "partnership" —partnership between church and society in the education of the whole nation. We do not see that partnership in terms of the church determined to teach and educate its members in an otherwise secular system; nor are we focusing, even in county schools, on preserving religious education and ignoring the rest of the curriculum. We are essentially in partnership with society, open in our concern for all in the educational field and working for balance.
One of the reasons why I welcome the debate is that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has secured balance in the words of the Motion: balance between education and training, balance between economy and society. Surely partnership, openness and balance are key words, even if a little overworked, in our contemporary concern for education and training.
Earlier this month the Secretary of State for Education made a speech to the north of England conference. He referred to having a battle on our hands. He stated:
"We are engaged…in a battle, that of fierce international competition. If we are to achieve the living standards and prospects that technology can bring, if we are to fulfil the aspirations our fellow citizens have for what the 1990s can offer … it is vital that our standards of education and training match those of our main competitors".
That is well said. But surely it is balance by recognition of another battle on our hands —that for the minds and hearts of the people.
In recent months we have seen communism collapsing from within because it had not found a convincing place in the minds and hearts of the people of Eastern Europe. We are aware that in many countries there is a growing conflict between Christianity and Islam. We are rediscovering the power, and in some instances the frightening power, of corporate religious conviction.

317
Surely education is to help people develop ideas, ideologies and philosophies of life; to criticise, evaluate and establish firm roots for their convictions. Therefore, it seems to me that we must recognise both economic competition and ideological rivalry. We need a trained workforce which is at the same time an educated people who can grapple with ideas as readily as with instruments.
A genuine appreciation of training ensures that people are prepared for the real world and for available work. That is essential. It enables the less academic to realise his or her individual skills, to apply them and to have the fulfilment of doing a job and the satisfaction of contributing to the creation of a better society. The Judaeo-Christian tradition has always underlined the value of each individual in the eyes of God and has appreciated the contribution that each person can make to the community. Similarly, we have always been wary of exalting competition to the point where it devalues and deskills the less successful. Each person is of value and appropriate training can liberate and express that value.
A genuine appreciation of education ensures that people are stretched to the limit of their intellectual capacity, enabled to follow the argument wherever it leads, encouraged to make connections between different areas of knowledge and enabled to reason, judge and pursue truth. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition emphasis has always been placed on our skills as being gifts from God which must be developed to the full. Education ensures that we think of people as humans as well as hands. Education ensures that people mature to their full potential and are not merely fitted into the labour market.
We need an educated and a trained people. We must have a lively economy for a healthy society. Does that not require us to think through more carefully the nature and relationships, for instance, between universities and polytechnics? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has recently spoken on that subject. I have been asked to express his regret at not being able to attend the debate this afternoon because he is in the United States of America. I believe that he would wish to argue for financial parity between universities and polytechnics but also for preserving their distinctive traditions. Traditionally universities are, by and large, more enclosed communities, reflecting upon things as they are and asking fundamental questions about their purpose and meaning. Polytechnics are institutions traditionally more open to the local community, reflecting on things in terms of their use. Although the two traditions have moved more towards one another, there is value in securing those two traditions, distinct but complementary.
This year we are celebrating the 150th anniversary of the church colleges of education. Their present contribution arises out of their past in teacher training. they have moved out into other vocational areas to relate rigorous academic study to the practical care of people in society. They do that in the context of a Christian conviction that each person is of value and must try to develop his gifts to the full.
318
In that way the church colleges hope that they are attaining a balance between education and training.
In addition to thinking through again the relationship between unviersities and polytechnics, do we not need to think again about the curriculum for 16 to 18 year-olds? We should not divide that age group sharply between the academic stream and the practical stream and so prevent mutual interaction. Technology is developing so fast that if we train people to handle only today's computers they will be all thumbs with tomorrow's. The more educated, the better people should be at adapting to new developments and being more flexible, creative and imaginative.
I welcome the Secretary of State's current efforts to see whether core skills can be developed for all in the 16-plus age range. He says that the core skills include communication, numeracy, familiarity with information technology and the world of business and enterprise and the personal skills needed to function in that world as well as competence in modern foreign languages. By themselves those skills may appear to be overly utilitarian. But if they could become part of a broader educational approach surely there would be gains for all in that age group.
However, I suggest that it is not adequate for the 16 to 18 year-olds, or for any other age range for that matter, to focus sharply on the curriculum because so much depends on the ethos of the school, the morale of the teaching staff and the vision of the enterprise. In Section I of the Education Reform Act the curriculum is set firmly in the general educational purpose. The Act reads:
"The curriculum for a maintained school satisfies the requirements … if it is a balanced and broadly based curriculum which promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society; and prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
That does not merely mean working life. I believe that there is danger in trying to achieve everything through an agreed curriculum and individual attainment targets, however well conceived, without recognising the context in ethos, morale and vision.
I wonder whether there is hope for developing a surer partnership between industry and commerce on the one hand and society on the other. Some employers encourage people to leave education at 16 or 18 in order to train them in house. That is practical and commendable, but should not that training be seen in more educational terms? Industry needs people who can do today's jobs but who also have the educational basis for adapting to tomorrow's.
The most valuable raw material which any nation has is the minds of its people. To make the most of that asset we need a developing partnership between government and voluntary agencies, between the teaching profession and society and a fuller interaction between education and training.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the background to this debate is sombre. In Britain, 82 per cent. of children leave school at 16 compared to 4 per cent.

319
in Japan and about 10 per cent. in Germany and the United States. A terrifying 40 per cent. of British school-leavers have no qualifications whatever. British children in the lower half of the ability range are as much as two years behind their German counterparts in mathematical skills. Between 1964 and 1981 English children fell from third to 22nd place in an international league table of academic performance. Between 1978 and 1988 the number of adolescents gaining engineering qualifications increased by 60 per cent. in France and 35 per cent. in Germany and fell by 30 per cent. in the United Kingdom. Against that background it is hard to equate the realities with the Panglossian speech —a word borrowed from the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie —of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.
Pundits, parents and many politicians are all agreed that that is a scandal. When he was Secretary of State Mr. Baker always proclaimed ambitious targets for growth of the student population. In June of last year he said that he wanted to see the numbers of students in our universities and polytechnics doubling from 1 million to 2 million over the next 25 years. I have not heard that that ambition has been repudiated by Mr. MacGregor.
However, we have very little hope of increasing participation in further or higher education until a daunting array of disincentives, hurdles, tripwires, complications, uncertainties and other impediments are removed from the path of the potential student or trainee. Until then it is nonsense to talk of improved access to post-statutory education and training.
I start at the secondary level with the national curriculum. On these Benches we supported it in principle but urged a greater flexibility in the range of foundation subjects outside the core. It turns out that we were right. There is a large question mark over the ability to deliver the curriculum requirements given current teacher recruitment. That will not improve until the salary structure of the teaching profession is radically changed. Also, if the national curriculum is applied rigidly, it either means that GCSEs will in effect be restricted within the range of the 10 national curriculum subjects or a two-tier curriculum, with separation of streams, at 14-plus will become inevitable.
According to press comments there is serious disagreement between the Secretary of State and the National Curriculum Council on that. It raises the whole question of whether the national curriculum and GCSEs are compatible or one or other will have to go to the wall. That is a matter of great concern to parents, pupils and teachers. I must ask the noble Lord to clarify the Government's intentions on that.
When we come to the end of compulsory education the situation is extremely confusing, with many disincentives to continuing into further or higher education. With three good A-levels a school-leaver can jump straight into a degree course at university with a mandatory grant but in most other cases the way ahead is far from clear. You are in an uncertain and bewildering world of discretionary grants and a great variety of institutions and courses. At sixth form college level you will receive no financial help other than fares if you live more than three miles
320
away under the old ILEA rules in London, and perhaps not even that now. Outgoings on travel, meals and materials for some courses can easily reach £30 per week. That minus of £30 per week must be compared with a plus of £29.50 on YTS first year. I shall say more about that in a few moments.
If the determined student soldiers on and collects enough GCSEs to make an application for, for example, a foundation course in art and design, a B.Tech. first diploma or RSA diploma in whatever subject, he or she may well be offered a place without any certainty that it will attract a local authority discretionary grant. In inner London at the moment as many noble Lords will know, the situation is particularly confused, with the final handover by ILEA to the boroughs due on 1st April but no borough is yet in a position to say which courses or what numbers it will be able to support. That makes the case for a means-tested mandatory education maintenance allowance at 16-plus almost unanswerable. We have long advocated that, but I was interested to see that the CBI in its briefing for this debate seems to advocate something very similar when it speaks of a 16 year-old cash credit entitlement for structured training, work experience or education. That really must happen if the Government are remotely serious about improving access to and participation in post-16 vocational education.
Even if the present hurdles are somehow surmounted and the student has managed to secure and somehow finance a place on, for example, a B.Tech. first diploma, arrangements for further progress to undergraduate studies with academic credit are far from widespread and certainly not national. Admittedly, the Higher National Diploma is gaining credence but there is currently no systematic attempt to ease the transferral of credit gained from further education or vocational studies into the realm of higher education.
I said that I would return to YTS because that is the main alternative to picking your way from tussock to tussock through the morass I have just described. I certainly cannot recognise the description of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the programme is a triumph. It has the attraction of a positive allowance, albeit a modest one, as opposed to a negative drag on family resources. We in the SDP were strongly supportive of the scheme when it replaced the Youth Opportunities Programme on a national basis from September 1983. Sadly our hopes have been disappointed. The scheme has never acquired the prestige or quality which young people were entitled to expect.
That is because, frankly, government training schemes, under whatever name or agency —and the name of the agency has been changed several times —have been motivated much more by political considerations than by any real concern for skills or vocational training. Removing people from the unemployment register has been given a far higher priority than equipping young people with skills or qualifications.

321
Low take-up and rapid turnover have been inevitable results of unchallenging jobs and no concrete qualifications at the end of the training period. Accusations of exploitation may be exaggerated, but the experience of a girl who signed up as a trainee cook and was employed for four days a week simply filling up the salt and pepper pots in the works canteen, with one day per week of sketchy instruction in a kitchen, may not be untypical.
Although the target figure has been scaled down from 600,000 to 450,000 trainees per year, a recent study by Cardiff University has revealed that, far from staying on for the recommended six months, 80 per cent. of trainees quit after six weeks or less. That is simply not good enough for a national training scheme. It is quite clear that the whole system will have to be redesigned, with vocational education and proper credits built in; otherwise it should be scrapped and the money applied to the educational maintenance allowances which I have advocated or the CBI's plan for a more coherent approach to qualifications for all 16 to 19 year olds, or almost anything other than what we have now. Will the Government please tell us this evening what they will do to revitalise or replace that miserably limping programme?
I turn finally to the polytechnics, which are bound to be one of the main agencies of delivering the skills of the future both because of their higher proportion of mature students and because of the more vocational bias of many of their courses than is found in the universities. Mr. Baker was fond of using the polytechnics as a stick with which to beat the universities, pointing to their impressive increase in numbers without loss of performance. That is not quite fair to the universities because of their responsibilities for medical training and research. Even so, the polytechnics have given excellent value for money and the margin of value is increasing. In 1979–80 the cost of a polytechnic student was 82 per cent. of the university capitation figure and by 1987–88 it had reduced to only 58 per cent. of the university figure. I am told that it may now be nearer 50 per cent., or a mere half of the university cost.
There is one way in particular in which the polytechnics ought to be helped, and that is on the capital side. Their building stock is not as good as universities. They have already improved their teacher/student ratio from one to eight to one to 15. They could improve it further if they had the physical premises to do so. As I understand it, they have been allocated only £60 million for repairs and improvements to a capital stock of £3.5 billion. Surely it is short sighted not to provide the capital which is crucial for the expansion of higher education to which the Government's rhetoric, at any rate, is committed. I gather that some of the businessmen the Government have lured onto the polytechnic boards are seriously worried. Perhaps the Government will pay attention to them, if not to us.
I do not know how many noble Lords read the leading article in today's Independent newspaper entitled "An incredible cut for education", with its withering indictment of the Government's spending plans for education over the next three years. I must
322
say that that, coming from a moderate and well balanced paper, really made me sit up. I am no indiscriminate spender but, my God, if we do not spend more here we shall live to regret it.
4.11 p.m.
Earl Cairns: My Lords, I know my father would approve if I started by extending my thanks to your Lordships' House for the courtesy extended to a maiden speaker. My father was a very courteous man and I miss him for that, and for many other things besides.
I have spent many of the last 15 years involved in a small voluntary organisation which may be known to some of your Lordships; it is called VSO. I have been its chairman for the past eight or nine years. It sends some 1,200 volunteers to work in 42 different third world countries, each for a period of two years. Volunteers have an average age of about 30 and they have usually practised their professional skills here in the UK before going abroad. About half of them are male and half female.
Approximately 40 per cent. of those volunteers are posted directly into the formal education system of the country to which they go and no volunteers are posted unless there is a significant training element in their posts which will, in due course, allow their local counterparts to develop as their replacements. The experience we have and our primary interest in playing a role in the economic development of third world countries thus give us a broad perspective on an objective basis of a number of issues which I believe are as relevant in this country as they are in third world countries. I should like to raise just three of these.
Let me start in the Kingdom of Bhutan, where our volunteers have helped to design and to implement a relatively new primary education system. A significant proportion of pupils are Nepali speakers. The medium of instruction throughout Bhutan is English, but if the pupils are to succeed to any significant extent they must also become fluent in Bhutanese. Thus young children have to cope not only with three separate languages, but also with three entirely different scripts. Our volunteers, in designing the programme, were worried whether the children would be able to cope with this difficulty. They are both surprised and encouraged that students appear to cope with this complexity which exceeds by some distance what we ask of children in this country.
That raises the question of whether we ask enough of our students at home and indeed whether in all cases there would be a willingness to respond.
Moving to Africa, I recall visiting a volunteer on the island of Zanzibar teaching a class of 83 students who had five textbooks between them. When I asked this teacher to compare her experiences with those she had had in the UK, she dwelt enthusiastically with the commitment to learn that those children on that spice island had and, I fear, produced some unfavourable comparisons with her experience of teaching in a number of comprehensive schools in I this country. I wonder why.

323
Let me move on to Uganda, a country in as parlous an economic state as one can imagine. Government funding for primary and secondary education simply does not exist. Nonetheless, as the government have withdrawn, parents and the local community have moved in and perhaps the most vibrant part of the investment for the future of Uganda can be seen taking place in those local schools. The commitment of both parents and teachers has never been more apparent and, even in that poor country might be compared with the historically great university of Makerere where, as the government support diminishes, the university is at a standstill with the students on strike. How relevant is that to us?
I would not wish, even if I were not barred by the constraint of remaining uncontentious on this particular occasion, to suggest that the privatisation of education is the answer. Privatisation is a horrible word; a product of the 1980s. I should like to suggest an even worse word; that is, "parentisation". The balance between the framework imposed by education authorities in my view needs to be shifted, quite fundamentally, towards a greater involvement and responsibility of parents and their perception of the needs of their children. Without that I wonder whether the kind of enthusiasm that I have described overseas, which in many cases seems to be lacking at home, will take place.
I believe that the involvement of parents too will point the path to the worth of the things that are taught. In some parts of Africa, where educationalists hold sway, our volunteers are often asked to teach Shakespeare to children who are unlikely to pass any worthwhile examination. I am glad to say they teach other subjects too. Other countries use scarce resources to churn out arts graduates who hope to enter government service, but for whom the absorptive capacity of their economy is far too low to meet the supply. Perhaps those educators determining the courses are, at the same time, the product and the prisoners of an obsession with an academic approach to an educational system that we have exported to them.
However, all is not lost. We are working in Nigeria on developing programmes of intermediate technology training; not in the sense of purely vocational training, which is so often seen as a second-class option for academic no-hopers, but rather as an applied intellectual course which may lead either to vocational training or to specialisation in more academic subjects, but with an applied basis to it.
The lesson that I wish to suggest from watching VSO's programme for 15 years, is that we need to expect a good deal from those going to school. This stands the greatest chance of success if we can get the involvement of parents. Parents will transmit their enthusiasm to their children and challenge them to make the maximum effort. Parents will, in many cases, also be good judges of the form in which their children's education should take place.
We in VSO find a very direct correlation between the greatest involvement of parents and the educational consequences which seem to us the most effective for the students themselves and, thereby,
324
for the economic prospects of their countries. I trust that is a lesson I can suggest to your Lordships without offending the conventions of my first speech in your Lordships' House.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is a great pleasure indeed to be able to be the first to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, on his maiden speech. I know that he comes to this House as a distinguished banker. I believe that his father was both an admiral and Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps, so his interests should be very wide. I believe that all of us who take an interest in education are delighted that he should have chosen to make his maiden speech on this subject and particularly on the VSO. It is a most important issue. I hope that we shall hear from the noble Earl on many occasions in the future.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for introducing the debate this afternoon. I agree with him that the issue of education and training is extremely significant. It is a huge subject. As time is limited, I shall concentrate my remarks on only one aspect of it. That is one that has been touched on by most speakers who have already taken part in this debate. I refer to the 16 to 19 year-olds. Before I do so I should not like it to be thought that I do not recognise that there are many other important issues. For example, teachers are the key to the success of the education service and they are so important. I hope that all the initiatives being taken to recruit more teachers in shortage subjects are going well. I should like to enlarge on that subject but time does not allow.
I believe it is too early to judge how the Education Act is working. The core curriculum, the national curriculum, testing and assessment are important to the raising of standards. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred to the report of Professor Price which drew our attention to the fact that the average and below average child in this country is approximately two years behind his German counterpart in maths. It is a very serious matter and one which we must address.
There are difficulties—for example, the overlap between GCSE and A-levels. There are difficulties concerning the overlap in testing and assessment and examinations for 16 year-olds. There are also a number of problems as regards minority subjects. However, I cannot touch on them today. Neither can I say anything about higher education except that I am very pleased that we have about an additional 50,000 students in higher education and a much increased proportion of women. I believe the percentage of women has increased from 42 per cent. to 46 per cent. That is not quite high enough, but it is at least a good step in the right direction.
I now turn to two further points. There has been a great deal of criticism about expenditure on education. More money does not necessarily mean higher standards; it is the content of education that matters. It is good that spending per pupil has risen by 42 per cent. since 1979. That increase can hardly be regarded as a cutback. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that, if there is much wrong with the

325
fabric of schools, he himself said that the Labour Government in the 1970s made very considerable major cuts in capital expenditure from which the education system has been suffering. We must put these matters right but that cannot be done overnight. I believe that the noble Lord must recognise that our inheritance was not altogether a good one.
I turn now to the 16 to 19 year-olds. It is early days to assess the effects of the GCSE examination. However, it is welcome that it appears to have encouraged more pupils to stay on after the age of 16. I believe that the numbers are up by about 10 per cent. The number of A-level students has increased from 21 per cent. to 24 per cent. The A-level examination is one of academic excellence and I believe it must be maintained. The opinion that A-levels are too narrow argues for the development of the AS examinations. That should go some way to remedying the problems.
But what concerns us all is those who are not going to take either A or AS examinations. It is for that group of pupils that I believe the education system has been at its weakest. We are now confronted by a series of problems, including that of demography already referred to by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. There is also the problem of 1992. We know how many more pupils in our competitor countries, particularly Germany and France, are acquiring a much higher level of skill. I hope that there will be a general realisation in this country that in the next century there will not be any unskilled jobs available. That will be a fact and it is one which it is no use pretending will not exist.
Therefore the issue is how we are going to deal with this matter. I greatly welcome the statement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr. MacGregor, at the North of England conference that it is the Government's intention that all 16 to 19 year-olds should receive some systematic education or training leading to recognised qualifications. That seems to be very much in line with what the CBI says in its report on the subject. The Secondary Heads Association agrees with that.
The question is this: how can we make the proposals work? It is necessary to have a much greater understanding and belief in the fundamental importance of education and training and to break down the artificial barriers that exist between the two. Acquiring a skill is essential for all young people. It is essential for women and the ethnic minorities. It is also essential for the disabled. Everybody must have a skill and when they have it it is a kind of passport which can be taken around. I welcome the number of students who are staying on in education. I understand that the number is increasing. I hope my noble friend can confirm that 50 per cent. of students are staying on after the age of 16 and that, if part-timers are included, the number increases to 80 per cent. I hope that my noble friend will say what the figures are. However, even if they are correct, they are still not good enough.
How can we get students to stay on? From time to time I flirted with the idea that some form of compulsion would help in this matter. But I have
326
been told by those in education that such a measure is unlikely to work. One must accept that they are right. Therefore, I was particularly interested to read of the work of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to it. That work appears to be quite outstanding. One of the problems for those not taking what are now nationally recognised examinations is that there appears to be a welter of qualifications though nobody knows quite what they mean or how to achieve them.
It is not that there is anything wrong with apprenticeship schemes, the colleges of further education, the City and Guilds or similar organisations. They produce very good results indeed. However, it is very difficult to know how to get into them and, having done so, it is difficult to know what the qualifications actually mean. The council is now establishing a framework of qualifications on four levels. I understand that that is expected to increase to five levels, which will make an enormous difference.
I believe that the ethos of the council is to pick up the best of what the Americans and the Germans do so that one can actually collect qualifications in the world of work. That seems a ladder of opportunity for a great many people who have no such thing now. I believe it underpins the importance which has been referred to by all noble Lords who have spoken, of the relationship between education and the world of work.
There are many young people who are unlikely to be motivated until they are actually in a job and see for themselves what is really required. Therefore, it is important to create a link. In the business organisations with which I am now associated I have taken an interest in the various compact schemes. I believe they are having a very useful effect at school level.
I conclude by saying that I believe this to be a most important area: we need to find a way of motivating and encouraging young people to stay on in order to acquire a skill, in addition to the personal skills, to give them the understanding and flexibility which they will require for the highly technical world into which we are moving.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, in the time available I wish simply to concentrate upon the importance of training for the success of the economy. I apologise in advance for the fact that I am unable to stay to the end of this debate due to a long-standing educational engagement in Oxford.
I am pleased to begin by being the second person to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, on a fascinating and knowledgeable maiden speech. He took us into fields not normally considered in an education debate and he drew relevant lessons from that. I am sure that we all look forward to subsequent contributions by the noble Earl, especially when he can be more controversial.
I also agreed with a great deal of what has been said so far by previous speakers: by my noble friend Lord Peston and by the noble Lords, Lord

327
Kilmarnock and Lord Ritchie of Dundee, especially comparing the noble Lord the Minister with Professor Pangloss. The only problem I have with that is that we all know what happened to Professor Pangloss in the end, and I would not wish that on the noble Lord. I even found that I agreed with some of his remarks. I agreed with them because I agreed with them when they were said by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in the last speech he made in this House before vanishing; it was a debate on training on 5th April on a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. Indeed I think that almost everybody in the House agreed with that part of the speech at the time because it was all about the fact that we need more training, that we need better training and that we have somehow to approach the record of our major competitors.
We said in that debate, as I think many speakers have said already and as many more will say before this debate is over, that we disagreed with the methods, with the Panglossian methods; that we disagreed with the focusing on employer voluntarism, believing that employers will solve the problem on an actual reduction —we now have a few more figures and I should like to ask the Minister about this —in government responsibility for funding and with this very strange eight or nine level structure of institutions to which I want to come back. As I said previously, if you try to work it out on a piece of paper, it looks like a cross between Trivial Pursuit and snakes and ladders. It is a most amazing set of institutions.
Let me turn to the funding. In the Government's blue paper, entitled a White Paper, the Government state at paragraph 4.2:
"As unemployment falls the level of government funding can be expected to adjust accordingly, but the training of those in employment is all the more important and employers and individuals must accept a corresponding increase of responsibility in this area."
In other words, the Government propose to bail out as the level of employment rises.
That was reinforced in the Autumn Statement, which again suggested a reduction in government funding on the training side, and it is reinforced for me when I look at government expenditure plans for 1991–92 and 1992–93 for the Department of Employment, where we see that the all-time high for expenditure on training 1987–88 was £2.66 billion, falling to £2.6 billion in 1988–89, to £2.4 billion in 1989–90 and to an even lower level in 1992–93 —a reduction of 10 per cent. or so in money terms.
My first question to the Minister is as follows: is that in real terms or money terms? If it is in real terms then, even on reasonable expectations about the level of inflation the Government, through the Department of Employment intend to cut their expenditure on training by something like 50 per cent. Can that really be the case? If it is the case —and the noble Minister talked about employers spending §18 billion —does he expect employers to make up the difference? Does he expect us to have £18 billion or more from employers —£20 billion or £25 billion? What does he think will be the expenditure on training? What will be the Government's share in
328
real terms and the employer's share in four or five years' time?
If the Minister really believes that the Government can cut all this, and that employers will take it all up entirely voluntarily, where does he get that idea from? He does not get it from any other country. No other country in Europe —not Germany, France or Sweden —and certainly not the United States or Japan, is planning to increase the volume of training and to raise the quality of training by the government cutting their contribution to training. Does he get it from his reading of our past? I must say a word or two about this, partly because he said it and partly because I want to anyway.
The record of our past is not the way the Minister sees it. By 1963 the voluntary method which the Government now urges upon the House had collapsed. The Carr Report had turned out to be, with respect —I am afraid the noble Lord is not here and I am sorry about that —a busted flush. So the Government rightly introduced the ITB system and the levy, and the levy doubled the volume of training. Spending went up to £200 million, of which only 4 per cent. was pioneered by the Government.
Of course there were criticisms of the system. Of course it did not cure the fall in apprenticeships. Of course it did not deal with cross-industry skills. Of course both large firms and small firms complained about the fact that they could not get the grants. And of course there were reasons for making changes in 1973. But on our reading of history the Government took one good decision in 1973 and one disastrous one. The good decision was to establish the Manpower Services Commission to deal with cross-industry skills and to streamline provision. With the benefit of hindsight —and I do not say that my party said this at the time —the disastrous decision was to replace the levy by the exemption procedure.
At the time it was said that this would not seriously affect the volume of training, and many of us thought so, but we now know that it did. We now know that in many industries the volume of training fell precipitately, and we now know that in the late 1970s and early 1980s, with the coming of unemployment, the MSC was dragged more and more in to emergency measures to deal with unemployment. Therefore the high hopes we had in the 1960s and 1970s of a marriage between public and private provision did not come into effect.
However, that does not mean that anything in the evidence suggests that the Government should go back to the 1960s. Particularly, it does not suggest that they should go back to this fantastic structure of institutions; and I apologise for telling the House about this again. At the top of the structure is the Secretary of State, at level 1, with powers under the 1988 Act. Underneath that is the training agency, largely consisting of civil servants. That is the second rung. The third rung is the national task force largely made up of friendly employers. Underneath that, at the fourth level, is the national council of NSTCOs. At the fifth level are 102 known NSTCOs; there may be more, we do not know. Underneath that there are 150 or so —there may be fewer—training and enterprise councils. That is the sixth level.

329
Underneath that there are the contractors at the seventh level. Then there are the firms doing the training. Finally, there are the poor erks at the bottom.
This is a quite unbelievable structure for delivering an increase in training, either by the voluntary or the compulsory method. I suggest that any government needs something quite different. First, we must specify how much is to be spent on training both by government and by industry. Secondly, there must be a mechanism for raising that money by a levy, by a system of taxation or in some other way. Thirdly, there must be a much more simple framework of institutions. I suggest a training agency chaired by the Minister which is truly representative of all the interested parties.
In that way, you can push four levels into one and make the whole thing much simpler. Underneath that, not 100 or so voluntary agencies or 23 training boards, but six, seven or eight intermediate authorities, probably largely of a functional kind. At the bottom there should be a very much larger number of local training delivery agencies with their own budgets. Unless the Government are to come forward with some new institutional structure with the means for it, I suggest that they are not taking training seriously.
4.39 p.m.
Earl Russell:: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has chosen to speak about training. When the noble Lord, Lord Peston, put down this Motion, which I am very glad that he did, he used the words "education and training". I am sure he meant by that to discuss many sorts of education other than that of which I have personal knowledge. Therefore in discussing matters of which I have some personal knowledge I do not in any way wish to imply that they are more important or more urgently in need of attention than other considerations about which I am not talking because they are not within the area of my expertise. I have listened to my father-in-law comparing the educational qualifications of German and British foremen. I found that that was something that I had to take very seriously.
With that preamble, noble Lords may well expect me to talk about the under-funding of the universities. However, I have an uncomfortable suspicion that my views on the topic may be well known to noble Lords. Therefore regarding university issues, I shall confine myself to saying that in the current discussion on the funding and government of the University of London I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, who speaks for me in more senses than the purely formal one. Instead, I thought that I would take up where we left off at the end of the education debate which was initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, last April.
At that time we were all expressing regret at the comparatively small number of working class people going on to university. I share that regret. I have the normal academic bias in favour of teaching the ablest people no matter what their background. Nearly all my colleagues share that view. So far as I can see,
330
that does not result from anything which happens at the university selection stage. We are very much concerned to select applicants, notwithstanding their teachers or their backgrounds. Indeed, we lean over backwards to try to assess the ability of the candidate and not the skill of his preparation. However, the problem is getting the people to come forward —because we cannot admit people who do not apply —and, as many noble Lords have said, in getting them to stay on at school. We must encourage such people to stay on at school, but achieving the formal statistics regarding those actually present in school is not enough.
Many people who stay on at school do so in a state of frustration. They feel a considerable envy towards their contemporaries out in the world of work who are earning, as they see it, the big money. It is not enough to keep them in school; we must attract their interest. The first point I wish to draw attention to in this respect is the school library. I speak here from my regular experience at entrance interviews of asking candidates about their school library. I also speak as an increasingly dissatisfied parent. In my own subject, the basic skill of the historian is being able to compare two contradictory accounts of the same event, or preferably more. However, that cannot be done if there is available only the account prepared by the teacher, however good that teacher may be. The facility to be able to read more books must be available otherwise, enough information cannot be absorbed.
Noble Lords will know how much quicker it is to read the Official Report than to hear the whole debate delivered in the House. That point underlines the importance of having a school library as well as a good teacher. Many candidates who come to us applying for admission have such an ill provided school library that they had not had the first opportunity to begin to learn the skills needed to be an historian. We cannot assess them on their own subject; we must assess them by asking them about something quite different.
My son is at present studying for an A-level in my own subject. However, he simply could not get through on the basis of the books in his school library. Of course, he uses mine. I am aware that that gives him an advantage. I am not the sort of egalitarian who would propose to deprive him of it; but I am the sort of egalitarian who would like that advantage extended to a few more people. At present it is not.
The course work element of GCSE has increased the pressure on books. Moreover, because knowledge is changing fast, books tend to date a good deal faster than used to be the case. Public libraries are under considerable pressure and are handicapped by limits on local authority funding. That also affects the debate on the national curriculum. Here I speak wearing a hat which may perhaps be unfamiliar to your Lordships. I am one of the vice-presidents of the Royal Historical Society and a member of the committee which discussed the interim report of the working party on the history national curriculum. Members of the committee thought that the curriculum was extremely good. Indeed, we thought that the working party had come as near as could

331
reasonably be expected to getting the balance right between knowledge and skills. We entirely agree with the Educational Publishers' council that the books at present in print simply do not fit the curriculum. Indeed, people will have to write new ones.
The committee also felt rather strongly that the attempt to set people to do a curriculum which would be impossible without the right books would be so demoralising that if the money cannot be supplied for such books it would be better that it should not be done at all, rather than do it badly. That is an opinion from which I would be surprised if members of the working party dissent. The Educational Publishers' council estimated that £58.3 million would be needed for the books in history alone. However, that may well be an under-estimate. If the Government are not thinking of providing that sort of money, I ask them to postpone the introduction of the national curriculum in history until such time as they can do so.
We cannot introduce the national curriculum without the necessary teachers. As I remember my noble friend Lady Seear saying when we were discussing the Education Reform Bill, that is making bricks without straw. We cannot measure teacher shortages by crude numbers of vacant places —that is, classes with no teachers in front of them. We have already heard about supply teachers. Indeed, I have heard from my son about them. We have been told about teachers teaching way beyond the area of their specialist knowledge. We have been told about teachers teaching too many classes and therefore having too big a marking load.
In the end it is a question of money. It is also something which threatens the link between school and parent, which this Government are concerned to build up. Whenever I begin to know one of my son's teachers, he goes off to run a Chinese restaurant because in that way he can afford to live. As I understand it, the average teacher's salary is about £14,800. However, the average London mortgage is about £66,000. Therefore, at a 15 per cent. interest rate that means an interest of £9,900 must be paid on the mortgage. Therefore a teacher with an average London house will be paying two-thirds of his gross salary for his mortgage. Assuming that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets about the remaining one-third, that means that there is nothing left on which to live. I do not think that we can expect people to take on a skilled job which requires four years' training after leaving school unless they can afford the average house price in their area. Marking is a job which teachers need to be able to do in their homes. To do that properly space is necessary. An extra room in London costs a fortune.
It is above all a London problem; but it is a problem which affects the whole country. It also concerns the issue of negotiating rights. I am all in favour of no-strike agreements and pay review bodies. Indeed, I wish that my own profession had those advantages. However, if we are to have that procedure it must be binding on both sides. A review procedure which is binding on one side and not the other sounds uncomfortably like forced labour which we do not approve of in this country.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I must begin by congratulating from these Benches the noble Earl on his distinguished maiden speech and mingling those congratulations with an apology to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for the fact that I may not be able to be present at the end of the debate due to a previous engagement.
I should like to make three points. The first concerns schools. We shall never have a qualified and well trained workforce in this country unless there is a change in government policy towards teachers. We have an appalling shortage of qualified teachers in mathematics and physics. Moreover, many teachers who teach those subjects do not even have 0-level qualifications in them. Therefore, cannot the Government organise a crash course to train such teachers? It is not fair to expect them to teach children when they are incompetent, and it certainly is not fair on the children to allow their teachers to be so untrained.
However, we shall never have those qualified teachers unless we have a differential to increase the pay of teachers in those subjects. Of course such a differential should only be given to those who are qualified. I realise of course that that proposal will outrage the NUT. That is very much a point in its favour since the NUT has been the enemy of education in this country and its disregard and contempt for children, as opposed to its members, is notorious.
I urge the Government to increase the number of city technology colleges. I wish to take the Minister back to 1941 when the Ministry of Education was, in part, evacuated to Bournemouth. Free of any kind of ministerial interference, three prominent officials sat down to draft what became the Butler Act of 1944. They were Mr. Griffith Williams, who was in charge of secondary education and Mr. William Cleary, who was head of the elementary education branch. They were powerful, tireless and expert. They differed on the age at which children should transfer from elementary to secondary education, and the permanent secretary, Maurice Holmes, had to be brought in to rule in favour of Griffith Williams and the 11-plus.
The third official was neither powerful nor persuasive. He was in charge of technical education. And so our post-war education system virtually phased out technical schools. That was a disaster. That is why I ask whether it is not possible to recreate more technical schools and to send to them those children who display the least talent for physics and mathematics. I disagree with the way in which the Government have financed those colleges. They should be direct grant schools, as in the old days.
We shall never be able to compete with Japanese education, because education in Japan is highly technical, highly disciplined, and culturally a desert. However, we cannot ignore the fact that it achieves results. I was sad that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, in favour of a core curriculum was defeated in the House while his successor's national curriculum won the day. With

333
the core curriculum there is greater flexibility, and it is that flexibility which would enable children to go to technical schools.
My next point is about the polytechnics. I urge the Minister to disregard the advice that he was given from the episcopal Benches. I beg the Minister not to try to fund polytechnics on the same level as universities. If the Secretary of State takes that decision, all the Government's plans for increasing the numbers of those going into higher education will fall to the ground because it will of course be followed by a demand by at least 70 of the best colleges to be funded on the same level as the polytechnics and the universities. There is no end to the escalation of costs and not one more adolescent would go into higher education.
Of course the polytechnics are the great success story of the 1980s. I am not indifferent to the splendid propaganda that they put out. How can they be helped? They should be given priority in obtaining capital grants from the department, given priority over the universities in buildings and other capital projects. But let us not confuse flexibility in the curriculum with equality of financing.
Lastly, the universities. One of the obstacles this country has faced in training its high fliers has been the reluctance of Oxford and Cambridge to recognise the need to do so. The other day I ran across an article by Mr. Goronwy Rees, a quondam fellow of All Souls now, alas, dead. It was an attack on the ancient universities for being so indifferent towards the need to train managers for British business. It was also an attack on British business. He cited some horrifying examples of the ineptitude and frivolity of boards of directors on which he sat. Writing the article in 1963, he said that he was at any rate encouraged to hear that Oxford was considering the possibility of setting up a business management school. He said that it was late in the day and that it would take several years before such a school gained the prestige of Harvard's business school but that the sooner such a place was establised, the better. Here we are in 1990. Oxford is still considering setting up a business school but blinking at the cost. I am sorry that my old friend the Chancellor of Oxford University is not here to give, as I am sure he would, some urbane explanation for that.
Cambridge has set up such a business school —but only a short time ago. At last the engineering faculty, that temple of higher mathematics, has permitted management studies to form a part of the Bachelor of Arts degree. Since such conversion on the road to Damascus took so long, is it any wonder that so many civic universities are stuffy about watering down, as academic staff often put it, the single-subject honours degree?
If one visits the University of Waterloo in Ontario one will find a faculty of English in which virtually all the students take a course in computer science. As a result, the graduates from that department obtain jobs far quicker than those in the computer department itself, because such students are not just familiar with computers. They can communicate with other people, something which highly qualified
334
mathematicians sometimes cannot do. They fall in love with their computers instead of falling in love with the opposite sex, and have great difficulty in communicating with ordinary human beings.
My time is up. I have made my three points. I hope that the Minister will reply to them but of course I do not expect him to do so if I am not in my place at the end of the debate.
4.57 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I turn to a different subject. I wish to speak about children who experience personal, emotional and behavioural difficulties. The subject has been touched on, in part, by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. Unless those children are wisely and skilfully helped within our education system in co-operation, as the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, said in his outstanding speech, with the parents, they will grow into a financial liability to the country as adults. A proportion of them will become homeless; a proportion of them will become delinquent and go to youth custody centres and later to prison; and many of them will become unemployed. There is not time to go into that difficult subject which causes teachers great worry.
First, I shall touch, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, on non-school attendance. Some research has been done by the education unit of the Institute of Economic Affairs in nine different comprehensive schools. It was carried out by Patricia Stoll. There is a group of children who do not attend school for social reasons. They are kept home to look after younger children or because their parents are ill and so forth. That is a social problem which should be dealt with by the social services department. However, there are children who are high post-registration truants. They register. They attend the next lesson. They do not like it. They go to the cloakroom. They put on their coats and out they go. They return at lunchtime. They register. If they like the lesson, they stay. If they do not like the lesson they put on their coats and off they go. Those children are sent to school by their parents. The parents believe that they are at school when they are not.
If a child does not attend school regularly and does not learn to concentrate, when that child leaves school he or she cannot concentrate and cannot hold down a job. Such children are a liability to themselves, to the family and to the community.
We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for this debate. He will remember that in the debate on education I recommended to the Government that figures should be compiled in every school and county and should be put on to a computer. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Annan, should note that. I do not think that teachers should be in love with computers, but those figures would show the country's problems. I regret to have to say that sadly, the reply from the Minister on the Front Bench was that it would make too much work for the teachers.
I am sorry for teachers and have great sympathy with them when they have to teach these difficult children who very often experience cruelty in the home and perhaps sexual abuse. There may be a

335
complete disregard for their well-being; they may be unloved. These children are difficult to deal with, but they need to be dealt with, otherwise society suffers. They are often recommended by teachers, social workers or educational psychologists to attend a special school.
The Warnock Report expresses the belief that children should stay in their own home and be educated in their own area wherever possible and practicable. However, some children are so deeply hurt and disturbed that they have to be dealt with away from their home by skilled staff. In the past such children were referred to schools for maladjusted children but now many have closed down. Voluntary organisations run many very good establishments but the local authorities find that the cost is £7,000 a year when a child goes to such a school. The local authority —perhaps for understandable reasons—refuses to educate the child in a special school. By the time such children reach 13 or 14 years they are intolerable and cannot be dealt with. This is the type of child whom we saw on the television programme "Panorama" on Monday. By that time, even if they are recommended to a special school, they are not allowed to go there because the school feels it can do nothing at such a late stage.
I press the Minister for education to look into the problem, which is causing a great deal of trouble and which will cause the country much difficulty. If we examine the case histories of men in prison or of many adults in mental hospitals, these people could have been dealt with when young. If it were possible to record on a computer how much those children cost the country in terms of prisons, youth custody sentences and mental hospital stays, it would be clear that we should do better to spend the money on them when they are children in order to prevent not only the unhappiness which they experience but also the terrible cost to the country. This has never been thought of. I have to say to my noble friend the Minister that the Department of Education is not mindful of the problem. Nor do I see any evidence of it doing anything about it. I congratulate the people who formed the Charterhouse Group and also the Aycliffe Children's Centre in the north of England, who are trying to set up a course for people to deal with such children. I hope that they will be given encouragement.
I wish to touch on two further points. I press my noble friend the Minister to speak to his right honourable friend about administration. There is not so much a poor relationship as one which needs to be worked out between education welfare officers —for whom I have deep sympathy —and the social services departments.
My last point touches on the Workers' Educational Association. Many men and women leave school and at a later stage desire to follow a course. They might find it difficult to do so at the Open University and they are helped and supported by the Workers' Educational Association. At present half the money comes from the Department of Education and Science and the other half from local authorities. Many local authorities are unable, or say that they
336
are unable, to support the Workers' Educational Association. If they do not do so then the association loses the Department of Education funding. I plead with the Minister to ask his right honourable friend to see that the Workers' Educational Association is supported.
5.5 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I wish to talk about adult education, concentrating rather more on the importance of education for its effect on society than on the economy, although the two are inextricably interwoven. Adult education can contribute to the whole of life but it is a matter which the Government seem to care very little about and indeed not to understand. I too wish to speak about the WEA and to show how the Government's action towards that association and the extra-mural boards is typical of the department trying to hive off its responsibilities to the local authorities on the one hand and the universities and the UFC on the other.
The WEA was to be handed over to the LEAs by way of the education support grants; 70 per cent. was to be paid by the department, 30 per cent. by the LEA. Much would depend on whether the local education authority could afford to make a bid and to provide the 30 per cent. which it would have to find. It was understandable that there were strong objections from the WEA, so the DES backtracked. Mr. Jackson has agreed, for a transitional period of four years, to restore some of the grant to the national association and the districts.
However, the stated purpose of the education support grant is still,
to encourage authorities to put in place formal arrangements for co-operation and collaboration with WEA districts".
So WEA districts are now trying to ensure the maximum bids from LEAs to minimise any shortfall of income during 1990–91. The Government have decided to put WEA districts up for auction. The resulting effects on adult education classes are therefore uncertain and an association which was started by Albert Mansbridge in 1903 to promote the higher education of working men and which has helped and inspired thousands could well not survive. How can the Minister justify jeopardising such a unique service for the sake of £million?
Losing their responsible body status will make the extra-mural boards dependent on the universities. They are in great uncertainty about their future. Already over the past three years the Cambridge board has, I know, undergone cuts of 14 per cent. and do not know exactly what funding they can expect for next year. What is certain is that more and more of their income will have to come from fees, and that is the picture everywhere. Those who can afford the higher costs of their classes will be all right; others will not.
However, the Government's greatest crime is what, with the abolition of ILEA, is being done to adult education in London. Even Kenneth Baker described it as "the jewel in the crown". HMI reported that it had both a national and an international reputation. Its courses are taken by more than 250,000 students. Inner London, with less

337
than 5 per cent. of the population, has more than 15 per cent. of England's adult students. Abolition will mean the breaking up of the highly integrated adult service which crosses borough boundaries. Pensioners who have taken classes side by side will suddenly find themselves paying vastly differing fees depending on their home borough policies. One may perhaps pay a concessionary fee of a few pounds a term while another may pay £20, as the outer London borough of Merton now charges.
ILEA's adult literacy work, which has been developed across the country as a result of the national campaign in the '70s, was pioneered in voluntary organisations like the Cambridge House settlement in Walworth. It was developed in each of the ILEA institutes but this service, too, could now disintegrate.
The ILEA team of inspectors will be broken up. The only comparable group of specialist advisers is Her Majesty's Inspectorate, and they are shared across the whole country. It is difficult to believe that the education of adults can receive advice and concern of comparable quality through the advisory function of smaller, single borough activities, especially when the evidence of current experience in outer London is taken into account.
Speaking at a conference organised by the National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education last November, Mr. Jackson urged the boroughs to maintain broadly the same level of service and to retain the cheap £3 course rates for youngsters, pensioners, the unemployed and disadvantaged students. At least half of ILEA's 17 institutes' adult students fall within that category. Mr. Jackson stressed the Government's commitment to maintaining access courses to higher education. Of the 570 access courses provided nationally, 100 were to be found in ILEA. Mr. Jackson said the boroughs should co-operate to preserve those services and ensure the free movement of students. I suppose we must be grateful that he has at last come to recognise and appreciate the strengths of adult education in London. However, it is too late. As so often occurs with this Government, legislation is produced on the hoof and ideas are not thought out or thought through. Goodness knows, we on this side of the House produced the arguments for the retention of ILEA, emphasising its adult service, when legislation was before this House. However, that was to no avail.
In that same speech Mr. Jackson went on, as one might have predicted, to say that ILEA had recovered only 10 per cent. of the costs of the adult education service. He looked for savings and pressed for a shift in the balance between cost recovery through fees and a rationalisation of courses. The message is clear: fees will increase but opportunity will decrease. The fact is, as Louis Stott said in an article in Adult Learning:
"adult education in Inner London has long been underfunded, is very cheap, and, if only the enterprise culture realised it, constitutes a very attractive buy".
Mr. Jackson promised, however, to safeguard the four specialist adult colleges of Morley, City Lit, Mary Ward and the Working Men's College. They
338
were to be supported by a levy on the London Residuary Body for three years while they moved towards self-sufficiency. They will have to comply with the entrepreneurial mores of the Education Reform Act from the first. One cannot help being anxious about their future.
I have one final point on ILEA. It gave substantial grants to voluntary organisations. Will those grants be maintained, particularly after the transitional period of four to five years when the £100 million for easing the transfer has gone? All this emphasis on self-sufficiency makes one gasp when one thinks of the administrative costs that the boroughs will face. One chief at ILEA is to be replaced by 12 successors at a total salary cost well in excess of £250,000 a year.
Adult education was the only aspect of education which the Government left out of an Education Reform Act concerned with the community control of education including the involvement of parents. It should of course have been pivotal to it. As there is no duty in the Act to provide adult and community education, it is bound to be at risk.
I mentioned adult literacy in relation to ILEA's pioneering achievements. I must also refer to the Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit, which has a particular importance in International Literacy Year. Our education system is clearly not working if 6 million adults are illiterate or innumerate. ALBSU is doing great work in encouraging people to come forward and not be scared of admitting their inadequacies. Those who went to the launch on 15th January of its International Literacy Year programme were much impressed by the video film which is to be used countrywide. However, we were not so impressed when we heard Mr. MacGregor say that the Government would give ALBSU £30,000 to help with its extra work this year. That is a miserly and meagre provision.
Finally, I wish to discuss the Open University. We have heard that yesterday it celebrated its 100,000th graduate. Of its graduates 45 per cent. are women. That constitutes a much larger proportion than any other university or polytechnic. There is growing recognition that in any rational review of the need to develop the nation's human resources to the full it is adults who are now at the centre of the stage. Personal, social and economic development must all rely on an adult population that is continually renewing its skills, knowledge and understanding. Local authorities are reviewing the total provision for adults in their areas and the training and enterprise councils are about to start. However, what is totally lacking is any coherent national strategic planning or philosophy other than reductions in government financial support and an underlying attempt to move cost to the consumer with a minimal safety net to remove a few hundred thousand unskilled and semi-skilled people from the unemployment register by recycling them through a series of training schemes.
If the Government are serious in wanting to widen opportunities and reduce the skill shortage —demographic change means the Government have to do this —they could be much more generous to the Open University, which is perfectly placed to

339
provide the distance learning that adults need. Sir Austin Bide chairs the Visiting Committee of the Open University, the department's watchdog, which in its report to the Secretary of State on the Open University's plans for 1989 to 1991 said that it expected the university's costs to rise at an average rate of 8 per cent. between 1989 and 1990 and at a rate of 6·7 per cent. between 1990 and 1991. On the basis of indicated grants, the Open University forecasts deficits of £3 million in 1990 and £6·2 million in 1991. Substantial increases in income from fees and entrepreneurial activity could not offset the amount by which grant will fail to match the increase in costs. The committee says that it cannot determine the precise amounts required to avoid the most damaging cuts, but that they are very large. They amount to about £7 million without reckoning the costs of future pay awards.
The committee concludes that:
"there is the danger that crisis management is taking precedence over strategic planning … The university's inability to accumulate reserves and to generate and use entrepreneurial income as it would wish, are crippling restrictions which serve no useful purpose".
Will the Government pay attention to this report from a committee that they created specifically to overview the performance of the Open University?
5.18 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has drawn attention to this subject. He has put his finger on crucially important connections. I follow the noble Baroness, Lady David, into the adult field. In an area with chronic high unemployment stretching over generations, like Merseyside, and indeed other cities such as Glasgow and Belfast, the skills gap is the factor which has held back so many attempts to establish a more successful economy.
Employers sometimes tell me they are disheartened at finding youngsters, not long out of school, reluctant to give themselves to a training which makes a demand. However, they might give due account to how enervating is the atmosphere for school-leavers of living in areas of very high unemployment.
I wish to draw attention to second chance learning and to the key role it can play for many people. Believing that they would not find a job has been a dulling disincentive to many people in their school years. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, spoke about the pressures in one inner city school. For that and other reasons, there are many low achievers. Far more of those low achievers than we can imagine have high, God-given intelligence which has been trampled on. They are not stupid.
Employers would do well to visit and to make some investment in colleges of further education. Two weeks ago I visited South Mersey College, Liverpool, where some employers have a considerable stake. I also visit City College in Liverpool and Hugh Baird College in Bootle. Employers who visited those colleges would see the growth of confidence, the release of intelligence and the way students are equipped with skills. If they
340
looked for recruits from further education who are perhaps a little older than the people they have sought they might have some great surprises.
I shall relate the account of one young woman who was on a second chance to learn course at City College Liverpool from September 1987 to June 1988. She said:
"Before I started the course, I was a bored, unemployed and disillusioned single parent, with no job prospects and no ideas on how to pull myself and my son out of the rut that had developed around me. It was my mother who introduced me to the course, herself a student the previous year.
"On the course I gained confidence to make new friends, a lot of whom were in the same position as myself. I learned how to study. I also learned that I had a thirst for good books. I had not read a book for at least three years. One of the most important things that I learned from Second Chance was a craving to learn further and the courage to carry it out. I am studying a Maths course for teaching and a GCSE English language course. I hope to start a B.Ed. course".
I should also like to mention the case of one young man. He left school with no qualifications at all, believing that he would never get over the problems that he had with English. Through adult basic education he now realises that that is not as difficult to overcome as he thought it would be. He is currently studying on an access to high education course at college and hopes eventually to gain professional employment. He feels that he can now become a role model for his children and show that an ordinary person can make it.
Noble Lords will have gathered that I am a great enthusiast for second chance learning. I want to infect your Lordships with some of that enthusiasm.
I found it discouraging that the Government's Education Reform Act, which came out at much the same time as their major initiatives on the inner cities —which in a city like ours more often means outer city estates rather than inner city —had nothing to say about further education and second chance learning. Yet it could be one of the keys that opens the door of opportunities in the inner cities.
Take the longer term question, "How can you turn around poor educational achievement in areas where for 150 years those who have achieved well have moved out of the districts?" Long-term measures will not win much political credit, but short-term steps will only help a minority of individuals to climb out of their community. They will mean that in each generation schools in such areas go back to square one to start all over again.
Changing the attitudes of parents is indeed a long-term measure. However, I doubt whether there is anything more important in order to improve achievements in such schools. I should like to quote some testimonials concerning the change that second chance learning courses brought about in parents. Noble Lords should ask themselves how much effect that might have on achievement in schools. Here is one:
"It is only with hindsight that I realise I wasted what talents I had by leaving too early and not working to my full capabilities. My child will get more encouragement to make the most of his education. I'm taking an interest in how he is taught and ask questions if I'm not satisfied in any way".
A second testimonial reads:
"I always thought education was a priority. My attitude has been reinforced, not changed. But now I think parents should

341
have more influence. I helped to set up a PTA Committee. We've won a few victories. I wouldn't have done this before I came on Second Chance. I would have left the school to get on with it".
Some years ago I heard a Secretary of State for Education and Science defend the refusal of a local authority to move to comprehensive education. He said:
"There are some parents who care deeply about their children's education".
The strong inference was that parents in other areas did not care. I do not believe it.
Research to discover the effect of second chance learning in Liverpool in 1983 showed that those parents had always cared about their children's schooling. However, they had lacked both knowledge of the education system and personal confidence because of their own poor schooling.
I shall quote one more testimonial:
"My attitude towards my children's education hasn't changed, but my ability to influence them has. I've always encouraged them to try really hard at school but now the kids have seen me studying and my wife studying. Now studying is not something grown-ups impose on kids".
I shall be very interested to learn what the Minister has to say in his reply to the debate about the value of second chance learning in colleges of FE and about the resources made available, especially in high unemployment areas. Not long ago I saw the Audit Commission report on Liverpool Education Authority. I realise that it has a limited brief in what it has to look for; but I was concerned when I read what the Audit Commission had to say about further education in Liverpool. It cited Liverpool as generous in that field. That seemed to be cited as a fault.
I thought of my visits to colleges. I have sometimes been able to arrange for grants of £50 or £100 for students. I have asked whether that really makes a difference. They have said to me that it makes all the difference in the world to their being able to take part at all because they are able to pay for fares.
I thought of my visits, when I have seen students eating their sandwiches and sitting on the narrow staircases because there is so little available space. I thought of the decorations which are frequently not done at all; I thought of the limited equipment. I thought of the constraints on taking the good news of second chance learning far and wide because there were questions about whether there was the staff to cope if too many more came.
I hope that the Minister may tell me that in their concern for a more successful economy and society in the inner cities the Government would argue that local education authorities in such areas should indeed be encouraged to be generous and private sector firms encouraged to involve themselves more.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. Having seen him play cricket in the past, I greatly admire him, and I also enjoyed his contribution to the debate today.
As a former Minister for Overseas Development I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord
342
Cairns, on his important contribution. I join with others in congratulating my noble friend Lord Peston on his presentation of the important subject of education in the debate today.
There has been much dissatisfaction with the progress of education in recent years. In the great debate pioneered by my noble friend Lord Callaghan at Ruskin College in 1976, my noble friend said that the goals of our education, from nursery school through to adult education, are clear enough. They are to equip children to the best of their ability for a lively, constructive place in society and also to fit them to do a job of work. There is a strong case for the so-called core curriculum of basic knowledge. How should the use of resources be monitored in order to maintain a high national standard of performance?
So far as concerns the British economy, successive governments have failed to make the slightest impact on certain long-term post-war trends —the rise in unemployment, the decline in the export of manufactured goods. Different economic, fiscal and industrial action may have effected temporary changes, but the underlying trends remain the same.
Is our education system responsible for that? Can reform at the universities, polytechnics and schools arrest that decline?
The speech that my noble friend Lord Callaghan delivered helped to focus education as a live issue. The Government have kept education in the limelight but have done little to improve standards. They believe that teaching the humanities is a waste of time and that scientific research should be left to industry and not paid for by the taxpayer.
For 14 years after the last war there was a genuine commitment to science, inspired by the discovery of radar, perspex and polythene (which helped to win the Battle of Britain) and of penicillin (which held out the possibility of relief from massive infection for millions). It was an exciting time. Alas that is of the past. History will record that the near adulation of science has given place to feelings of doubt and even fear.
The aim of education should be to produce individuals able to think for themselves and not merely to follow what someone else has told them. Teachers should excite a natural curiosity in youngsters. It is by stimulating a zest for learning in general that teachers can perform their greatest service to those in their care. The zest for learning is a zest for life which allows people to live contentedly for all their days.
Teaching is a creative art and we owe a great deal to our teachers. If a doctor, lawyer or dentist had 30 patients in his office or surgery at one time, all of whom had different needs, some of whom did not want to be there and were causing trouble and all of whom had to be treated with professional excellence for nine months of the year, he might have some conception of a class teacher's job. The conditions in which teachers work are below continental standards. We need more and better training for the workforce of the country, but that is not likely to come about if we persist in paying teachers low salaries and worsening their conditions of service.

343
Some of my friends are part-time lecturers. A part-time lecturer teaching 11 hours a week in Category V earns £116 a week for 38 weeks of the year. He is paid for the time in front of the class, not for the time spent preparing lessons or travelling. It is not unusual for two hours to be spent preparing a one-hour lecture. Part-time teachers are not just useful to fill gaps in the timetable. They are often people of wide industrial experience who add a leaven of practical knowledge to what are often merely academic training courses. The shortcomings in mathematics, science, technology, commercial and language education are caused by the failure to provide well qualified teachers because the pay and conditions of service do not attract them.
To a large extent teachers are in charge of the future. The fate of our people depends on how well they are taught today. The local education authorities are being asked to initiate and expand without being provided with the means to do so. The need for adult and continuing education is undoubtedly growing and university extramural departments and the WEA need all the help that can be given. There is little sign that the Government are doing that. In 1990 the worst effect of their policy could be fees of over £100 for a two-year term, the closing of many courses, the disappearance of certain subjects from the programme and certain restrictions on new forms of work. It might even mean the closure of the extramural department itself.
Adult education provides an opportunity of compensating in adult life for what has been missed in earlier education. Adult education, where a lecture is followed by a period of discussion in which both the lecturer and the audience participate, is valuable. Psychologists have shown that people accept ideas more readily when conviction arises through their own argument than when they have received information passively. Further education widens one's outlook and enriches one's life. I owe a great deal to adult education.
After leaving an elementary school I took a course in economics for three years at Toynbee Hall in the East End of London. That university extension class has been served by many outstanding persons. Lord Attlee lived and taught there, as did Sir William Beveridge, the pioneer of the welfare state. Lenin, the founder of the Russian revolution, was a visitor. John Profumo, whose birthday was yesterday, has rekindled interest in Toynbee Hall and has been most active for many years. At present he is president of the council on which I also serve.
In a democracy a good education enables citizens to be well equipped to make good judgments and to exercise their privileges wisely and well.
5.36 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I too should like to join noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for introducing the debate on a subject which should be high on the agenda not only of the Government but of all companies concerned with producing economic prosperity for this country. Companies today need people who have aptitude, ability and adaptability —all qualities after all based on a sound
344
basic education and on training, retraining and continuing training throughout their lifetime.
Noble Lords with wide experience have touched on many aspects of education and training. I should like to make a few points gained from observation and experience as an MEP who served for 10 years in the Thames Valley. Noble Lords will know that that area is a centre of high technology and flourishing industry where one problem is already becoming apparent; namely, that there is little unemployment and consequently there is always opportunity for a job in the area. That of itself creates other problems to which I should like to draw the attention of noble Lords.
I noticed in 1985 that there were several elements missing in companies' attitudes to the training of their employees. There was little or no dialogue between companies, large or small, and training providers. By "training providers" I mean polytechnics and colleges of higher and further education, the basic sources for training for those companies. According to a survey undertaken at that time, training providers had 25 per cent. under-utilised resources. The courses provided were irrelevant to the needs of local industry either of today and certainly of tomorrow. Furthermore, there was no point of reference which would create the dialogue required between those two sides of the divide.
That problem was not confined to the Thames Valley or to the United Kingdom, but was found in the European Community as a whole. There was unemployment and there were vacancies for highly skilled people. There was what one might call a mismatch. That is not only true of the United Kingdom; as we are now hearing it is even true of West Germany. East Germans are pouring into West Germany to take jobs which are available to them with their skills. It is not a narrow point.
Sponsored by the European Community, my son James, who also happens to be an MEP, and I established an organisation called Target under the European Community Comet programme with considerable support from large and small firms and other organisations, particularly the MSC. Launched four years ago, it is regionally based, industry-led, with two directors who personally deal with all problems and aides who personally assist in visiting small firms. I insist on the human and personal aspect. It is no use talking in general terms about training unless people are willing to go and talk to other people.
Over the past two years over 1,000 firms have been visited, resulting in 1,500 referrals to training courses. Those are young people who would not have had that training if the companies had not been identified, spoken to, and emphasis been put on the importance of training and encouraging those young people to attend courses in the nearby colleges. We have also had over 50 tailormade courses, if I may call them that, offered by colleges. They would not otherwise have been offered and they are meeting the demands of the firms concerned.
That policy no doubt contributed to the setting up of the TECs which come into operation in April this

345
year. We have also had very close co-operation with the Thames Chiltern chamber of commerce which had established excellent school-industry links and which has recently set up a creche. It has also been running massive training programmes in recent years. Some lessons have been learnt from that experience at Target which is now forging a close liaison with the new TECs.
To fit my speech within nine minutes I shall have to speak in telegraphese. First, a curious anomaly has arisen in that because of vacancies one in five young people in the South go with little or no training straight into firms, because they go in at age 16. In many parts of the North, four out of five young people have been trained, because there are not the immediate job opportunities for them. The short-termism in the South will be detrimental to firms in the future if training is not given to those young people who have gone into jobs. I believe that that is very important and needs funding. It must not be overlooked.
In the search for trained personnel —the noble Lord, Lord Peston, mentioned this point —women returners are, if I may use the term, the latest "in" word. At the employment fair that we held the other day over 500 women came during the day, applying for jobs. They wanted to come back into work.
There are two points that I should like to make here. Those women lacked confidence and wanted to be given reassurance. They wanted to explore the problems that it means to families when they go back to work. We have been holding courses, which we call "second time round". They have been heavily over-subscribed. They cater for women who come in to discover the obligations and the problems involved. The courses have been very helpful for them and have opened up more work opportunities for them.
On the other side of the coin there are many companies which lack flexibility, which is essential if they want women to go back to work. They must recognise such things as school holidays, time imperatives, and so on. The companies which have recognised those factors have been able to recruit many numbers of such women returners. Small companies need not only individual encouragement but assistance in recognising that they have a training problem as well as helping, to provide the answer.
There is another point that I should like to make. I believe that there would not be a need for city technology colleges if comprehensive schools were better motivated by able heads and parent governors who were ambitious to realise their ideals for their children's future. There are several examples of that in Berkshire.
The splitting of responsibility for different aspects of training among three departments —at this point I address my noble friend on the Front Bench —is not conducive to a clear vision and policy: the DoE, deals with the training agency, the DES deals with the Comet programme of the Community and the DTI is responsible for industrial training. A Minister responsible for all aspects of training would raise the importance of this subject and avoid much overlapping and dissipation of both effort and
346
funding through a wide variety of organisations and initiatives. That point was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy.
The need for standard setting is essential to enable young people to get the right kind of training to allow them to move around both the United Kingdom and the Community. I strongly commend the work of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, although I understand that the initial round of accredited courses is at a level below that of our industrial rivals on the Continent. That is discouraging but I hope that there will be a change in the next round.
The comparable figures for trained and untrained workers are starkly revealed in the recent statistics published in the European Economy of November 1989. There have also been many statistics given tonight of course. Nevertheless I believe that these are relevant. Referring to the structure of the workforces in industry, in member states the percentage of skilled workers in the workforce varies between 55 and 84; in the United Kingdom the figure is 44 per cent. Those figures are for males. For females the percentage varies between 40 and 74 in other member states and in the United Kingdom the figure is 24 per cent. In comparison with other member states that is half or less than half.
When it is realised that 80 per cent. of the workforce in the year 2000 are already in employment, it is self-evident that it is not only those coming into the workforce who need training but those who are in work. They need not only training but continued retraining to higher levels.
Finally, the Comet programme of the Community offers valuable incentives for students to benefit from training throughout Europe. Target has been able to organise joint courses in high-tech subjects which enable young people to train not only in our own areas but to attain high standards in centres of excellence on the Continent. For instance, we have formal links with Erlangen, which is one of the leading high-tech centres in Europe.
All those points make up part of the effort to put training on the map. It cannot be denied that lack of training means economic stagnation and even recession. If it is both recognised and practised that training should be made a priority, it can lead to increased prosperity. It is not just I as a Conservative who say that. As Walter Ellis of NEDO said recently, upgrading the skills of the labour force by 1 per cent. could mean a 2 per cent. increase in productivity. That seems to be an incentive that is worth going for.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I spent last weekend at a consultation on population changes and employment organised by the St. William's Foundation of York; that is the northern equivalent of St. George's House, Windsor. I mention that for two reasons. The first is because it is relevant to this debate. Many of the issues that have been raised this afternoon were raised during that weekend.

347
Secondly, I was impressed by a comment in the report from one of the working groups which said:
"Work is not just work: work is more than work'.
The group went on to say that work is about the application of skills, initiatives, team work, creativity and fun. In other words, it is part of the quality of life.
How true that is. If the quality of life at work is poor, the total quality of life is diminished. Yet all too often for so many people work has represented just a job, a means of earning one's daily bread. That is true particularly for that substantial section of the community who left school with no qualifications and followed employment which required no qualifications. That section of workers will soon have worked itself out of a job because, as we heard this afternoon from my noble friend Lord Peston and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, by the year 2000 there will be no unskilled jobs in the United Kingdom.
Sometime between now and the year 2000 there will be an enormous challenge facing our further and higher education systems and our training systems, whether government funded or privately funded. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool said, it is an enormous challenge to provide second chance learning for many members of our community.
There are a number of factors of which we need to take note in relation to that challenge. The first is the demographic factor, which has already been mentioned in the course of the debate. But the decline in the number of teenagers is perhaps not an unmitigated tragedy because it forces us to look at alternative sources of labour and alternative sources for training and education.
That brings me to my second point. Between now and the end of the century, despite the decline in teenagers, the workforce will continue to grow. However, 80 per cent. of that workforce is now already in place. Therefore, instead of turning youth employment into an unrealistic buyer's market, perhaps we ought to be using more of our resources to train the current workforce. I say "unrealistic buyer's market" for young people because a week or two ago it was reported in the Financial Times that the average wage for a 16 year-old male has risen by 36 per cent. during 1988–89. It would seem far better for those 16 year-olds either to remain in education or to move into a more comprehensive and well supported training scheme such as that on which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, spoke. We need to do the two things simultaneously. We need to make sure that we are investing in the declining number of young people but at the same time we need to look towards the current workforce for highly increased skills.
Thirdly, the largest sector of the workforce that will be in place between now and the end of the century, which is now underutilised is represented by women. Women's opportunities in the past for education, training and employment have not been equal to those of their male colleagues. The problem at top level has recently been documented by the
348
report from the Hansard Society. At factory floor level the problems are no less acute. Women earn less, have less opportunity to train and are given less opportunity to seek promotion. Again that has been well documented. Recently a report from WYCROW, based at Bradford University, indicated the extent to which part-time women workers in the food and retail industry were underutilised.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said, it is now fashionable to encourage women back into the labour market because of the decline in the number of teenagers. Woman have been encouraged back into the labour market in the past at times of crisis and have been dropped once the crisis is over. But I suggest that this time women are here to stay.
Many other circumstances affect this change. The family economy is based on two incomes. In the future there will be a premium placed on high intelligence and women have an equal share of that. Again as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said, women want to work. I suggest that they want a career. They do not simply want to work but to be able to progress as well. Therefore we must begin to take women more seriously at work if they are to make their maximum contribution to their firm or organisation.
That means equal access to training and promotion. I suggest that that is not so at present. That is due not so much to deliberate discrimination as to ill founded assumptions and presumptions about what women can and cannot do and about how they will fit into the team or into the managerial role. There is a question of whether they are even seen. When managers are looking for people to send on training courses or to promote they do not seem to see the women. They overlook them entirely. That is documented not only in the WYCROW Report but in many of the Equal Opportunities Commission documents.
It is equally true at professional level. Currently there are approximately 10,000 women with a degree in engineering or technology who have withdrawn from industry. Bradford and Cranfield Universities, funded by the training agencies, have introduced an M.Sc. course in manufacturing management. It is especially for women returners. During the course the women are to spend approximately half the time in the university and half in industry. But the problem has arisen that industrial sponsors cannot be found. At a time when there is a shortage of engineers and engineering students, it seems rather strange that industry has not responded to this initiative and found placements for these women. Again we have to ask: is it a hidden prejudice against women or is it a resistance on the part of companies to invest in training and retraining? I suggest that it is probably a combination of the two.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, no government have yet successfully married education and training. But the tragedy of the present situation is that the Government are pursuing policies that will make matters worse, and at a time when there was never greater urgency to get those policies right. In the short time available I shall try to demonstrate that by dealing with only one aspect, which the

349
Government have repeatedly told us is of considerable importance in dealing with the medium and long-term needs of the economy.
I refer to the development of city technology colleges, which have been referred to by their critics as gimmickry, irrelevant and a confidence trick. I have to say that I share those views. Even the name is part of the deception. Why, for instance, are they called colleges when they are schools? It is obviously because the word "college" tends to give status. Why "technology"? I remind noble Lords that the subject called design and technology is one of the foundation subjects of the national curriculum. I therefore ask the Minister this. If greater stress is to be given to, and therefore more time spent on, technology in the CTCs —which must surely be the case —which of the other core and foundation subjects are to suffer? We are entitled to know because such a proposal would appear to be at variance not only with the spirit but with the design of the national curriculum. Government statements on CTCs have shown the utter confusion of the thinking on the matter. When Kenneth Baker was Secretary of State he said that the target was 20 colleges. Indeed he is on the record as saying that 20 CT colleges would be in operation by the end of 1989. That would be funny if it were not such a serious matter. We all know that three are in operation. That is after three years of the implementation of the original proposal.
I have quoted the figure of 20 CTCs. However, the Minister of State, Mrs. Rumbold, is also on record as saying that there is "no limit" to the number. On the question of numbers, it is surely reasonable to ask this. If these institutions are so good and so important to the development of education in the economy, why are they to be confined not only to inner city areas but only to some inner city areas?
The financing of CTCs shows the same confusion and uncertainty as do their numbers. These colleges —as I am sure noble Lords will remember —were to be provided by private money. We were told that companies and other institutions could not wait to put their money into such projects. The public purse would therefore not come under any strain.
Government statements at some point were modified; it was to be 80 per cent. from the private sector and 20 per cent. from government. Once again, that has not proved to be the case. In 1990 government spending will be £28 million and £128 million has already been committed. That is far beyond even the 20 per cent. that I have mentioned. Those figures were given by the Secretary of State, John MacGregor, and taken from the Commons Hansard.
I wish to draw attention to one of the CTC's because it is in my own area of the North-East. The MacMillan College on Teeside has received £5·6 million towards its £7·3million costs. With another 17 CTCs yet to be established, it is not hard to imagine how much the taxpayer will be called upon to contribute, and in spite of all the fine words and assurances about private initiatives.
350
When those sums of public money began to be revealed there was a chorus of questions from the schools. That is perfectly understandable. Had not Her Majesty's inspectorate reported that half the children in secondary schools were being educated in substandard accommodation? It stated that in schools there is a backlog of repairs amounting to £3 billion. Have not the teachers complained about the crumbling and leaking schools in which they must work?
I should like to give another example from my area. The capital allocation to the CTC in Gateshead is larger than the amount available for all the schools in nearby Sunderland for the current year. That is an example of how to win friends and influence people in the teaching profession!
Another factor arises. During the recent Recess I had a meeting with Durham county councillors and officers about the effect of CTCs in the region. One of several important points that they raised was the effect that the Tyneside and Teesside CTCs are already having on nearby county schools. I shall not pursue the details but ask the question: what will be the views of the Department of Education and Science when the problem of surplus places in the affected schools must be met? That is a local matter about which I know the details, but it cannot be denied that the same problem will arise wherever a CTC is established.
The Government have been in power for almost 11 years and CTCs is the best scheme that they can come up with. It is a policy which has a few friends and many enemies.
This week I received a four-page document from the CBI about the debate, as will have other noble Lords. It rightly expresses deep concern about the need for improved edcuation and training to meet the requirements of the economy. Nowhere in the four-page document is there a mention of CTCs. There is not even a hint that they can make a contribution to the problems set out in it. Incidentally, noble Lords may know that the document is based on the CBI's report which has recently been produced by its vocational education and training task force.
The 21 members of the task force included the chief executive of the Post Office and senior representatives from British Telecom, the International Stock Exchange, Trust House Forte, Taylor Woodrow, IBM and British Aerospace. Those names speak for themselves in the context of this debate. I am sure that the Secretary of State has already drawn their attention to such a grave and serious omission.
There is so much to be done in this field yet the Government have chosen to spend time and money on such an ill-judged scheme. I hope that they will pocket their pride, halt it now and concentrate on the real needs of education, training and the economy.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Kirkwood: My Lords, the Government have already acknowledged the need for expansion in higher education in order to provide a trained workforce for industry. Over the next 25 years a

351
doubling in the number has been forecast, as has already been stated. The need is therefore recognised but the problem is the implementation of the policy. Where are the extra qualified students to come from? What extra accommodation and facilities are to be provided in the institutions of higher education? Above all, how will it all be paid for?
My principal concern is with the supply of craftsmen, technicians, engineers and applied scientists because of their importance to manufacturing industry and therefore to the national economy. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, remarked on the increase in the number of A-levels taken during the past year. A more significant statistic is that recently reported by the Engineering Council that entries for A-level physics dropped by 18 per cent. between 1985 and 1987. That is a shocking statistic. It is matched by a similar decline in the number of applications for science, maths and engineering courses in institutions of higher education. Clearly a bad situation is becoming appalling.
Far from obtaining the extra supply of candidates to meet the country's needs, the source appears to be drying up. That grave situation will be further compounded by the reduction in the number of graduates who in 1989 applied for teacher training in mathematics (which was down by 11 per cent.) and in physics (which was down by 18 per cent.) —that is in spite of the bursaries offered by the Government in order to induce graduates into teaching.
The reasons for the decline in the number of science and engineering students are complex. However, among them is the narrow specialisation begun in schools at the early age of 16 and the apparent low status and poor career prospects for graduates in those disciplines. The introduction of AS-level should help to broaden the curriculum in school sixth forms. That can only help in preventing children from abandoning subjects such as maths too early. It is up to the polytechnics and universities through their entrance requirements to persuade schools and their pupils of the virtue of that route.
Similarly the Government should take seriously the recent proposals from the Higginson Committee for a broadly-based five-subject course in place of the present A-levels. The B.Tech. qualification must also become an important route into higher education. There will of course be consequences for universities and polytechnics in such schemes because the content in each subject area cannot be as great. However, the advantages to the pupils both educationally and in preventing the restriction of career choice at an early age must far outweigh possible disadvantages of lengthened degree courses.
As regards the provision of buildings and facilities to meet the expansion in higher education, the polytechnics suffer vis-à-vis the universities in that:
"Many years of local government controls have meant that this sector has been discouraged from building a base of private assets and sources of income enjoyed by universities. Their ability to respond to market needs is seriously limited by the relatively poor standard of their buildings and facilities".
There appears to be little chance of their receiving investment funds from public sources. Admittedly,
352
my specific knowledge of the problem is confined to Sheffield City Polytechnic in my home town. But since I am at Sheffield University I can hardly be accused of trying to support my own institution. However, I am sure that that problem must be common to polytechnics elsewhere.
At Sheffield City Polytechnic, proposals for site rationalisation and redevelopment have attracted serious interest from private sector developers, but Treasury borrowing regulations apparently prevent private sector loans being secured against publicly funded assets. That building scheme, in co-operation with the Sheffield Development Corporation, involving a major relocation of the polytechnic in the Lower Don Valley, is one of vision and enterprise. It would provide a magnet effect for firms wishing to locate in Sheffield and would have valuable spin-off for knowledge-based industries. However, time is running out for a decision on how funding can be provided. It would be a pity if a scheme failed for want of vision and enterprise on the part of the DES and the Treasury.
Another aspect of education and training which will grow more important in time is that of continuing education —again something which has been remarked on before—particularly short and part-time courses put on for employees in local industry. The consequence of deficient central funding for such courses at polytechnics has meant a dramatic increase in tuition fees. There was a 150 per cent. increase this year at Sheffield City Polytechnic.
Students sponsored by large companies may well be able to pay but the impact on small firms, the very sector most in need of a greater input of modern management techniques and technical innovation, could be very serious. Help could be given via the tax system. Tuition fees for part-time and short courses could be made tax deductible, as proposed by the CBI and the British Institute of Management.
In trying to meet the expectations of this country and UK industry for an educated and trained workforce of managers, engineers, technicians and operatives, universities and polytechnics will require some radical changes to their course and teaching methods. That will be achieved only if the Government listen and try to understand the problems generated by expansion and provide sympathetic help.
6.12 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am glad that the previous speaker laid so much stress on polytechnics. It was pleasant to hear him refer to universities and polytechnics in the same breath. That is a habit which should be encouraged. He spoke with a great deal of authority on the matter.
The House will not be surprised to hear that, yet again, I shall deal with the polytechnics. Before doing so, I must say how pleased I am to support my noble friend Lord Peston who made such a brilliant and comprehensive speech, except that he did not have time to mention what is to me the most important aspect of education; that is, the religious aspect. I am sure that the omission was simply due to a question of time. The gap was quickly filled by the

353
speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and I dare say that my noble friend Lady Blackstone will deal with religion later, but I do not believe that that is an absolute certainty.
As I said, I shall deal with polytechnics. I wish I had half the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who last year launched the most searing attack which I have heard from the Conservative Benches on a Conservative Government. He accused the present Government of having a vendetta against universities. That seemed to me a good phrase. The only problem about that is that it is difficult to think of anything more severe to say. I can only say that if the universities are chastised with whips by this Government, the polytechnics are chastised with scorpions.
I approach the matter as a former university tutor with no special bias one way or the other. I have two grandchildren at polytechnics, another two are at universities and seven of my grandchildren have graduated from universities. Therefore, I speak without any bias. In view of the shortage of time, I shall come to my main point very quickly; namely, that the polytechnics are being unfairly treated, even within the limits allotted to us by this very parsimonious Government.
I must say, as I said last year, although this cannot be repeated too often, that the polytechnics and related colleges are at present providing more than half of our education. People must be told that again and again. As was brought out by various speakers, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, the polytechnics are in especially close contact with local authorities, industry and commerce. Therefore, they are playing a very practical part in all that affects the economy and industrial life of the country.
They need funds in order to do that. At present, I do not believe that anyone would deny that they are being very shabbily treated by the present Government. I provide only one example of many to illustrate that. In 1979–80 £3,000 per head was spent on each university student as compared to £2,500 on each polytechnic student. Therefore, 10 years ago polytechnic students, per head, were being treated almost as well as the university students. Today, with the further rise in student intakes, it is estimated that at present the expenditure per full-time polytechnic student is little more than half the expenditure on a university student. I cannot believe that anyone in your Lordships' House, faced with those facts, will defend them or think it right that a polytechnic student should be seen as worth only half that of a university student. When I said last year in debates —and others have said it since —that the standard of education in polytechnics is just as high as that in universities, no one rose to deny it, and yet their students are treated as being worth only half as much.
I now approach a more controversial aspect and I certainly speak without the authority of my Front Bench. At best I shall be ignored and I shall possibly be slapped down, although I believe that my noble friend Lord Peston may have some sympathy with what I say. I did not hear the speech of the noble
354
Lord, Lord Annan, but the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, was present and no doubt she will deal with his speech. Of course, he has exceptional academic qualifications, far higher than any which I attained. He was provost at King's College by the time he was 40. I do not know what happened to him after that until he came to this House but he is very highly qualified, although I was a college tutor before he went to his university, whichever that may have been. I venture to express the hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will deal with him very firmly if he is denying polytechnics their fair share.
I am emphatic that at present the polytechnics are not receiving their fair share from the very small amount of funding which is so parsimoniously granted by the Government. I believe that there is an almost universally strong feeling in the polytechnics that it would help if they were allowed to include the word "university" in their title. Those who are best informed about them seem to agree that that would be an important point. It would go some way to remove that second-class status which hangs over them and damages the colleges and their students in the eyes of the public. That would be one step forward. I do not stop there. They ought to be allowed to compete on equal terms, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Annan, disagrees with me on this but, as someone told me, he may not be fully in touch with polytechnics these days. Perhaps he is, but anybody who is in touch must realise the very great handicap under which polytechnics are now labouring in competition with universities.
It is a straightforward issue. Should they be allowed to compete on equal terms with universities? At the present time they are not allowed to compete on equal terms, but I strongly submit that they should be allowed to do so. Whether that will happen remains to be seen. I do not regard this as a party question. The record of the present Government is shocking, but who can say how much better the record of any government which appeals to me would have been. One cannot say. I approach this not in a partisan way but as an educational issue, first and foremost.
We have a set of institutions which cover more than half of the higher education in this country. They are being maltreated, not only in an absolute sense, but even relatively compared with the rest of higher education. One is therefore bound to ask whether any drastic change is possible. Drastic changes in this country do not usually happen overnight, but what is the drastic change that we must work towards?
I have no doubt that we must get rid of the so-called binary system. Some noble Lords may remember—I hope not —that hundreds of years ago when I was Leader of the House I defended the binary system. I probably did not understand it at the time. I was probably briefed like the Minister who will be replying to the debate and I hope that will not be his fate tonight. However. I defended it when it was introduced, and that must be regarded as one of the most unhelpful speeches that I have made in all these years. I have long since come to recognise that the binary system, whatever its merits, has had its day. It should be abolished. If I say

355
nothing else today, I say that the binary system should be abolished.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I shall not enter the controversial subject of polytechnics for one very good reason —I know nothing whatever about them. I want to speak briefly about an area of innovation. Before coming to that may I very warmly endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said about the terrible problems that we are building up for ourselves in the future from the phenomenon of truancy and the failure to do anything serious about it. That seems to me to merit the most urgent, intensive study and action.
It is a truism that science and technology are now moving so fast that more has changed in the past 25 years than in the previous 50 years and more will change in the next 15 years than in the past 25. We are on a moving belt which is accelerating the whole time. This results in physical changes which, as we were reminded forcefully yesterday in the greenhouse debate, could be disastrous. It is also possibly confronting us with social changes which could take humanity into a sort of ant-heap situation.
Whether we can keep control in this bewildering set of changes depends on mental attitudes and skills. Are our schools now focusing on the question of what additional practices, methods and subjects are necessary to produce the new or refined qualities of mind required to adapt to rapid changes, to find solutions to problems which will multiply and probably also to enable people to modify their lifestyles? Are the schools capable of meeting these challenges?
As we all know, the answer is not to pump more information into children. There is already too much information around in this so-called information age. It is all stored in databanks and the problem is one of retrieval. The object of education, even when I was at school umpteen years ago, was recognised to be to train the mind, not to convey knowledge. Our boys and girls have to develop mental habits and improved skills; they have to create more muscles in their minds and learn how to learn. The pace of change requires the addition in our schools of new skills and attitudes.
Much of the discussiosn today has been on the problem of rectifying deficiencies, but I shall not enter into that debate. The corrections are necessary and urgent but there is also the parallel need to set new targets, to develop higher capabilities and to enable the future of continuous change to be handled successfully. Unless we enable these capabilities to be developed with more understanding and greater adaptability, this country will go downwards and backwards.
Work on innovation is continuing. There is work to make schooling more relevant and more creative, to introduce, refine and promote better aims and methods. I am sure that in many schools within the state system good work is being done. My experience is in the private sector of independent schools. I give two illustrations of what our school is trying to develop.
356
The first is thinking skills. In the context of the overflow of information thinking is still in short supply. Many noble Lords will be familiar with the interesting and, indeed, amusing books of de Bono which make the development of thinking skills into fun. We have to retain the traditional disciplines of analysis and classification, logic and all the rest of it. We have to build on the best of the past, but we must extend our horizons to lateral thinking, to conscious choice of thinking patterns, to modelling skills and all such new thinking.
Secondly, our school is trying to develop a more global perspective. We have to break out of regional mind sets. This is no threat to our own cultural heritage because the wider perspective includes the lesser. Without it I wonder what our chances are for 1992 and onwards in Europe and in the wider world.
There is one conclusion from research which I believe is important and relevant and that is the time factor; namely, how to find the time to enable new subjects to be tackled. We have found that it is possible to save 25 per cent. of school classroom time if the teaching is done in the right kind of environment. If children are relaxed, free from tension and happy they learn far, far quicker. We have been very encouraged indeed by what has been achieved.
That highlights what I and I am sure many noble Lords regard as quite a serious problem in our schools generally, which is the problem of violence, bullying and ganging-up against weak children. It negates the settled environmental factors which are necessary for quick learning. To my knowledge the innovations to which I have referred are being developed mainly in the private sector. I do not want to be drawn into the argument between state and private schooling. As laboratories for innovation the independent schools remain very important. I hope that your Lordships will keep abreast of what is happening and use your influence to promote progress.
6.31 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, in intervening briefly in this debate I wish to deal with one aspect only of the important subject introduced by my noble friend Lord Peston; namely, the improved propects of access to higher education for those who lack normal qualifications for entry. In doing so, I am keenly aware of the importance of training as well as formal education to improve our British image and prospects.
Until recently I had the honour of presiding over certain developments in Wales at university level. In Cardiff a fortnight ago we launched the first stage of a broadly-based engineering and electronics complex which in two or three years' time will undoubtedly rank in the first half-dozen in Britain. But today I am concerned with the relatively small number of men and women who for various reasons have missed out, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool so eloquently described.
They are persons who nevertheless have the inherent intellectual potential to benefit from higher education. The background difficulties and

357
deprivations vary enormously from family circumstances, personal relationships, inadequate schooling, financial hardship and psychological hang-ups. Any or all of these can deter an adult man or woman from taking the necessary steps to realise their potential. All too often a combination of these deterrents reinforce one another. Intelligent and sympathetic encouragement is essential.
Hence the importance of the current efforts to develop specific access courses which will lead to a genuine leap forward for the individual as well as to benefits for society. For many access will be to colleges of further education, but for others the clear goal is for a polytechnic or university place. Here, with other noble Lords, I must emphasise our heartfelt gratitude to the Open University which has opened the door to so many people, particularly so many women. I received a letter from its Director of Educational Services a few days ago in which he says:
"The Open University is a gigantic instrument of access for those who, for whatever reason, did not gain access to Higher Education when younger. Over two thirds of all part-time undergraduates in the United Kingdom are with the Open University, 72,000 this year. Approximately half of Open University undergraduate students have (or had) "blue collar" fathers, compared with one in five for conventional universities. It is a major means of access for women who form 47 per cent. of the undergraduate body".
Encouraging as that is, I hope the Open University itself will continue to recognise that the courses which it provides are not suitable for everyone. Without some reasonable basis in literacy or numeracy, plus pertinacity to a very marked degree, one cannot fully benefit from what the Open University so generously offers. Some students need much more direct and continuous person-to-person contact than they can receive from distance learning, however good. So the recent effort to organise a network of more localised access courses for higher education is of prime importance.
This very day a meeting has been held at the office of the Council for National Academic Awards which, together with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, has been supervising the official scheme. It has been considering the 600 or so access course authorities now on the validation lists. I speak only of England and Wales. As usual, the Scottish pattern is different. The England and Wales' organisation was described very clearly in the documents on access courses for higher education issued in February and April 1989. The root of the scheme can be found way back in 1978 during the term of Mrs. Shirley Williams at the Department of Education, following her concern about so much wasted talent in the inner cities.
It has taken 11 years to produce a concerted organisation countrywide. There is still no ground for complacency. The financial support for students who enrol on these access courses is precarious to say the least. The Under-Secretary of State for Education said on 9th January in Standing Committee in another place:
"I welcome the growth in the numbers of students on access courses, but those students are not [yet] in higher education so they are not eligible for grants and will not be eligible for loans".
358
If they are unemployed (as many are) they are subject to the "not more than 21 hours' study a week" rule. That is one of the absurdities of our social administration. If they do not obey this rule, or they indicate that that might be the situation, they face a possible loss of benefit. Local authorities may make discretionary grants, but I am told that currently no more than 19 LEAs give the full amount. It is not an encouraging prospect for anyone who has no secure background and no adequate family support.
I turn for a moment to my own country, Wales. We have recently formed three regional consortia of those able to offer such courses —one in the North, one in South-West and the other in South-East Wales —to regularise and supervise the access course programme. Today approximately 500 mature students are studying for admission to higher education establishments which they hope to enter next October, compared with about 150 only a year ago. Next year's total is expected to be significantly higher. This is in itself a very encouraging prospect.
These numbers do not include certain "in house" preparatory courses at University of Wales units, notably in Cardiff and Swansea. Nor do they include students at our only residential adult college in Wales; namely Coleg Harlech. The right reverend Prelate has arrived in his place at absolutely the right moment. It was called "the college of the second chance" when it was founded by my father more than 60 years ago. I issue a warm invitation to the right reverend Prelate, as also to my noble friend, Lord Peston and my noble friend, Lady Blackstone, who has been to Coleg Harlech and knows about it from her own experience. But it is encouraging that this college still flourishes and is currently broadening and modernising its range of studies.
Some 90 per cent. of its students are successful in pursuing a two-year university diploma course, externally examined, which is recognised for entry by all United Kingdom universities, some of them accepting our students as second-year entry for graduate courses. When one considers that most of our students are between 25 and 35 years old, with their schooling 10 or 20 years behind them, and a number of them are older than that, I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is a remarkable achievement.
What I am trying to say is that there will always be students who need the time and attention which only a residential college can adequately provide. One has to overcome handicaps such as home conditions which make study virtually impossible; and one has often to restore shattered self-confidence which is very much part of the problem of many mature students, particularly if they have had a long period of unemployment.
The outstanding success rate fully vindicates this element of provision for those for whom the general access courses, valuable and welcome as they are, do not and cannot provide. I hope that this message will be appreciated by Her Majesty's Government.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, opened this debate he said that there

359
was a wide measure of agreement on the objectives although some disagreement on the way to get there, and that is manifestly true. There has also been a fair measure of agreement in the debate that the base from which we start is a poor one in relation to our competitors in Europe and elsewhere.
There are two figures that are thrown up fairly frequently and have been for a year or two. One is that 10 per cent. of our population is illiterate, and the other is that secondary school students leaving their schools emerge with only one 0-level or its modern equivalent. If that is true, even making due allowance for difficulties with ethnic minorities, it is, to use a cliche, a national disgrace.
Some of your Lordships may have seen in a recent edition of the Economist a summary of a study carried out by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. It is a comparative study between Britain, France, West Germany and Japan at various levels of education. Without wearying your Lordships with actual figures, the outcome is that at the highest level, doctorates, we are really very competitive. But as we go down to master and batchelor levels we drop to a position which, it is fair to say, is poor.
However, when we further descend to technician craftsmen, our position is really abysmal and we are totally non-competitive. That is only echoing what other surveys have shown in the past, that, at the highest levels of education we are not bad. But as we come down through the educational levels to the technician craftsmen we become very poor.
All this has a tremendous impact on every aspect of our national life. In fact, I cannot think readily of any feature of our national life which is so dominated by one element. It affects education and academic standards; if affects research, business, manufacturing and even defence, and until it can be improved our position is totally non-competitive.
So what is to be done? In my view —and I think that here I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, said earlier —the critical point is the status of teachers. It seems to me that it does not matter how far we create magnificent new educational establishments, or how far we tinker with existing educational organisations, if they are not supported by an efficient, well paid, motivated staff they will make only a quite marginal impact on educational levels throughout the nation.
How does one set about affecting the status of teachers? I think we all agree that it has changed for the worse over the past 10 years or so from being held by the public as a reputable profession of high standing and high esteem to one at a noticeably lower level. In fact, some of the public —and I am not entirely sure whether or not this includes the Government —look on teachers as a rather irritating trade union. There are reasons for this and it is useful to look at the historic background before trying to look at the future.
However, it is steps towards the future that are important. What sort of steps? The main constituent of status in most professions is pay. The highly paid professions are, by and large, perceived as of high
360
value to the community; their recruitment problems are minimal and staff in them are highly motivated. So pay is the critical issue and here a dramatic improvement is called for.
It seems to me that a notable parallel here is the fairly recent treatment accorded to the nurses by the Government, when it was perceived by the public and by the Government that they were grossly underpaid and that adjustments in line with the inflationary level at the time were quite inadequate to raise them to the true level of their worth in society. It seems to me that a somewhat similar exercise is necessary for teachers if we are to achieve the standard that we are looking for in our educational system.
That involves two things, as it did with the nurses: a general uplift but, perhaps more important, paying substantial money to those of scarcity, of high educational qualifications and, above all, of high performance. Provided that that is done, we will raise the whole level of our teaching staff and the profession into a position where they can at least begin to combat the overwhelming lead that many of our competitors already have.
I should like to mention briefly another element in the Government's programme, as I see it; namely, the introduction of a measure of competition through independence. That seems to me to be a wholly admirable approach to the problem. I cannot see how poorly managed schools will ever improve unless they are put under the spotlight of competition and their governors and the county councils, and all those responsible for their administration, see clearly the level at which they stand.
We have had competition in schooling in the private sector for well over 100 years. Although I am well aware that by and large the 5 per cent. who go to private schools are children of the 5 per cent. wealthiest parents in the community, nontheless, it is quite a large sample to look at. When one considers the political and economic decisions that are taken as a result of polls which poll less than 1 per cent. of the total sample looked at, 5 per cent. extending over 100 years teaches us something about the merits of competition. The roles of those private schools have risen and fallen according to public perception of their quality. That seems to be no bad thing.
I should like to conclude by commending the many initiatives which the Government have undertaken to improve the quality of the education and training levels in this country. Many of them are excellent and have a notable future. However, I should say that I would be much happier if, instead of concentrating so exclusively on the organisational aspects, they were to concentrate a little more on the pay, remuneration and status of the staff. They should try to win the teaching profession over to their side. If they did that, I think we would have a much better prospect of advancement in the future.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I should like to begin by apologising to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for the unfortunate fact that I was not able to be present in the Chamber at the start of the debate. I want to point out what has been

361
done for less academic children on the other side of the Border in Scotland. As I see it, we have failed dismally in England to do anything adequate for those who are called less academic children. I am afraid that all the testing and measurement which will be associated with the national curriculum may only make matters worse for those children rather than making them better. They have been the victims of a general neglect. I think that that is especially so as regards the later years spent in secondary school and thereafter.
Far too many children have left school with no qualifications and the extraordinary array of MSC and training agency schemes which we have seen over the past 10 years has, in my view, produced only the most meagre results. In that respect I am afraid that I must differ from the noble Lord who spoke before me in the debate. The consequences for industry and for millions of individuals have been most serious. That is not an unfair picture of what has happened in England. But what a happy contrast is provided by Scotland.
The Scottish Vocational Education Council —of which perhaps not many noble Lords will have heard —was brought into existence by the Scottish Education Department and has advanced at a most phenomenal rate. In the past five years while we have languished it has established in Scotland a single national certificate —which is, on the whole, accepted by employers and which has been taken up very generally in further education colleges and schools —in support of precisely the kind of students which England has so much neglected.
A national certificate in any one of 2,500 subjects or clusters of subjects can be taken by people over 16 years of age and also by pupils under 16 years of age in schools. The list of subjects is overwhelming. It includes electrical installation methods, electrical plant maintenance, cast metals technology and oxy-fuel gas thermal cutting skills. I am sure that the speaker who preceded me will be glad, since he spoke about craft training, that that kind of initiative has received such solid attention in Scotland. Moreover, craft training is not the only sort of educational course available.
The best we can say about this Scottish council is that it has not just been an examining and assessing body; it has also been a teaching body. It has produced the teaching materials for those 2,500 subjects in the form of module outlines. Those module outlines are filled out, or fleshed out as it is called in Scotland, by the teachers who will use them in their workshops and classrooms. All that has taken place with most favourable results as regards the number of people who are continuing in education after the age of 16.
The work of curriculum development, based upon the guidelines from the Scottish council, is implemented in the schools and colleges where the training takes place. It is also implemented in the teachers' centres which have been set up all over Scotland, like the famous Dean Centre which was established by the Lothian regional authority in Edinburgh. Moreover, the work of the council has
362
led to the rapid development of open learning in Scotland, with the Scottish Council of Education and Technology as another driving force behind it. It is this topic that I am especially interested in because I have with colleagues recently set up what we call an open school to help the local education authorities in the south-western counties of England to develop open learning. I hope that we shall be able to take some inspiration from what has been so well done in Scotland.
The Scottish council's modules lend themselves well to supported self-study which is at the heart of open learning, partly because a particular national certificate—and of course a person may achieve 20, 30 or even 40 national certificates in a cluster —can be gained with as little as 40 hours' diligent study. The tasks are manageable and well-defined and you do not necessarily have to commit yourself for a long period, although you can keep going for years by studying for different certificates. Therefore the modules can be used by individuals in or out of school equally well and by small groups of students in or out of school or college.
Since there is such a shortage of time available to us this evening I cannot hope wholly to convince noble Lords of my next point. However, in my view it may turn out that when the history of open learning in this century is written —and it will on the whole be a history which is very favourable to Britain —not only will the Open University, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady White, be given pride of place for what it has done for higher education but so also will the much less well-known Scottish Vocational Education Council and the Scottish Council of Education and Technology for what they have done for people at the other end, so to speak, of the education spectrum; namely, the low-achieving children. They do not need to be low achievers but unfortunately over so much of this century, at any rate in England, they have been.
If there is anyone here willing to listen to me who will carry the message so far as Queen Elizabeth House, my plea is that before long the DES should do what the SED did in Scotland and perhaps make the running which so far the Department of Employment has made and at least take the first steps towards setting up a national system for combining education and training in the same way as has been done in Scotland.
I do not say that the Scottish system should be copied because the differences between the two countries are considerable and our training arrangements in England are more complicated, but they were much more complicated in Scotland before that unifying and reforming institution came into existence. I hope that even if we do not copy we shall take inspiration from what has been done north of the Border. It is a country which is so near —our neighbour —but about which so many of us in educational circles unfortunately know so little. So skewed are our mental maps that we know more about what happens 4,000 miles away across the Atlantic than we do across the Border in Scotland. It has had a remarkable success story from which we can all learn.
7 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when I considered the subject brought before the House by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on the importance of education and training for the success of the economy and society I felt myself agreeing with his first sentiments: that the two are so mixed as to be one. If the economy does not work, society will crumble. Therefore, we must do something about the skill shortage, especially a technical skill shortage when it is accompanied by a downturn in demography. We are running out of young people. The workforce is greatly reduced and so we must increase its training to ensure that there is less wastage. We must also look to new sources of skilled workers.
Technology has a snowball effect. When the process of industrialisation which shaped the whole of this continent and is shaping most of the world started one only had to be able to read and write. Now, one does not just have to be able to read and write properly; one must also have a basic grasp of mathematics, electronics and chemistry to be able to do half the jobs which are available. Many people have spoken about the fact that there will be no unskilled jobs left within the foreseeable future. That is probably a slight exaggeration. We probably all want someone to open doors for us occasionally, but I doubt whether it should be a career for anyone with any form of intellect.
One of the main problems in that area is not so much the facilities available for training people but the difficulty in trying to get across to people the idea that they should be trained in the new, advanced technologies. There is a custom in England among the group which has traditionally been called the working class that a person leaves school at 16 to try to put money in one's pocket and that training is not for such a person. That is an unfortunate feeling which is not echoed north of the Border, which has a far better tradition of people going into training and higher education.
We must try to encourage people to take on training after the age of 16. Much has been said about the fact that in the South-East of England people do not go into training because they can obtain a job and put money into their pockets. They become more independent of their parents. The parents will encourage them to do that if they find it a strain to support their children. The expectation of how much money people should have therefore rises. There is then a spiral which takes people away from any training that involves a classroom and supervised instruction. Against that background we have what I have already described as a reduction in the number of people available.
We are therefore being pushed away from what is required by a modern industrialised economy. We must concentrate on persuading people that they should be educated and that that education will benefit them economically in the long term. Do the Government have any plans to try to educate school-leavers and their parents, who undoubtedly have a far greater influence on their children than their teachers do as to what is available? It is worth remembering that no matter what teachers do,
364
people ultimately look to their parents for guidance. They must be told that they will gain economically from staying in education. If we can channel people towards a knowledge of what is available and the benefits of what is available we shall be breaking the cycle. Only when that is done will we attract those people who have traditionally sought instantaneous cash rewards into the training which will allow them to become more productive.
Having established that point, I should like to draw attention to one group in society which has traditionally found itself at a disadvantage because for the past couple of hundred years people have had to be able to read and write in order to fulfil a part in society. I am talking about the dyslexics. It is believed that 10 per cent. of the population suffers from dyslexia to some degree. The degree varies greatly. It is believed that approximately 4 per cent. of those people would benefit from help. That point is stated in the education programme. That 10 per cent. of the population has a difficulty which will remain with them for life. It is not something one grows out of. That is a point which should be made repeatedly to other people.
I am often told "I knew someone who had dyslexia, but he grew out of it" or "he overcame it". One does not overcome dyslexia; one merely learns how to deal with it. Those people should be given far greater incentives and more support. We are in the middle of a campaign which is designed to raise awareness of the problem. Legislation has been passed by the Government which provides for the special treatment and education of dyslexics. We can probably berate the Government at some length over the amount of funding that they have given, but the legislation is in place.
We must ensure that those people are encouraged and brought into society. We cannot tolerate the waste of human resources any more. Not only do people with learning difficulties such as dyslexia find themselves failing at school, which is the springboard towards employment for the rest of their lives; they are written off as failures. With the expectation of failure, they will proceed to fail no matter what is done. We must ensure that we have sufficient teachers who understand the problems and who will tell those sufferers why they are failing at school. They must be told that it is not their fault and that they are not stupid. They must point out to them other forms of education for employment and skills which do not depend upon the written word and the classroom, where they cannot be expected to succeed to the same level as someone else as bright who does not have dyslexia.
I have made two related points. The first is that there is a desperate need to effect a cultural change in attitudes towards education. The second is that there is a substantial minority of the population which is at an inherent disadvantage. I hope that it has become increasingly apparent that those two points are part of one and the same problem. We must take steps towards educating people in what they can do and point out what is available to those who have learning problems. Dyslexia is probably the best example. It is probably worth stating that someone who is dyslexic is also disabled or at least

365
disabled for work. I suffer from dyslexia. I went to acquire the green card which states that I am disabled. The person who handed it over to me was shocked to find that I had a pair of rugby boots hanging out of a kit bag. We must point out that such people are not freaks. They exist within society. We shall thus be combating the problem of ignorance of the difficulties relating to dyslexia and other similar drawbacks. We must try to raise people's expectations of what they can do.
7.9 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity provided by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to discuss the important subject of the contribution of education to the economy and society. I shall follow a number of other noble Lords and focus on the contribution made by the non-university sector of higher education. I do so for two reasons. The first is that I believe that Anthony Crosland's vision of the polytechnics as a sector of higher education complementary to the universities was essentially sound. That was a concept echoed earlier by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, and more recently by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. It is a concept of colleges with a parity of esteem with universities but with a greater commitment to professional and vocationally oriented higher education. It has more part-time and sandwich courses and greater opportunities for older students than those traditionally catered for by the universities. Although now there is an increasing blurring of these distinctions, I believe that the polytechnic concept is still highly relevant today.
The second reason I choose to spend my few minutes on this aspect of education is that, sadly, there is still no senior representative of the polytechnic sector of higher education in your Lordships' House. It seems anomalous that while there is an appropriate and impressive array of representatives from universities, there is not a single director of a polytechnic, even though there are now more students studying for degrees in polytechnics that in universities. This lack of representation of what is now the major sector of higher education hardly reflects the parity of esteem which was an integral part of Anthony Crosland's original vision.
My concern about the polytechnics can be illustrated by the fable of the farmer who fed his mule a sack of oats each day, receiving in return a good day's work. The farmer, intent on saving money, reduced the feed by half; still the animal worked and the farmer again reduced the feed. The mule showed some understandable resentment but toiled on nevertheless. "This is a splendid animal", thought the farmer, "for he appears to work as hard as ever for less and less fodder". So he continued his harsh regime, and the ailing animal struggled on until it eventually collapsed.
The Government rightly seek an increase in productivity in industry, commerce and education. I believe that this is justified and that also there has been some real slack in both universities and polytechnics. Now both sectors have been pruned.
366
Polytechnics which, as we have already heard, currently provide more than half the nation's higher education, have already gone a long way towards answering the Government's call for a doubling of student numbers by the year 2015.
They have increased this year's intake of students by 24 per cent. over last year —a remarkable achievement. There are now 27·8 per cent. more students in polytechnics than there were just five years ago. Six years ago, the staff to student ratio was 1 to 8; now it is 1 to 15. There has also been what I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in his concern for opportunities for women would regard as a very welcome development —an increase in the number of women studying in polytechnics. The male to female ratio stood at 10 to 4·5 in 1984; it has now reached 10 to 8.
Despite this evidence of increased productivity, the fodder for the polytechnic mule is becoming increasingly sparse. Perhaps I may follow with figures similar to those given by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. In 1987–88 the per capita funding for a university student was £5,719, while a polytechnic student received a mere 58 per cent. of that figure —£3,356. Today a polytechnic student is estimated to be worth a mere half of his or her university colleague. Is that parity of esteem?
One of the reasons often given for discrepancies in funding is that polytechnics do not teach expensive courses such as medicine, dentistry and veterinary science. But that does not fully explain these differences. Twenty-one universities do not teach these subjects; what they do teach corresponds closely to what is taught in polytechnics, yet these universities still receive £400 more per year per student than the polytechnics.
Polytechnics also conduct a great deal of major research and I believe it is right that they should, for teaching at degree and post-graduate level requires direct involvement in or contact with research. But this aspect of their work receives very little support from the Government.
I would not have the temerity to attempt to deal with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, suggested I should. However, just for once I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Annan, because I urge strongly that polytechnics should receive comparable treatment for comparable courses and that they should receive adequate resources to enable them to continue to serve the country by providing high quality higher education which is particularly responsive to the needs of the nation.
Mention of that word "quality" requires me, before I sit down, to pay tribute to the work of the Council for National Academic Awards which is this year celebrating its 25th anniversary. The council was charged with responsibility for quality assurance in the non-university sector; in other words, to ensure parity of standards in academic qualifications so that a degree from a polytechnic should represent equivalence of academic merit with that obtained from a university.
I have in the past been critical of certain aspects of the CNAA's work, especially in the social sciences.

367
But I believe that under present leadership many of these problems are being addressed. I wish to pay tribute to the hard work undertaken by the council in its conscientious procedures to endeavour to ensure high quality academic qualifications in polytechnics and other colleges of higher and further education. Sixty thousand students graduate each year with CNAA degrees and about 1 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom now holds a qualification awarded by the council.
I have the privilege to visit many of these polytechnics and colleges, especially in my present capacity as chairman of the CNAA's Health Studies Committee. I wish to emphasise that I am deeply impressed by the commitment and
enthusiasm of the staff and students whom I meet, the imagination and vision with which these polytechnics and colleges are responding to the challenges of the contemporary world, and the contribution being made by so many of them to the economic and other needs of our nation.
I sincerely hope therefore that the Government will not continue to act like the mule owner in Aesop's fable, but will reward merit as appropriate and demonstrate the true parity of esteem of polytechnics with universities which was part of the original vision and which is now, I believe, well deserved.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, education and training in skills and knowledge are not enough. We need to look at the way our educational system teaches attitudes. After all, it is not only what we know but what we do with what we know that counts in the end. The tragedy of 1945 was that we mistook the military victory for the end of the battle. The contest continued, the battlefield was merely transferred from the military to the economic field. The Germans and the Japanese won that battle not because they had more resources—they did not; not because they had more know-how or research—they did not. They won because of the way they were prepared to fight for their country, to work for it. Their secret weapon was, and is, attitudes.
To call a German lazy or slovenly is as hurtful and insulting as to call an Englishman cowardly or dirty. There is a moral element in it. The German managing director is at his desk an hour before the ordinary workers. The more senior the job, the earlier one arrives at work. Just like with children, even in industry one educates by example and not by exhortation.
Perhaps I may recall something that happened 10 years ago. A friend of mine, the deputy chairman in ICI's organic division, was sent on a tour to inspect ICI's foreign factories. ICI had started a small factory, in their terms, in Japan. It employed 400 people. When he arrived he was so impressed with its achievements that he thought he would make a gesture. As is customary in Japan he was given the opportunity to address the whole workforce from the managing director down to the cleaners. He told them that he would like to give them an opportunity to learn English. He said that the company would
368
provide the teachers and the employees could learn English in company time. When he finished he was amazed not to receive the usual polite Japanese applause. A spokesman from the shop floor thanked the honourable gentleman for his kind and generous offer. He said that the workforce would very much like to learn English but they could not see their way to accept his offer to do so in company time as that would prejudice the efficiency of the workplace. My friend had been in management for 35 years and had encountered over 35,000 people in various countries, yet he was stunned by that response.
Our attitude in the workplace is one of "them and us". That is not the case in Germany or Japan. I believe that the most urgent challenge facing this country today is to achieve a dramatic change in attitudes. We have enough knowledge but the problem is our attitudes. If we need any evidence to show that I am not being over-anxious about this matter or trying to overemphasise it, all we have to do is look at the problems Mr. Gorbachev is facing. Russia has schools, technical schools and universities. The only thing that went wrong in Russia was the attitude of the Russian working people. That is what is besetting Mr. Gorbachev. For 70 years the danger in Russia was masked by sheer brutality. However, even the Russians learnt that one can do everything with bayonets except sit on them forever.
Unfortunately economic decline lacks the drama of war but its consequences are no less serious or even fatal. What we need is teachers who have vocations and not jobs. They must have the status that we used to give to our military leaders and to our officers. The Churches and the media should be involved and all available government resources should be devoted to this matter.
Above all, education should be taken out of the adversarial political arena and lifted above it. The nation's survival, not physically but as a first rank nation, is at stake. Can that be done? When AIDS was perceived as a national threat the means were found to alert everyone in the nation. Why cannot that be done as regards attitudes to work?
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments. This has been a fascinating debate and during it it occurred to me that we might ask the Minister to encourage the DES to explore setting up a new angle on the training scheme. That would involve offering eventually tokens for training or retraining to mothers who elected to make themselves available at home to offer a stable family background for their growing children to come home to. The worth of the tokens would obviously depend, I suppose, on the value all of us put on the family's role in society. However, I put the idea forward because I believe it would be good for the morale of all those mothers, married or unmarried, who battle on with family life when children can impose such a heavy burden on them.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in December 1989 the then Secretary of State for Employment, Sir Norman Fowler, made an important speech about vocational

369
education and training. In it he said that vocational education and training are an investment. I do not know whether he had grasped the full implications of what he was saying but I suggest that the whole of education should be regarded as an investment, below the line and not above the line as we used to say.
One can make a strong investment argument at every level of education for doing a great deal more than is being done at present. Let us start with what used to be a favourite of the present Prime Minister, nursery education. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, pointed out that it is important to tackle the difficulties of problem children early. After all, it was the Jesuits who taught us years ago to take a child for instruction before he is seven. If we had good nursery education we might well save a great deal of the money, let alone the trauma, pain and human waste that result from children who are not given the best possible educational opportunities from their early years.
One could go through the whole range of education offered in this country and apply similar arguments. However, as time is short, I shall move on to the schools. They have been mentioned by many other speakers today. Anyone who has taught knows that what education turns on is the quality of the teachers. However, one must invest in education and in teachers. We all know that the number of school-leavers and 18 year-olds is falling. What is the department doing to attract from the available graduates the calibre of people who will be needed to staff the schools? If they do not make any provision in that area, they may as well whistle for any kind of educational advance. I wish to quote from an article in the Economist which summarises the findings of the recent milk round. I ask the Government what they propose to do about this situation. The article states:
"Most big industrial and commercial companies will be offering £11,000—£14,000 a year … accountants are offering around £11,500. Administrative grade entrants to the home civil service started, oddly, at £ 11,996".
What a passion for accuracy that figure shows, or does the computer have to have such a figure in order to do its work effectively? The article continues:
"Those content with rewards in heaven can remain students for another year before starting as secondary-school teachers at around £9,000".
If that system of payment continues there will not be an education system in the schools worth having. Unless the Government act quickly on that issue that will be the result. That is how things stand on the current milk round.
I now turn to the post-school period when people leave compulsory education and look at the opportunities for post-school education and training. I have asked the Minister in previous debates how the Government can say that 16 to 18 are years in which people should be learning and gaining competence while at the same time removing the restrictions on hours of work so that people of that age can be employed on night shifts and on any other series of shifts. As anyone who has had any experience of shift work knows, it is totally disruptive to any kind of planned, consistent training
370
programme. Will the Government not think again and recognise that investment in the 16-to-18 age range is vital if we are to achieve the kind of things that the Government say they want us to achieve? The Government must match their aims with the means to achieve them.
We all know that we have to encourage back into training mature people who have not been given training in the past. There is a great backlog of under-educated and under-trained people in this country. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that I wish to concentrate on woman returners. There is a very large number of women in all sections of society, many of them under-trained in relation to their capacity, who are available to be drawn back into the labour force if training opportunities are made available for them.
The employment training scheme was not available to people who were not registered as unemployed. A great many of those women were not registered as unemployed. The Government said that there would be 15,000 places for people who were not registered as unemployed and who wanted to return to the labour market. Will the Minister tell the House how many of those 15,000 places have been filled? If he does not know, perhaps he will let us know at a later date. Would it not be a wise step to enlarge the number of places available for people who are not eligible? That would draw back into employment those people who have great potential and who need very badly to be trained if that potential is to be made available in the labour market.
Perhaps I may also make a plea for short courses for professional women who have had training in the past. Experiments are being conducted with such courses at present which are proving very successful indeed. They are short courses, often on a one-to-one basis, aimed at updating the professional skills of people who have been trained but have lost their confidence and been out of touch because they have been at home with family duties. That is an extremely valuable approach. Encouragement is needed in the form of funds for the polytechnics providing the courses and for the women while they are undertaking the training. That would be an investment. The Government would get their money back very quickly. I heard only this morning of a nine-week course run at the polytechnic in Manchester. There were 12 women on the course, 10 of whom immediately found jobs. 'They will be paying taxes, having obtained good jobs. There is real scope for bringing more people who are very much needed back into the labour market.
The then Secretary of State, Mr. Fowler, in his speech —and presumably he was speaking for the Government —committed himself to two objectives for the next 10 years. They were to be achieved through the new training programme. The confidence that the Government put in the TECs is not necessarily something that we all share for reasons that we have gone into many a time. The responsibility that they are taking on for dramatically raising the level of training —as we all know, it needs to be raised —is of very great concern to industry and employers. However, it is not only

371
of interest to them. It is of concern to all of us. We need to know, and to be continuously informed, how those TECs are working. We do not believe that we should rely solely on the TECs to bring about the revolution in training that is needed. That is a government responsibility as well as a responsibility of the employers who will be running the TECs. Are we to be told regularly whether the TECs are achieving the objectives laid down by Mr. Fowler?
I shall not go through all of the objectives. However, Mr. Fowler, said, for example, that by the middle of the decade, by the end of 1995, the Government would secure that by the age of 18 all young people should have a recognised qualification at Level 2 of the national vocational qualification. Other objectives for young people are included in that list. So far as adults are concerned, the Secretary of State said that by 1995 at least half the employed workforce should be aiming for updated or new qualifications within the national vocational qualification framework and should have individual action plans to which their employers as well as they themselves have committed themselves.
I could continue with the objectives that Mr. Fowler laid down. However, I ask the noble Lord whether the Government are still committed to those objectives. Shall we receive in Parliament reports as to whether those objectives are being achieved, stage by stage?
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we have had a useful and wide-ranging debate. The common strand that has run through the speeches of many noble Lords is concern about the Government's record in investing in education and training. The main points have been very well put and I shall not go over them again other than to stress that social and economic goals in education go hand in hand and that education must promote greater social equality to achieve greater economic success.
I should like instead to focus on two sectors which were largely and regrettably ignored by the Education Reform Act, both of which admirably demonstrate the economic and social functions of education in different ways. They are nursery education —and I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned it —and education and training for 16 to 19 year-olds.
The education of young children below the age of five has been disgracefully neglected, in spite of its economic importance in making it easier for women to work and its social importance in providing young children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, with an opportunity to learn. Why did the Government pass over a golden opportunity in the Act to make it a statutory requirement on all LEAs to provide nursery education for all children aged three and four? It is now 23 years since Lady Plowden made the case for universal nursery education in her report on primary schools. Yet places in state nursery schools and nursery classes are available for less than half the relevant age group. That is all the more reprehensible since demographic decline and empty places in primary schools would
372
have made it relatively easy to transform them into nursery classes.
Meanwhile, most of our European neighbours have pursued policies of large-scale expansion, leaving us with one of the worst records in Europe. Yet the Minister smugly said —if I may quote him:
"Our best is as good as anyone's",
and claimed that we cannot put right earlier neglect in a decade. I remind him that other countries have done just that. Our failure means that thousands of young children are being denied the opportunity of access to education at a time when they learn faster than at any other period. Why are we failing so many of our small children?
Reference has been made to women by my noble friend Lady Lockwood and others. Our short-sightedness also means that women with young children who might otherwise be able to take at least a part-time job have difficulty in doing so. Not only is that a waste of skilled talent; many women also find it hard to catch up with respect to longer term careers if they cannot keep working at least part time when their families are young. Perhaps the Minister can say what plans the Government have to rectify their miserable failure in providing state nursery education for all children.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, the failure to retain more 16 to 19 year-olds in full-time education is a matter for equally great concern. As with nursery education, we have fallen behind our European partners. Again, in spite of the Minister's claims, there has been little improvement in the proportion staying on during the 10 years of this Government. The norm is still to drop out at the age of 16. Unless we take really drastic steps to do something about it we are heading for disaster, with the worst-trained and worst educated population of any industrial country. The Education Reform Act failed to address that problem. It simply will not do to argue that the national curriculum and national assessment will lead to more pupils staying on at school. That is pure wishful thinking if nothing is done to reform provision after the age of 16.
It is essential to maintain high academic standards for the most able in the age group, but the retention of A-levels is not, as Mrs. Thatcher seems to think, a sine qua non for achieving that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, A-levels enforce narrow specialisation and as such they do a disservice to clever young people who should follow a broader curriculum which need be no less intellectually demanding. Worse still, such a narrow curriculum puts others off staying at school. The voluntary use of AS-levels is not enough. Adapting the Higginson Report's recommendations is the essential first step towards a broader curriculum.
It is also important to develop continuity between the new approach to assessment in the GCSE and A-levels. The current lack of continuity between the two sets of exams means that young people are suddenly required to make an enormous jump, a feat which some will not accomplish. Perhaps the Minister will give an indication of the Government's latest thinking on A-levels. It is a matter of concern among employers as well as educationists.

373
A-level reform is only part of the problem. It is just as important to provide attractive and relevant courses which will mix vocational training and basic education for the many young people for whom a university or polytechnic at age 18 might not be appropriate. We must also work to raise the status of vocational courses rather than regarding them as greatly inferior to academic study. They are not. One way of doing that would be to make such courses an alternative route to a degree. That proposal would also have the merit of broadening access to higher education, thereby allowing us to escape from the shameful position whereby South Korea has 36 per cent. of its young people in higher education and we have only 15 per cent.
Not dissimilar proposals for traineeships have been put forward by the Labour Party, the CBI and the TUC. There seems to be rather more agreement these days between the CBI and the Labour Party than between the CBI and the Government. The successful implementation of those schemes, which should incidentally be made equally attractive to young women, would transform education for 16 to 19 year-olds. We would have a better trained workforce on which, as so many noble Lords have said, our economic future depends. They would also promote greater social equality by narrowing the quite unacceptable gap between those 16 year-olds who currently stay on and proceed to higher education and those who leave, never to return. Over a third of the adult workforce in this country have no qualifications at all. That position cannot be allowed to continue.
The development of national vocational qualifications and the Government's decision to move from YTS and to have a more coherent approach to qualifications for all 16 to 19 year-olds is welcome. I am not sure whether YTS can be described as a triumph, as the Minister described it earlier, but it was pleasing to see that, in a speech just before he resigned the former Secretary of State for Employment came out with a set of national training objectives. Among other things, he proposed that by the end of 1992 two-thirds of 16 to 19 year-olds should have reached Level II of NVQ or its academic equivalent; and that by the end of 1995 all young people should have reached that point and at least half should go on to Level III of NVQ. He went further and said that by the end of 1992 no young person should be allowed to go into a job without training.
We now have a new Secretary of State for Employment. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are now pursuing those objectives vigorously? The end of 1992 is quite close; time cannot be wasted. In his speech the Minister said that the proportion obtaining qualifications would increase, but he was somewhat vague as to by how much and when. Are the government sticking to Sir Norman Fowler's targets? Perhaps the Minister will give us the answer.
Much more needs to be done to create a framework in which all young people can participate, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy made clear. For example, both the CBI and the Labour Party have
374
advocated using records of achievement for pupils under 16 which can be built on after the age of 16, which have some national currency and which embrace a credit system. Could the House be given some assurance that our fears when the Education Reform Bill went through that records of achievement would be abandoned in favour of national testing will not be realised? Can they be used for all pupils and students aged 16 to 19 as well as for young people under 16?
I hope that in replying to the debate the Minister will be able to reassure us that, after the reaction to the public expenditure White Paper yesterday, the Government might have a change of heart with respect to investment in education and training. Perhaps he will be able to tell us that in the next two years, or in the time available to them, the Government will do something to redress a grave situation which results directly from their lamentable record over the past 10 years.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we were faced this afternoon with a substantial subject and I have been impressed by the breadth of the debate. Although I think there has been a slight bias towards education, I nonetheless believe that we have developed some interesting themes across the field of education and training as a whole. I was accused at a couple of points of being Panglossian in my opening speech. Pangloss dealt with dreams of optimism; I have tried hard today to deal with reality. The Government are not complacent. We are aware of the problems, but we are also aware that we have had substantial successes. I said at the outset that we have a long way to go, but we should not lose sight of where we were, which was considerably worse.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, who opened the debate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, talked about training as an investment. The Government fully agree with that principle. That is why we have launched BGT —Business Growth Training —to encourage and assist employers to view training as a strategic investment. That is why we have launched the national training awards to demonstrate to others the benefits of training. That is why we believe that equipping young people with the skills that they need is the joint responsiblity of government and employers as demonstrated by our success with YTS. Our starting point is understanding that education and training are an investment.
I welcome the emphasis that has been placed on the achievement of balance, particularly by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and many others. I am glad that attention was drawn to the wise words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, some 13 years ago when, in launching what became known as the great debate, he pointed out that education failed our young people if it equipped them with only half the attributes that they would need to cope with adult life. It was to avoid too narrow a focus and to guarantee an appropriate balance that Section 1 of the Education Reform Act introduced a requirement that the school curriculum should provide a broad, balanced,

375
relevant and differentiated education and that it should equip young people for the responsibilities, opportunities and experiences of adult life.
The achievement of that aim will be no easy task, but a good start has already been made in the work done so far by the National Curriculum Council and within the schools themselves. I am confident that that excellent work will continue. It is vital that it should and that we achieve the balance which is acknowledged in the Motion that we have debated today; for, in the words first used by Benjamin Disraeli in 1871, in another place:
"It is upon the education of the people of this country that the fate of this country depends."
Public expenditure was mentioned by numerous Peers. We must view public expenditure in this area against a background of unemployment which has fallen by nearly 1·5 million since July 1986. The total of long-term unemployed has halved over the same period and the number of young people is falling rapidly. It is now time to secure greater employer funding. The evidence that we have from the Labour Force Survey is that the number of employees undergoing training is increasing considerably. Yet the Department of Employment spending on training is over 45 per cent. higher in real terms than it was 10 years ago. The figures on public expenditure quoted by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, were in cash terms. However, the message to stress is that 45 per cent. growth in real terms over the past 10 years is a considerable improvement. The guarantee of a place on youth training in the future is to be maintained, as is the guarantee of a place on ET for all people unemployed for over two years.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that we should try to have a compulsory statutory basis for training. We feel that the bureaucratic system of industrial training boards, established over 25 years ago, has clearly failed to generate the widespread commitment of employers that is necessary to ensure that the country maintains a skilled workforce. In fact compulsion has failed. Voluntarism in the form of industrial training organisations succeeded compulsion in 1982, and an independent study of industry training organisations in 1987 showed that the majority of them were effective. The enthusiasm of employers to support TECs —and the network is well ahead of schedule —shows that the employers must be allowed to lead training and not be bullied into action by bureaucratic watchdogs which have failed us in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked for clarification of the relationship between the national curriculum, GCSEs and other forms of assessment. Last week my right honourable friend announced that the main form of assessment at key stage four will be GCSE. All pupils will take GCSE in the three core subjects: English, maths and science. For the remaining subjects there will be a choice between a single subject GCSE examination and a GCSE examination in a combination of subjects or a course not leading to GCSE. In addition it will be possible for students at that stage to take examinations validated by the vocational examining bodies.
376
The noble Lord also asked about student numbers in higher education. There has been an unprecedented expansion in higher education in the past 10 years, from 780,000 students in 1979 to over 1 million students now. That is despite the decline in the numbers of 18 to 19 year-olds. The latest projections of future student numbers predict continued growth up to 1992 and a flattening out until 1995, while the school-leaving age group is at a minimum, before numbers rise again to about 14 per cent. above present levels by the end of the century.
I agree with the noble Lord who said that the 16 to 19 year-old provision is crucial. The country's future prosperity undoubtedly depends on that age group. It is vital that education and training should successfully reach out to every person. We have made advances. The current participation rate in all forms of education and training is some 90 per cent. of the 16 year-old age group, if one includes private provision. The Government believe that every young person should be in either full-time education or a job with time off for good quality training. Every young person should achieve a recognised vocational qualification or its equivalent, with greater numbers achieving higher levels of qualifications.
International comparisons were a feature of the early part of the debate. I can tell the House that our 90 per cent. participation rate for 16 year-olds for all forms of education and training compares well with Spain's 6 per cent., Italy's 69 per cent., and France's 87 per cent. But of course we need to look at the competitors who do better than ourselves. West Germany's 100 per cent. participation should be our aim.
Some have argued that we should go down the same road as Germany but there is no one simple solution to the problem of raising participation. It is true that in Germany participation is very high but the United States has a very high participation rate —94 per cent. for 16 year-olds —without compulsion. Japan also achieves a high participation rate of 95 per cent. and that takes place with parents having to pay as much as £700 (the figure relates to 1983) for post-secondary education.
How will the Education Reform Act improve participation rates? Our curriculum and examination reforms are raising standards in schools and giving more young people the qualifications and motivation to stay on. The GCSE has provided a better experience for schools. AS-level examinations, CPVE and TVEI are offering more attractive forms of provision and the opportunities for young people without qualifications are fast disappearing. The Act is also reshaping the governance and management of schools and colleges. In turn that will lead to increased participation.
We have also asked the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council and the National Curriculum Council to work with such bodies as the NCVQ to define the common skills for A-level and AS examination syllabuses. This will lead not only to improvements for advanced level students but also to the development of links between the so-called academic qualifications and the vocational qualifications.

377
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, complained in her winding-up speech about the participation rates and said that they were not very high. However, for 16 to 17 year-olds in full-time education the rate has increased by 8 per cent. to 42 per cent. of the age group in the past decade. The participation rate for 16 to 17 year-olds in part-time education, including YTS, increased by 11·1 per cent. in the same period to 28 per cent. of the age group.
I turn to YTS, which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, described as a "miserable and limping programme". Let me answer that criticism with three brief facts. There are about 400,000 young people in training at any one time. Eighty per cent. of leavers, not just those who complete the whole two-year programme but all who start on it, go into jobs, further education or training. Sixty-five per cent. of those completing YTS gain a vocational qualification. I wonder if the noble Lord was really thinking of that scheme when he made his unfounded criticism.
However, I agree that we must make YTS more flexible and increase the number of people who gain qualifications on the progamme. The new youth training will do that, concentrating on achievements rather than on time-serving.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, failed to understand the framework for training set out in the White Paper Employment for the 1990s. As other noble Lords are probably aware, it is not a nine-tier framework, nor yet a six-tier or five-tier framework. It is a three-tier framework designed to service the three-tier needs of our economy. However, since I mentioned that matter in my opening speech, the noble Lord will be able to read about it in Hansard.
Many noble Lords —in particular the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Addington, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young, Lady Lockwood, and Lady Seear —spoke about equal opportunities, women returners, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. The fall in the number of young people will require employers to harness to the full the skills of all the workforce. The new TECs will be required to show in their business plans how they propose to help all those who are at a disadvantage in the labour market.
My noble friend Lady Young mentioned the link between demography and equal opportunities issues and spoke of the importance of the latter. The noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Lockwood, mentioned that adults were now centre stage. Of course that is quite right. Eighty per cent. of the workforce in the year 2000 are at work today. It is they who will need the skills and adaptability required as we enter the next century but it is their employers who will know what skills they need and who will benefit from a skilled workforce. That is why it must be the employers who are in the lead and pay the lion's share of the cost of training their employees.
I now turn to teacher issues, which so many noble Lords have mentioned. Good teachers are the key to the success of our educational reforms, just as they are to the success of our economy and society. Now more than ever we need an adequate supply
378
of good, well prepared teachers. The Government determine the scale of initial teacher training and give the policy lead on teacher recruitment. It is nearly four years since the Government issued their action programme for teacher supply. These measures are having a pronounced effect. I know that there are concerns about certain areas, in particular in London, but we must keep these problems in perspective. It should be more widely recognised that the measures of vacancies and resignations do not justify the sensationalist press coverage of recent weeks.
I have said that there are particular problems of teacher supply which are untypical of the whole. In some areas of inner London, where vacancy rates are up to five times the national average, the problems are severe. They have much to do with the cost of housing; and no doubt neighbourhood conditions as they are reflected in schools also have a bearing. My right honourable friend is considering with London LEAs measures targeted to help with their particular problems. Where there are local problems arising from local factors this points to local solutions.
In so far as pay can help to provide a solution with regard to problems in the London area and subject shortages, the Secretary of State asked the Interim Advisory Committee to address them specifically this year. Apart from pay, the Government's targeted measures will continue. Bursaries for initial teacher training students in the shortage subjects of mathematics, physics, chemistry and CDT, which have a direct bearing on the needs of the economy for qualified manpower have been successful in encouraging more students to train in these subjects.
Other measures are aimed at assisting local recruitment measures. These include provision for qualified teacher returners. The Government are funding a series of "taster" courses to enable mature people considering a career switch to obtain first hand experience of teaching before deciding whether to make a move. That is a very active and responsive programme. I believe that it targets the areas that we most need to reach.
The Government have not merely set the policy agenda for education and acted where others have talked. We have provided the funds to make an effective reality of our policies. Let us look at the trend in spending per pupil. In 1979–80 some £515 was being spent on each pupil in nursery, primary and secondary schools. By 1988–89 that figure had risen to some £1,365 per pupil. That is a cash terms increase of no less than 165 per cent. The real terms increase is also impressive. Overall during that period real terms spending per pupil rose by 42 per cent.
We have a similar story with the pupil/teacher ratio, where there has been a steady improvement from nearly 19 pupils to every teacher to 17 pupils to every teacher.
As to future spending, the education share of the Government's local authority grant settlement for 1990–91 amounts to very nearly £15 billion. That is a huge sum by any standards. It is also over 9 per

379
cent. higher than the comparable total for 1989–90. Within that total, the Government will be providing specific targeted funding, in particular through education support grants and the LEA training grants scheme, to assist the implementation of many of the important new measures that we have introduced. Education support grants were introduced in 1985 and the LEA training grants scheme in 1987. Since then they have more than proved their worth in focusing spending on priority areas.
All this clearly puts paid to any claims that this Government are not investing in schools. We are certainly not profligate. We believe that taxpayers and ratepayers have a right to expect that their money shall be well spent. It is the Government's duty to press LEA schools and colleges to achieve the best possible return for the enormous resources given to them. The record proves that, where resources can be shown to be needed, the Government will provide them.
The capital allocation for further education has increased by 85 per cent. since last year. Of major building project bids, 90 per cent. were met by allocation this year. In addition we are looking for a more efficient and effective use of resources in further education. My noble friend Lady Young said that it was not just a question of more money; and she is absolutely correct.
I thank my noble friend Lady Elles for raising the need for dialogue between employers and providers. With the implementation of the Education Reform Act, all that should change. First, business and commercial interests will be better represented on college governing bodies. At least 50 per cent. of governers will come from this sector. Secondly, the delegation of responsibility and accountability to college managers will lead to an increase in responsiveness to employers and to student needs.
The issue of second chance learning was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. Learning opportunities in a variety of sectors of education including adult education centres, further education colleges, universities, continuing education departments and polytechnics have expanded substantially over the years. We welcome this expansion and believe that it will continue.
The noble Lords, Lord Ritchie and Lord Dormand of Easington, suggested that CTCs and grant maintained schools are intended to create a two-tier system of education. That is simply not the case. These schools will introduce a necessary element of diversity into our education system and help stimulate a general improvement in standards across all schools. We are all agreed that this general raising of standards must be our first priority and that all schools have a part to play in that.
The noble Earl, Lord Cairns, in, if I may say so, an excellent maiden speech, made some thoughtful and telling observations about the depressive effect of low expectations upon children's motivation and willingness to learn. He also stressed the crucial role of parents in reversing this effect. I believe that he called it "parentisation". One of the major aims of our educational reforms is to encourage the greater
380
involvement of parents. Their enhanced representation on governing bodies will do much, as will the clearer information that parents will have in future about the work of their children's schools and about their children's progress and achievements.
Perhaps I may briefly mention polytechnics to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and to my noble friend Lady Cox. Spending plans for 1990–91 represent a real increase in available resources of around 5 per cent. for the PCFC sector. The department has an extra £16 million to pay for the fees of the additional students we are expecting polytechnics and colleges to recruit this year and next. Despite the fact that I cannot agree with the noble Earl's views on the binary system, I hope that he will find this information generally reassuring. It rather looks as though I am stuck with the same brief as he was over 20 years ago.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, not at all.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, mentioned the national curriculum. It is being formulated in such a way as to ensure that less academic children have the opportunity to study in subjects at a level appropriate to their abilities, and in a way that enhances their understanding. Moreover, it will guard against a tendency in the past to offer these children a curriculum which was unnecessarily constricted in its scope. I can assure the noble Lord that a good deal of flexibility has been built into the planning of the national curriculum. The needs of less academic pupils have not been overlooked.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], and others mentioned truancy. The Government are very much aware of the problems associated with truancy. We are introducing in April this year an education support grant of some £2.5 million of LEA expenditure intended to improve levels of attendance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised the question of the 15,000 places on ET specifically for people not registered unemployed. I shall write to the noble Baroness with those details. On the performance of TECs, they will be monitored closely and regularly against the targets set for them.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Blackstone, mentioned nursery education. The Government fully recognise the value of nursery education. More three and four year-olds are now receiving pre-school education than ever before. We are also committed to improving the quality of nursery education. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Education is currently chairing a committee that is looking at this important issue. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, base her call for increased nursery provision on its contribution to releasing women to return to the workforce, if I heard her aright. Nursery education is a benefit primarily for the child. Often it is most appropriately given — —.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I made it perfectly clear in my speech that nursery education was of

381
enormous benefit to young children, and that of course is its main objective. However, a supplementary benefit that we obtain from nursery education is that it allows some women at least to work part time.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, fair enough. Overall, some 85 per cent. of three to five year-olds participate in some form of education or care provision. That puts us near the top of the European league and not at the bottom, as suggested by the noble Baroness —.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister explain what he means by the words "some form"? Noble Lords on all sides of the House were most surprised to learn that 85 per cent. are receiving some form of nursery education.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it would be a delight to elaborate but, unfortunately, I do not have the time. I am sorry if I have not mentioned all noble Lords who have spoken or all the issues which have been raised. It has been an interesting debate and if I have missed any specific questions I shall write to noble Lords.
The debate has given me the opportunity to outline some of the many ways in which the Government are improving the quality and quantity of education in this country. We have the largest adult training programme in Europe. YTS is a triumph and has helped hundreds of thousands of young people to adjust from school to the world of work. This year government expenditure on training will be almost ·3 billion. Ours is a proud record and I assure noble Lords that we shall continue to treat education and training as a matter of the highest importance — —.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the Minister sits down——.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question? Do the Government back Mr. Fowler's objectives?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I must write to the noble Baroness about that issue.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it has been a most interesting debate. All noble Lords who have sat in the House have been given a great deal to think about. We have learned much from colleagues who have contributed from all sides of the House. Even the Minister said one or two things that were useful!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Name them!.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Legislation: Quantity and Quality
8.12 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reduce the quantity and improve the quality of legislation.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I wish to thank noble Lords who are to speak in the debate and also to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for being prepared to reply to the Question. I shall venture to ask him specific questions which I hope are within the scope of his brief.
It is generally agreed that we have too much legislation and that it is of an indifferent quality. Widespread complaints led to the setting up of that most important committee, the Renton Committee. I do not need to apologise for returning to the matter because one or two recent issues have provided extra illumination on those complaints.
First, I wish to deal with the excessive quantity. At paragraph 1.10 the Renton Report states:
"We have particularly in mind the tendency of all Governments to rush too much weighty legislation through Parliament in too short a time".
Does the noble and learned Lord accept that to be the case?
In fact, nothing has been done to stop the flow of legislation. The Renton Report was submitted to Parliament in 1975 and in that year the public and general Acts took three volumes. In 1985, a decade later, they amounted to five volumes. In a Written Question the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, received an Answer which broke down those figures but I shall leave him to deal with the matter if he so wishes. It is sufficient to say that in 1975 the Acts amounted to three volumes, and that a decade later there were two more volumes. That shows that no regard had been paid to what was said by the Renton Committee.
In 1976 the statutory instruments amounted to seven volumes. By 1986 there were 10 volumes. Therefore, the increase in the statute book of public and general Acts was accompanied by a massive increase in secondary legislation.
One must ask the question: why did that happen? In order to provide a remedy, it is necessary to try to identify the causes of that excessive legislation. I believe that we are grossly over-governed but I shall leave that subject to other noble Lords who have a particular interest. However, I emphasise that over-governing is a particular feature of central government. On the whole we have seen a weakening of local governments at various levels and an arrogation of their powers to central government.
Specifically in the sphere of legislation I identify the problem in two words; "ambition" and "officiousness". The ambition is mainly that of Ministers. They have the idea that they can advance their standing by piloting through Parliament a complicated piece of legislation. I believe that to be a gross mistake. The late Mr. Macleod, a most able Minister of Health, prided himself in initiating no legislation. He was a highly successful Minister.
Having identified the ambition of Ministers in contributing to the problem, one can ask the question: how can that be remedied? Quite clearly, the remedy lies in the machinery of government. There exists a Cabinet committee on future legislation. I imagine that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is a member and I am grateful to him for attending in the House. I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is a member; during my time he was not. However, can he say what steps the committee on future legislation takes to ensure that a massive flow of legislation does not take place?
I wish to remind noble Lords of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in the spill-over Session. It was repeated by him during a debate on the humble Address. He gave constant examples of ways in which the legislative pressure was quite excessive on your Lordships' House and in my experience—although that is now some time in the past —on the other place.
I turn to the second matter which is not ambition but officiousness. That is mainly the responsibility of the civil servants. They have the important duty of keeping orderly administration; and, being able and devoted public servants, they are constantly aware of the inevitable defects as they develop in orderly administration. Therefore, they have a constant zeal to improve. In fact, I nearly said a constant itch to improve. It is that zeal or itch which leads to such legislative anomalies, to say the least, as Henry VIII clauses whereby the Minister can arrogate to himself the normal parliamentary functions of repealing and amending legislation.
What can be done about that? Perhaps I should mention this again under the heading of the influence of civil servants. They are constantly concerned with the detail of administration; and it is that excessive detail, too, which is liable to get into our statute book. Primarily, it is for the Minister to control his officials. When Sir William Harcourt went to the Home Office, he addressed his civil servants together and said, "My job is to prevent your governing the country so well that an infuriated populace will hang you from the lamposts in Whitehall". I should like to see that sort of firmness used by Ministers with their civil servants who, in their perfectly laudable zeal to improve, are exerting this pressure on legislation.
Certainly I do not minimise the duty of Parliament to show vigilance, particularly in the scrutiny of Henry VIII provisions and the volume of secondary legislation. Again, I shall leave that to those of your Lordships who I know are interested in that respect.
I turn to the quality of legislation. The Renton Committee identified a number of faults: complexity, lack of clarity, prolixity and over-elaboration. I doubt whether any of your Lordships would claim that those faults are any less pronounced today —rather the contrary.
The Renton Committee quoted a very important memorandum from the two senior Scottish judges of the time in which they said that if you try to legislate for particular instances you are sure to miss
384
some and it will be those that will turn up before the courts and the courts will not know what Parliament meant. They went on to say that as judges they are quite used to applying general rules to particular instances, and they made a plea that the legislation should be in general rules rather than trying to cover every envisageable situation. No regard has been paid to that at all, although that was firmly endorsed by the Renton Committee.
Therefore, one has a mass of administrative detail —and this goes to the quality as well as the quantity of legislation —with long passages, especially in the schedules, telling the recipient of a power exactly what he should do in every conceivable situation which is envisaged, notwithstanding that any sensible person could be safely relied upon to do what he is told to do.
Where does the remedy for that lie? Again, in the machinery of government and, this time, in the legislation committee. That was much discussed a few days ago at the start of the Courts and Legal Services Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, described how the legislation committee operated in their time, taking care of precisely the sort of ills to which I have referred. That was also my experience slightly before their service on that committee.
The legislation committee no longer performs that function. I believe that that is conceded and indeed is quite incontrovertible on the face of our legislation. To do any good as a scrutiny committee, that committee must meet some time before a Bill is introduced in time to tell a Minister and his senior civil servants that the Bill must be taken back and redrafted where necessary. However, I understand that at the moment the legislative committee meets about 24 hours generally before a Bill is introduced. That is merely one aspect of its failure to perform its traditional function. Again, I ask the noble and learned Lord: does he accept that the legislation committee no longer scrutinises and supervises the drafting of legislation? If not, as it seems, what does he propose should be done?
The last matter is control of parliamentary counsel. At present, parliamentary counsel come under the Prime Minister who of course has other things to do than to deal with the drafting of particular pieces of legislation. Sir Robert Andrew, a recently retired civil servant, was asked to advise on the government legal services; and as for parliamentary counsel, he advised that they should come under the law officers. That was not accepted, and parliamentary counsel remain in a sense uncontrolled.
The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, when we discussed this, kindly told me that there was a safeguard in that every Bill was seen and considered by the law officers. I can only say that, judging by the Courts and Legal Services Bill, that is not operating properly. About seven Henry VIII clauses slipped through without explanation, and each, with the exception of one, was an arrogation to a Minister of the power to legislate which was formerly the concern of Parliament, and all those were subject only to negative resolutions. I asked without receiving any answer, whether those provisions had

385
been drawn to the attention of the law officers. Quite obviously they had not been. If they had been, at the very least we would have had an affirmative resolution. At the very least there would have been an explanation to your Lordships; and there was not.
My final question is: what machinery exists to alert law officers —since they are the only bodies left to supervise the drafting of the statutes —to questionable provisions? I venture to leave that question to your Lordships.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has deserved our thanks for drawing attention to a situation which is causing increasing concern. No one can doubt the increase in the quantity of legislation. We have certainly come a long way since a reforming Liberal Government in 1912 was content with 146 pages of legislation, including the Finance Act. I regret to say we have also come a very long way since the days when, in Opposition, the Conservative Party criticised the Labour Government for overworking Parliament. I remember how we demanded less and better legislation.
I suggest to all my colleagues on this side of the House, not least those on the Front Bench, that they look at an excellent pamphlet written by Sir Geoffrey Howe in 1977 published by the Conservative Political Centre entitled Too Much Law. He wrote:
"We are doubling the statute law once in every 15 years. It should be the first duty of Parliament to resist the temptation to add any more. We must make fewer laws and the laws fewer".
Unfortunately we now seen determined to double statute law once every five years. Now that he is Leader of the other place, let us hope that Sir Geoffrey will remember, especially in the light of some of the legislation now before us, his wise injunction then:
"We should not be too ready to conclude that old legislation will necessarily be improved by replacement with a comprehensive modern law".
That is perhaps a matter for consideration by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. For me this is an old theme. I recall the debate on procedure in the other place on 2nd February 1976 when it was completely orthodox conservatism for me to say:
"The real need is for less legislation and above all for such legislation as we have to be much more carefully prepared and scrutinised".
I remember on that occasion I welcomed the relatively new Renton Report on the preparation of legislation, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred. I described it as one of the most important documents to come before the House for a very long time. It is a gold-mine of ideas. Sadly, we have still to dig out the gold.
I hope we may be able to use the short debate which is to take place on Wednesday, 14th February, to discuss more fully ways in which we can restore parliamentary control over the form and the content of legislation; for example, by a pre-legislation Select Committee which I confess I also argued for in 1976. One must be very patient in these matters.
386
Tonight I should like to speak about the nature of the problems we have to seek to solve and consider what has happened. According to the figures given to me by the Leader of the House in answer to a Written Question and making allowance for the conversion to a new page format, we enacted 2,170 pages of statutes in 1988 and a staggering 2,581 pages last year; a dubious record never exceeded. That compares with 790 pages in 1977 and 830 pages in 1978, the last two full years of Labour Government. Altogether in the past five years of Conservative Government we have introduced double the amount of legislation that we dealt with in the last five years of a Labour Government.
An ancient poet once said,
"A big book is a big mischief".
For my part I believe that the sheer volume and complexity of legislation today is such that it is quite impossible for either House of Parliament to scrutinise or discuss it properly. It constitutes a new form of despotism, giving increasing power to the Executive. Side by side with the increase in the quantity of legislation —perhaps not unnaturally —has come a decrease in the quality. Time and again Government amendments alone exceed in length the original Bill as first introduced. An example of that was afforded last year by the Children Act.
It is not the fault of the draftsmen. They are obviously hideously overworked. Again, according to figures given to me in December 1988 by the Leader of the House, there were only 45 full-time and three part-time draftsmen. Their average salary is £34,254 per annum. Moreover, it would appear, as we have discussed tonight and on other occasions, that they no longer have in quite the same way as I recall the assistance of an effective legislation committee of the Cabinet to help them keep departmental Ministers and their officials in check.
I can draw on some personal experience in this regard. I first became a Cabinet Minister over a quarter of a century ago and I can say with absolute confidence that when Lord Kilmuir and the first Viscount Dilhorne were Lord Chancellors, and when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell were law offices, most of the recent Bills would have been returned work for the Ministers and their departments.
The mass of legislation is one thing, the mode is another. The practice whereby the Government seek in statutes to make their general intention clear, although in some complexity, while leaving detail —sometimes essential detail —to subordinate legislation is another growing mischief. Increasingly the Government, in spite of the length and complexity of Bills, seek skeleton or framework legislation allegedly to allow greater flexibility in bringing it into operation. Time and again, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has explained, they use the Henry VIII clause to give them the right to amend or even repeal primary legislation by order.
As a result, according to figures presented to the Commonwealth conference on delegated legislation last November, the number of pages of delegated

387
legislation grows each year. The conference was told that on average 10 instruments are published every sitting day of Parliament, some of which reach 100 pages or more. They cannot be amended. They are rarely even debated, whether it is negative or affirmative resolution. So far as your Lordships' House is concerned, I understand the practice is in any event not to divide against them.
The Leader of the House, if I may say so with some respect, replied a little blandly at Question Time on 16th March last year (at col. 330 of Hansard):
"the fact is that the less that goes into secondary legislation the more provisions have to be written on the face of Bills".
That is supposed to save parliamentary time, but I think that is a fallacy. Not only does Parliament lose all effective control, but we have to consider one amending Bill after another as the chaos created by the bad legislation has to be corrected.
Because the primary legislation is so imprecise, the detail over which Parliament has surrendered control frequently comes as a very nasty surprise. That is what has happened with the Financial Services Act, the purpose of which appeared admirable; hurrah for the protection of the small investor. However, it has already had to be amended in the Companies Act and it will almost certainly have to be amended again before long.
Your Lordships may have seen a leading article published in the Evening Standard on 17th January headed "More worse government". It said this:
"Less and better government was what the Conservatives promised the nation in 1979. Now more and worse government is the norm".
Commenting on the Financial Services Act, the leader writer —and it is not a paper in any way hostile to the Government —concluded:
"The Act is a disaster. Investors now lose more through the phenomenal cost of compliance with the plethora of complex, pettiflogging and generally pointless controls imposed by the Securities and Investments Board than they might ever have lost through fraud.
That was a warning given right at the beginning by the noble Lord, Lord Lever, who said that there was a great danger of putting honest men to great expense and still not dealing with the crook.
A similar story can be told about legislation affecting local government. In 10 years we have had 50 Acts concerning local government generally, including more than one a year reforming —if that is the right word —local government finance. The abolition of the rating system and its replacement by a community charge and a new business rate was intended to be a substitute for what had become a shambles. It was called a new fairness and a form of accountability that would give local authorities more freedom. However, because the Government and the Act did not explain how it was to operate, but left it all to be worked out later, we are now told that there may have to be more legislation so that the community charge can be capped if necessary.
One way and another I believe that Parliament is now in a state of acute malfunction. I shall be interested to know what the Government propose to do about it.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, not only for his speech tonight but for his continuous efforts to achieve something concerning the subject we are now debating. He has made efforts in which he has been extremely well supported or led by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whom I am also glad to see here. I hope very much that their words and those of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, will be listened to.
There can be no doubt that there is far too much legislation. Why is that? It is a reflection of the spirit of our times which expects the Government to do something about everything. I was slightly surprised that there was a special meeting of the Cabinet after the recent gale. The gale may have been very serious and distressing for some people, but what the Cabinet thought it could do about it, short of prayer, I do not know. If a local authority in Orkney were forced to meet every time the wind rose above 50 to 60 miles an hour, the members would hardly ever get to bed.
I criticise the Government to some extent, but there is no doubt that the Government like legislating, and it is entirely their fault that they produce all this legislation. They can stop producing it. It is no good telling us that they intend to do that. I have been in this House a very short time, but every year I have heard the Leader of the House apologise for the amount of legislation and say that the situation will get better. Since I have been in Parliament the width of the statute books has trebled and it is still increasing. There is no sign of things getting better.
The problem is similar to that of inflation. Every government says that it will stop it. According to the paper tonight, it has just been agreed that a further seven and half per cent. will be paid in public salaries. Nothing will be done about inflation or the amount of legislation which comes to this House until the Government determine that it will be done. Nothing in the way of drafting will solve the difficulties that we are in unless the amount of legislation is reduced. If the Government wish it, I shall give them a list of Bills which should never have seen the light of day and which will never be missed. It is quite untrue to say that all the legislation produced is necessary.
Another factor which is becoming more and more obvious is the lack of skill. Here again, I believe it to be endemic in the country. A lack of skill is shown in the mending of London Transport escalators and in the drafting of Bills. There the fault lies, if not with the Government, then with the people at the top of the governmental process.
I wish to give one example. I took a small part in the progress of what is now the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989. It should not require a solicitor to interpret that Act. It is an Act that will be of some interest to anyone who has children at school in Scotland. The Act is not all that difficult to understand in what it is trying to do. One would have thought that the legislation would have been drafted with some logic and reason, and that the ordinary parent, on reading it, would, early on,

389
find whether the particular school in which he is interested is covered in that legislation, and what a self-governing school might be.
The ordinary parent will read the preamble and find that the Act applies to certain schools. He will then want to know whether the school he is interested in is one of them. The first section concerns the duty of the Secretary of State to maintain self-governing schools. There is no indication of what self-governing schools are or whether the school in which the parent is interested is one of them. Then he will begin wading through all kinds of things under the following headings:
"Qualification for and disqualification from membership of a board of management.

Proceedings of board of management.

Execution of documents.

Reports and parents' meetings".

When the reader comes to Section 19, one might think that he is about to learn what a self-governing school is. However, he will be wrong because there he is referred back to Section 16.
For most Acts one would require the assistance of a law library in order to understand them. Not only do the Acts refer one backwards and forwards through them, but they refer one to innumerable other Acts which most people do not have in their homes. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others, have given fairly good indications of how Bills should be drafted. However, no notice whatever appears to be taken of them. A certain amount can be learnt from the Army which states in an operation order that one should have objects and a method. That would not be a bad elementary beginning for the drafting of Bills.
I mentioned this matter during the passage of the self-governing schools Bill and that admirable, honourable and honest noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, replied that Bills are difficult to follow. He said that he accepted what I said about that Bill. He accepted that it was unintelligible and badly drafted. That was very endearing of him but not exactly encouraging in that after all these years we have not progressed any further in drafting Bills in a better way. The noble Lord said that it was permissive legislation and that the Government had done a great deal to make interpretation easier.
That means that the Government have a gang of public relations officers who are trying to produce a document which the odinary person will understand. I do not believe that is the way in which this country should be run. I do not believe that it should be run by drafting unintelligible Bills and then to employ public relations officers to try to indicate what the Bills are supposed to mean. So much for the treatment of particular Bills.
There is a general matter which is of great importance. Huge Bills are introduced in the other place. In due course they are almost always guillotined if they are of any importance. That means that the latter parts of Bills are not discussed at all. Bills are then sent to this House where hundreds of new amendments are very often put down, not only by the Opposition but by the Government. In this House the Government add amendments to Bills
390
and very often these are made towards the end of the Session. The result is that they do not receive proper investigation in this House. When the Bills are amended, they are returned to the other place where they receive practically no more investigation.
The result is that the elected Chamber is more and more losing its control. The Government manage a very proper control through the committees by guillotining the Bills and then by tabling all kinds of amendments that the other place has never seen when the Bill comes to this House. I hesitate to use the word unconstitutional, but I believe that is certainly against the whole spirit and custom of Parliament that should prevail.
Everyone has said that the situation is getting worse, and that there is no sign whatever that the Government are going to change their ways except by words. We all know that the politicians are inclined to believe that if they have said something, then they have done something. I can assure noble Lords that in this case they have done nothing.
I find this a very strange paradox. There are now very many people in the country who do not particularly want a Labour government, but who say, "Well, it might not be so bad. A Labour government might be less inclined to the nanny state. They might introduce less legislation. I think we should have a Labour government rather than have this over-burdening of legislation". This belief that the Government can do everything is now the hallmark of the Tory Party.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I am delighted to follow my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and I specially commend the Social and Liberal Democrats for fielding a second speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, whom I always enjoy hearing. I can say with total honesty that I agree with all three speakers and shall largely go over the same ground, perhaps carrying their criticisms a little further.
I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale not only for raising this neglected question but also for expressing it so briefly: to ask whether the Government,
"will reduce the quantity and improve the quality of legislation".
He could teach the parliamentary draftsmen a thing or two about concision.
This recalls a debate in December 1982 on a three-pronged Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, calling attention to the volume of legislation, to the desirability of some repeal, and to the same need to improve the quality of legislation. At that time the number of public general Acts in force was above 3,000, with 13,000 statutory instruments. As we have heard, after 10 years of Tory administrations solemnly pledged to reducing the burden of government, we have seen no relief from this cascade of legislation. Every year the statute book becomes more bloated.
As an earlier convert than Mr. Gorbachev to the self-correcting possibilities of a competitive market economy, I acknowledge an indispensable role for a strong legal framework. We need laws to define

391
property rights, to enforce contracts, to maintain competition and to support people who are unable to take care of themselves in the market place. But the first indispensable condition for a free society is a rule of law that is understandable, predictable and stable, and all three desiderata are mocked by continued legislative incontinence. The pressure on parliamentary draftsmen aggravates their apparently natural tendency towards prolixity and undue complexity. The multiplication and constant amendment of statutes bring the aims of simplicity, certainty and stability into contempt.
As an economist, I would add that this hyperactivity of our legislators imposes massive costs not only in devising and enforcing so many laws but in the uncounted charges for compliance by the victims. It seems to me that we have at once trivialised the majestic business of lawmaking and magnified the burden of administration in our over-governed economy. As others have said, it is especially disappointing that there has been no perceptible improvement since the notable report of the 1975 Renton Committee on ways of
"achieving greater simplicity and clarity in statute law".
As a layman I would normally hesitate to voice doubts about the clarity of so many Bills that come before this House. I am, however, emboldened by Appendix B of the Renton Report which illustrates the mumbo-jumbo that passes for the law of the land. It offers eight densely packed pages listing extracts from important statutes, with detailed and devastating comments by leading legal luminaries who frequently confess total incomprehension of their meaning.
On page 28 of the Renton Report, the committee offers a classic example from the National Insurance Act 1946, brought to its attention by none other than my noble and learned friend Lord Simon. It reads:
"For the purpose of this part of the schedule a person over pensionable age, not being an insured person, shall be treated as an employed person if he would be an insured person were he under pensionable age and would be an employed person were he an insured person".
As the report observes, if eminent judges find the law difficult to grasp,
"how can the layman be expected to fare?".
The report added:
"The Statute Book might sometimes as well be written in a foreign language for all the help the citizen may expect to obtain as to his rights and duties under the law".
In the 1982 debate I ventured to refer to the seminal trilogy of Professor Hayek published in the 1970s as Law, Legislation and Liberty. At the centre is this Nobel Laureate's distinction between law, as the evolution of general rules of just conduct, and legislation as the often arbitrary edicts of governments vested with transient authority to impose their will or even their whims with the full force of civil or criminal sanctions.
From Chapter IX of the Renton Report I gather that Hayek's approach is closer to the European tradition of legislating principles of wide application and practising restraint in the proliferation of detailed rules, with large gains in simplicity and clarity. I was certainly struck with the force of the
392
Renton Committee's recommendation in favour of this less detailed style, leaving judges to give effect to such principles in the light of well-established precedents.
In conclusion, I have two further helpful suggestions. The first is to commend the beautiful simplicity of repeal as a partial remedy for what might be called indiscriminate legislative pollution. We must of course be more selective than recent legislators. Indeed the non-party repeal group some years ago set a good example with a one-clause Private Member's Bill which helped to prod Her Majesty's Government to repeal a mouldering pile of obsolete and obstructive statutes on truck so as to enable wages to be paid more safely and economically by cheque and credit transfer.
Strong candidates for similar summary treatment, in my view, might be the Trade Disputes Act 1906, the ragbag of Acts specifying when shops may open and what goods and services they may sell, and large chunks of the proliferating laws on planning, equal opportunities and race relations, where broad principles might suffice to guide judges in deciding the equity of conflicting claims.
My second suggestion offered for further reflection is that we could dispense with many complex statutes specifying exactly how government should provide national and local services if we relied instead on simple laws that laid a general duty on Ministers and statutory authorities and left them free to put provision out to competitive tender and to contract with specialist suppliers. There is mounting evidence that in this way local government services can be more adequately and economically provided, with additional gains in transparency and accountability. A further bonus would be a long overdue step towards the objective of my noble and learned friend of reducing the quantity and improving the quality of legislation.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, in his concluding remarks has put forward one or two original suggestions which I have not heard before and I hope that they will be very carefully considered. I should like to endorse the congratulations which have been expressed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on initiating this debate and I should like to thank him for the chance to express our views on this vital matter.
The two matters which he has raised impinge upon each other, because the more legislation there is the worse is likely to be the quality of it. On quantity, one must first concede that legislation is the main instrument of party policy. But this Session the Government have put forward legislation to which they were not committed at the last general election and which was not the subject, so far as I know, of any broad consultation within the Conservative Party in general or indeed of great consultation among the various branches of the legal profession which are affected by it.
The legislation put forward is not fundamental to our party beliefs; or, indeed, the beliefs of anyone,

393
so far as I know. In the post-war years we used to be asked: "Is your journey really necessary?" I suggest that the time has come for the Government to ask themselves on each Bill which is contemplated whether the legislation is really necessary. If they had asked themselves that question they would not have introduced those parts of the Courts and Legal Services Bill or those contained in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill which controversially attempt to change the best features of the system of justice on each side of the Border.
Having said that, I have some constructive suggestions to put forward which would make Bills shorter and, I believe, improve the quality of those Bills which are necessary and, of course, one must concede that some of them are necessary. My first suggestion is that the Government should allow much more time for the preparation of major Bills, preferably two years. That would ensure that the draftsman is not rushed and also ensure that there is enough time for consultation with outside experts and representatives of those who would be affected by the legislation. I am thinking especially, for example, of accountants on fiscal legislation.
Secondly, I suggest that there are various matters which should not be included in primary legislation and which should, in fact, be excluded from it. I refer first to unenforceable provisions. To include them results in enacting laws which are ineffective from the start. Each one is a dead letter: there is no point in doing it. I refer next to matters relating solely to the internal administration of government. They can be dealt with, and indeed are best dealt with, by departmental circulars or by regulations binding upon those within the public service, and binding upon them only because it affects only them. I give that as an example of the old chestnut that it is becoming; but we shall continue to pursue it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and I have tried to get rid of the ancient practice of requiring Cabinet Ministers to obtain the consent of the Treasury. We heard this week that all the process involves is two Lords Commissioners—generally they are fairly junior Whips who probably do not have a clue about what it is that they are being asked to sign —who have to sign certificates. That provision was written into statutes. Indeed, I think that there are 10 such proposals in the Courts and Legal Services Bill alone. Therefore that deals with matters relating solely to the administration of government. Of course there are other matters which arise frequently, but I shall not trouble your Lordships with them this evening.
Thirdly, I suggest that we should exclude directions for controlling the procedures of quangos; that is, independent official bodies established, of course, by statute. Such directions could well be contained in subordinate legislation and I suggest that they should be. However, having mentioned subordinate legislation, perhaps I may suggest to the Government that the form in which such legislation is habitually put before the House is more comprehensible than the form in which Bills are presented to us. I shall be able to answer questions on that aspect at a later stage if any noble Lord wishes me to do so. However, that is a fact.
394
Fourthly, although detailed provisions are necessary to express people's obligations and rights in fiscal and some other legislation and should then be preceded, I suggest, by statements of principle or of purpose, attempts to cover every hypothetical contingency should be avoided. Noble Lords who have experience of another place know that there, even more than in your Lordships' House, Ministers are often asked, "What will be the effect in the following hypothetical circumstance of this particular provision in the Bill?" I think that that occurs more particularly in another place than here, where Ministers are more courageous. I hope that I am not in breach of privilege by saying that. However, the answer given so often in another place is, "Yes, we will consider that and perhaps write something into the Bill". That results in far too many hypothetical circumstances, covered by detail, being written into Bills. Moreover, there are circumstances which very often do not arise in practice. Therefore that deals with detailed provisions which should be avoided and which should be excluded from legislation.
I have a further suggestion to make and it is one which has already been made this evening. It is that the Cabinet legislation committee should resume the task which it used to perform. I happened to be a member of the committee for three years from 1958 to 1961. I was what was called a "permanent member," which meant that one had to attend every meeting, notwithstanding whether one's department was involved in the discussion. It carried out valuable work in improving Bills and indeed I think that the legislation was better in those days.
I remember one of the first contacts I had with my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham. It was when he and I were both Ministers. He was trying to defend a Bill which had been put forward and several of us on the committee criticised the legislation. He was made to take it away and knock it into shape and he and the late Lord Duncan-Sandys, who was the Minister concerned, brought the Bill back in very much better shape. It eventually went forward and was a comprehensible measure.
Another constructive suggestion is that Parliament's intention should also be expressed and not left to be inferred. It is interesting to note that the EC has a rule requiring the reasons for each legislative instrument to be expressed. Ministers here say, "No purpose clauses, we do not want them". I pay tribute to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who, in Clause 14 of the Courts and Legal Services Bill, put forward a purpose clause governing the principles affecting Part II of the Bill. When he did so we had a most interesting discussion. He tabled some amendments to improve it still further. I was surprised that two of those who spoke in the debate said that they were not in favour of statements of principle.
Perhaps I may say why the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation recommended that there should be purpose clauses and statements of principle. Members of the higher judiciary (the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the Lord

395
President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk and other noble and learned Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale) gave evidence to us and said that they often had difficulty in interpreting Acts of Parliament. They realised that they had to contain a good deal of detail, but that if only Parliament would make clear the intention they would not have such a difficult task deciding cases upon which they were merely guided, sometimes by ambiguous detail. They asked that the purpose and principle be stated, when they would be much better placed.
My final constructive suggestion is that wherever appropriate the Law Commission should be asked to report on a proposal to legislate and to publish a draft Bill. That goes back to my suggestion that there should be two years for the preparation of Bills; but it means that Bills would not come forward so quickly into the government machine. Nevertheless, it would be a good thing.
It is important that the noble and learned Lord should have raised this matter. It is a big subject. We live with it all the time. We must try to get it right. There must be improvement, because badly drafted, incomprehensible or ambiguous laws are a disservice to democracy and bring Parliament into contempt.
9.12 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am aware that it is convention to express gratitude to the noble Lord who introduces the Motion but it is well recognised that some Lords are more grateful than others. On this occasion I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. These are important matters. Of course we regularly discuss procedural questions in the course of the pieces of business which occasion debate about them. That means that we tend to discuss them with a tincture of our opinions of the measure under discussion. That risks confusion of form and substance.
It is important that we have the chance, at least this once, to discuss those questions in their own right. I am aware of my temerity in doing so. I was told by one of my noble kinsmen shortly after my maiden speech that a peer is a new boy for the first 10 years. I recognise the truth of that, but if through inexperience I go astray there are plenty of people here who are capable of putting me right.
I agree with what has been said about the quantity of legislation. This has happened before. There was a big problem of this sort early in the 18th century. There is a most enjoyable book on it by David Lieberman of the University of California at Berkeley. Part of the problem was the first experience of a permanently sitting Parliament with time on its hands, itching to use its new opportunities and —this is in line with many things that have been said tonight —not sufficiently identifying the general principles. One commentator remarked that Members of Parliament might introduce the death penalty for those who stole their turnips, never stopping to think that the catastrophe which that year had overtaken their turnips next year might overtake their potatoes. I wonder whether the
396
revolution in information which we have had within our memory has created a similar itch of opportunity to intervene. I also entirely agree that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has hit the nail on the head by linking quantity and quality, for legislation is one area in which "more" means "worse". We can all remember some of the enormous Bills we have had recently. For example, there was a protest by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on the last night of the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill at an enormous raft of unintelligible government amendments which we were asked to pass on the nod.
However, if we do not have these enormous Bills we must have recourse to enabling powers. They avoid a good deal of parliamentary scrutiny. They deprive us of the opportunity to amend and, in this Chamber where we do not reject, the power to amend is precious. We should not lightly be deprived of it. There is a proper place for enabling legislation.
I have been wrestling with myself to try to work out what that proper place is. I should like to try out some thoughts on your Lordships, and I do not have much idea whether I have it right; I should be glad to learn.
The acid test of whether a matter is proper for enabling legislation is perfectly simple —if it would empty the Chamber if it were embodied in a Bill. We cannot put everything into a Bill and some matters are so abstruse and technical that I do not think we need insist on taking up parliamentary time in discussing them.
The principle of flexibility —rules that need frequent variation in the light of new evidence —is another area which is proper for enabling legislation. There are also matters which are too technical to be put into legislation. Over the weekend I looked at Clause 10 of the recently published Social Security Bill, dealing with energy insulation. The job of specifying precisely which dwellings and precisely which persons should be eligible to benefit from that clause is one which is properly left to regulations. However, there is also truth in the words of the Donoughmore Committee that minor legislative powers are regularly left to delegated legislation. The adjective is not to be forgotten.
There are a number of criteria which we should think about in picking out matters which are not suitable for regulation. None of those criteria is immutable. When I first arrived at Yale I was told that all Yale rules were construed to contain the word "normally". Perhaps one should say the same about parliamentary procedure. Obviously enabling powers should not enable the Minister to do anything other than what Parliament intends. I have not recently observed an offence against that principle. That may argue that I am guilty of insufficient vigilance, but since I have not seen one I shall not pursue it further.
We should in any enabling measure have a sufficient exposition of the general principles which these enabling powers are to be used to pursue. I was interested and amused to discover that where we now say "framework Bill", the Donoughmore Committee says "skeleton Bill". Some of the skeletons that we

397
have had recently have been very emaciated. When I hear the words "framework Bill", I am reminded of my childish attempts to play with Meccano, which almost always ended in tears, very often for the same reason as some of our framework Bills—because some of the pieces were missing. We must have an adequate exposition of the purposes for which the enabling powers are desired.
In addition, the Government should normally have decided what they wish to do with the powers. The point which particularly concerns me at the moment is the use of enabling powers to enable the Government to drive legislation forward with greater haste; to take powers to do something before they have decided exactly what they want to do. I recall, for example, a debate on the Education Reform Act on the testing and assessment powers under the national curriculum. Noble Lords were not immediately inclined to oppose these provisions but they wished to know what they meant. Increasingly as the House probed it became clear that the Government had not yet decided what they wanted to do with those powers. Indeed they have not decided yet. Some of my new colleagues at King's College, London, are even now engaged on research into how those powers might be used. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Grimond who said that this procedure was making a mockery of Parliament. I think also in relation to enabling powers that we need enough information for the House to decide whether it is for or against the proposal concerned.
I remember an occasion when we were debating the football membership Bill. The point that particularly concerned me was the rights of the casual spectator. I wanted to know before deciding whether I was in favour of the Bill whether it would be possible to join the scheme and go to the ground on the day of the match. The Government could not tell me that as they did not know. If they do not know what a measure means, I do not see how they can expect us to decide whether to approve it.
The House is also entitled to decide whether a Bill is capable of being put into effect. If a Bill is not capable of being put into effect, we are entitled at least to ask that it be taken back and thought through until it can be put into effect. It is within the powers of Parliament, although I hope it will never do so, to enact that all teachers should teach that the earth is flat. However, an enactment that the earth is flat would be ultra vires. That fact will not change as a result of any Act we may pass.
I am again reminded of the football membership Bill. It was not going to be clear whether that Bill was capable of being put into effect until the scheme was drafted and published. That scheme was not available to us. I think that the scheme should have been available to us when we considered the Bill. The Government should not have put the Bill before Parliament until they had drafted the scheme and could tell us how it was going to work. The Bill took up 120 hours of parliamentary time. There are many other more useful things that we could have done with that time. It is of course a special concern of this House to consider the practicality of what is being proposed. When we are offered anything where
398
the Minister wishes to take enabling powers and cannot pass at least the majority of those tests, it is something that he ought to take away and think about.
9.22 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I join with others in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing this Unstarred Question this evening. Not a single noble Lord who has spoken in the debate has disagreed with the general thesis of the Unstarred Question or with the noble and learned Lord's contention that little had happened since the Renton Committee reported in 1975. The noble and learned Lord emphasised that nothing had been done since that time to stem the flow of legislation. One is reminded of the adage that it is always much easier to make a long speech than a short and pithy one. I think that is probably true also with regard to the writing of legislation.
Although there has not been much dispute on the problem, there has been much less agreement on the solution. We have been slightly short on answers. As regards the number of Bills, there has not been such a discernible trend towards increase in the amount of legislation over past years but that conceals the fact that Bills may be very much longer individually and may cover a very much greater range of subjects than would have been the case in the past. The Bill which we were discussing only yesterday is particularly relevant in that connection. We were discussing the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which contained a number of other subjects within that miscellaneous title. It is well known that if civil servants cannot immediately see how to put an item of legislation through Parliament they will tack it on to a Bill which happens to be going through Parliament at that time. We are reminded forcibly of the recent Employment Act. A new section on training was tacked on to the Bill at the very last minute as it went through Parliament.
Although there may not have been much change in the number of Bills, there has been a very discernible trend in the number of pages of legislation passed at any one time. Some of the relevant figures were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. During a five-year period in the late 1940s, under a reforming and vigorous Labour Government, there were fewer than 1,000 pages of legislation each year, During the 1950s the number of pages started to creep up past the thousand mark. In the 1960s it increased to around 1,500 pages a year. During the 1970s the average was 1,874 pages of legislation a year. When we move into the 1980s we find that up to 1986 the figure was 2,540 pages of legislation a year. At that point the format of government Bills was changed so that it is difficult to make a comparison with later years. One may say that that was another way of changing government statistics at that time.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, the figures which I quoted —which were kindly supplied to me by the noble Lord the Leader of the House —make that comparison. Taking into account the change of format, the amount of legislation is much greater

399
than before. The noble Lord the Leader of the House has kindly made the comparison.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the figures available to me suggest that the increase in the total number of pages of legislation in the 1980s compared with the 1970s is of the order of 35 per cent. That is a very sizeable increase in the amount of legislation going through Parliament in that 10-year period.
The Procedure Committee, meeting recently, was informed that 1,100 Commons amendments to major Bills were considered at the rate of just under one a minute during the overspill period. I am sure that if the Government Chief Whip was able to see that rate of progress on the Courts and Legal Services Bill he would be a far happier man. However, that is not the point. The point is that of the 1,100 amendments many were not debated at all in either House. They were tabled at a late stage —at Report stage —in another place and not discussed in detail. I do not believe that that is the way Parliament should do business.
Parliament has a task of scrutiny. This House in particular has a role as a revising Chamber, a duty to scrutinise legislation. I am sure that most noble Lords want to do that job properly and to be given the opportunity to do it properly. If we look at how we spend our time, which is very different from how they spend their time in another place, we find that during the last Session of 1988–99 we spent just over 58 per cent. of our time scrutinising Public Bills. Of those, 56·'3 per cent. were government Bills and 2·2 per cent. were Private Members' Bills. Those figures differ little from those for a period five years earlier. The major part of our time is spent scrutinising legislation and we must be given the proper opportunity to do that.
That sometimes requires noble Lords to exercise a measure of self-discipline. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has often expressed his concern about the length of time taken by some debates and the fact that we sit late into the evening. On the other hand, I am sometimes reminded that time-limited debates in the House produce pithy and good debates. People have sometimes tried to grapple with the idea of applying a time limit to debates on amendments, but that is a difficult problem to address. A little self-discipline might enable us to scrutinise more succinctly and do the job that we are expected to to.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the question of the drafting of Bills. It is obviously important that Bills should be drafted as effectively as possible. I support everything said by noble Lords about the sometimes undue haste with which Bills are published. I am told that, just before one recent Bill reached the printers, the draftsmen discovered that another 60 amendments ought to have been inserted into it. The publication of that Bill was held up by a fortnight or so in order that it might appear in a slightly better form that might otherwise have been the case.
Those who theorise about Parliament's present method of dealing with Bills sometimes say that
400
there is quite an advantage in the time lag in progressing Bills between the two Houses, since it gives the government draftsmen time to put Bills which were not initially in good shape into better shape. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, quoted powerful figures and referred to the number of amendments introduced by the Government into Bills. According to my figures relating to the last four periods of government, in the period 1974–1979 the average number of amendments made in this House was just over 1,000; in the period 1979–83 it was still just over 1,000; but in the period 1983–87 it increased to 1,763. In the short period of the present Government, the number of government amendments made to government Bills in the House of Lords increased to 2,732. That is a large number of amendments which shows that legislation may be coming forward too early before it has been properly considered.
The Renton Report referred to the problem of the number of draftsmen available and the training of draftsmen, but one must also consider the burden put on draftsmen at particular times of the year. I understand that there was a heavy burden on draftsmen last year during the period from the end of the Summer Recess until we returned, involving the drafting of all those hundreds and thousands of amendments to which I referred in connection with Bills which were already going through Parliament. Thus, those draftsmen who might otherwise have been drafting Bills for the new Session were unable to do so.
Noble Lords will know that there is always a rush by any government as soon as the new Session opens to publish and bring forward as soon as possible all the Bills for the Session because, if the Bills for a particular Session of Parliament are to get through, they have to start their progress preferably before the Christmas Recess, and certainly not very long after that, or there is a great backlog of work which may build up in order to get the legislation through.
One wonders whether we are necessarily always acting entirely sensibly in this matter or whether we should look again and re-examine at some point the fact that we always insist that unless a Bill gets through in a particular Session of Parliament that Bill is lost completely. I think that there is great benefit in having a limit put on the amount of time that a Bill takes to go through Parliament but I am not sure whether we should be so rigidly tied to keeping a Bill alive during a particular Session of Parliament or whether we could have a different kind of time limit which would enable a Bill introduced later in the Session to carry on into the next Session. That is something which might be re-examined.
Obviously there are answers to be made against such a proposal. However, if one had a rolling programme of legislation, it might be a way to mitigate this particular problem. That is done in the field of the Private Bill. One lets a Private Bill go over from one Session to the next. On the other hand I believe that it would be wrong if there were no time limit. However, I believe that that is something which could be looked at. It is also certainly true —and I do not think that this point has been

401
mentioned this evening —that poorly drafted legislation always produces a field day for lawyers. I cannot count the number of times that lawyers have said to me about certain legislation, "They have got this Bill all wrong. It will produce an absolute bonanza for us over the next few years". I am sure that that is true.
Our duty as Parliament is in fact to ensure that there is no such bonanza. I can assure the House that I am not trying to do out of a job the noble Lords, Lord Rippon of Hexham and Lord Renton. The point made by both that the law officers should have the power—indeed, they do have the power, as I understand it —to return inadequately drafted Bills to be drafted again, seems to me to be a very valuable one. They are probably the only people who are capable of making the decision in the legislative committee of the Cabinet that a Bill is inadequately drafted. No departmental Minister on his own would accept that contention. It would probably require more resources and more energy but it seems to me that Parliament would be saved a great deal of time and that we should have better legislation if the Bills that were inadequately drafted were returned to be redrafted.
The other idea that we have discussed from time to time is whether non-contentious Bills should be taken by a Select Committee. We tried that, again as an experiment, some two or three years back. I believe that it was the general consensus of the House that that was not in fact a way to deal with the problem. I have always been convinced that the system that we have of a Committee of the Whole House, which in a sense is a fluid committee, in that its membership will vary from day to day according to who attends the House on a particular day, in itself has great merits over a small Select Committee where everybody's views are known and the members will vote in a given way, possibly on every amendment that goes to it.
On the other hand, when we discuss something on the Floor of the House we do not know exactly which Lobby the Peers will enter, though one can make quite a good guess from time to time. However, as regards the amendments on the Courts and Legal Services Bill, an examination of the Division Lists produced some interesting figures, with the Opposition and Government Front Bench voting together on some occasions and Members from other parts of the House, voting another way. It is a fluid situation. That is one of the great advantages of the system that we have of considering legislation on the Floor of the House.
I again thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for raising this Question. Everyone appears basically to agree with his thesis. On answers we are less solid in our replies.
9.40 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, perhaps I may join in the thanks that have already been expressed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for the opportunity that he has afforded by putting forward this important Question. I begin by saying that of course there must
402
be times when there is bad drafting; there must be occasions when that drafting has to be amended. I recollect on one occasion discovering to my horror that there was a provision which read:
"It is an offence to attempt to commit an offence under this section",
which, if noble Lords think about it, is utterly impenetrable. While that may have been a mistake by the draftsman, he reasserted his considerable skill by correcting that error in a place in the statute that I defy anyone to discover.
What is of interest in a debate such as this is that, while both sides of the House seek to consider the quantity and quality of legislation, and to express views as to that quantity and quality, I hope that I can be forgiven for being a little sceptical about one aspect of it. I do not think that anyone in this short debate this evening who expressed critical opinion on the drafting of a Bill did so in respect of any legislation for which we had a policy approval. The objectivity of our approach to drafting and the quality of it would be better understood and better expressed if we were to select those pieces of legislation of which we approved rather than those where there are clearly policy concerns about their validity.
I make little apology for being part of a vigorous and reforming Government. If large areas of our public life had not been taken into public ownership, it would not have been necessary to embark upon a campaign to return them to the private sector by elaborate legislation. That is a necessary and important part of policy. One cannot escape from the approach that has been taken. However, quite apart from those important policy areas, there are also clearly very considerable pressures on any government to bring forward legislation that is thought to be of broad and important worth.
For example, noble Lords will be very well aware that ever since the report of the committee that was chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, in 1984, there has been steady and continuous pressure on the Government to bring forward legislation to cover the areas that she and her committee considered. That has now been done. I believe that I have been approached by every single political party in Scotland urging the Government, and urging me to use what influence I have, to bring forward legislation to implement what Professor Peter North proposed in relation to road traffic. I am also very well aware within my own responsibilities for the Scottish Law Commission that it has attached to a number of its reports some very important Bills that similarly I am frequently urged to ensure are brought on to the statute book.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, indicated rather gloomily as he sat down, there is concern about the quality and quantity of legislation. However, apart from the proposals which were clearly set out in the report of the Renton Committee, not many solutions have been put forward for reducing the broad quantity.
I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, that while I have every reason to believe that the figures he gave regarding the number of pages of legislation

403
in the statute book are correct, the figures that he gave for 1988 include approximately 1,000 pages of the income and corporation taxes consolidation. Therefore, when one looks at the amount of legislation purely in terms of the number of pages, one must be cautious to ensure that the consolidation work which is properly undertaken is understood.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I quoted government figures which were compiled on a basis which shows a fair comparison. There were only three years in which 2,000 pages were exceeded; they were 1986, 1988 and 1989. They cannot all concern consolidation legislation.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, I did not suggest that. However, a thousand pages is a considerable amount of consolidation legislation.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: In order to qualify the figures that I gave, I point out that they did not include consolidation Bills.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does not consolidation legislation occur in every Session? Was there not massive housing consolidation legislation in 1985 which was considerably more than the instance that the noble and learned Lord mentioned?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have no doubt that at different times there have been large consolidation Bills. However, if one analyses the growth in legislation, it would appear to withdraw from those figures the consolidation pages included in the overall total.
In answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, I point out that, while the Lord Advocate of the day may not have been a member of the future legislation committee, I am — —.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I rise merely to congratulate the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I should like to point out that the figures I quoted excluded consolidation and Scottish Acts.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was not seeking the noble and learned Lord's congratulations but merely wished to point out that, while many Ministers and heads of department come to the commitee as supplicants —and I am not in a position to indicate which of them fail —it frequently happens that they lose out not only on one Bill but often on two. As my noble friend Lord Rippon reminded the House, in 1977 his colleague in another place, Sir Geoffrey Howe, wrote the pamphlet Too Much Law. Sir Geoffrey now chairs the committee and anyone who is familiar with him will know that he is not a man easily to change his essential attitudes——
Lord Renton: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It has been pointed out that the committee used to be a scrutiny committee. We know that for a good many years it has been merely
404
a business committee. Has it become a scrutiny committee once again or is it still only a business commitee?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I believe that the committee to which the noble Lord referred is the legislation committee rather than the future legislation committee about which I was originally asked a question.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred to the role of the legislation committee in his day and that was repeated to me. Its function then was to scrutinise Bills before they were presented to Parliament. Noble Lords will be aware from the response given by my predecessor the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, in a debate on very much the same subject in 1987, that the Government still endorse the value of that role.
I cannot comment on what may have been the position in earlier administrations when the noble and learned Lord indicated that, as one of the law officers, with the Lord Chancellor, he was a member of the legislation committee. However, I assure him that the practice in recent years has been for Bills to be circulated to the members of the committee in time to enable any points of drafting which may give cause for concern to be considered.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that that committee cannot be expected to pore over drafts for long periods of time. It cannot be the committee's function to duplicate much of the work of the parliamentary draftsmen. I consider —and it is not just because I have responsibility for some of them —that they are highly skilled lawyers with a considerable amount of experience in drafting statutes. However, the presence of the law officers remains, and of course there are still circumstances in which, possibly through comments before the committee actually convenes, legislation is taken away for further checking.
My noble friend Lord Rippon said that the Henry VIII clauses are of concern to him, as they are to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. My noble friend made reference to another debate which we shall be having on 14th February and, in view of the proposal at the centre of that debate, I prefer to leave the matter of such clauses until that time.
A number of very detailed points have been put to me. They have covered a wide range of issues which were considered by the Renton Committee and clearly they are still matters which give rise to concern. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Renton will be the first to appreciate that many of the recommendations which he put forward have not been followed but, on the other hand, a considerable number have.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, was critical of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill. In many respects it would appear to me, although I must read carefully what he said and the quotation which he gave, that many of the recommendations of the Renton Committee were pursued in the manner in which that particular Bill was drafted.

405
A number of observations were put to the House on the question of statements of principle. Certainly, there are opportunities, as has been indicated, when such statements of principle can be valuable: where there is a clear, unambiguous and unqualified principle to a Bill. In such circumstances that is often stated. However, it will be appreciated that there are circumstances in which Bills are not susceptible to being encapsulated in a simple provision of principle from which all else flows. I must say that in recent times, looking at draft legislation, it has seemed to me that far from clarifying matters, to have attempted to introduce a statement of principle might have made it much more difficult for the future user of the legislation to understand what was at the centre of it.
My noble friend Lord Renton indicated that more time for the preparation of Bills —perhaps a period of two years—might be desirable. As a drafting prescription clearly that has its attractions and I have no doubt that those draftsmen for whom I have a responsibility would be delighted if they were in a position to spread their preparation over a two-year period. However, if one considers the parliamentary timetable to which we work it might be extremely difficult for a draftsman, who, as will be appreciated, has duties attending committees of both Houses as legislation is considered, if he had his time taken up doing that at the same time as he was trying to consider legislation for about a year in advance.
Clearly, if there can be early preparation of Bills, that is very desirable. I can certainly think of one set of circumstances where that is achieved; namely, where the Law Commission has come forward with a proposal and attached to it a draft Bill. That certainly gives government and the draftsmen an opportunity to see whether there are points of drafting detail on which they believe they could improve the original proposal emanating from the Law Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, robustly suggested that we ought to look more frequently at repealing as a remedy for what is contained in the statute book. Having mentioned the Law Commission, I point out that that has been part of its work for 25 years. While there may yet be a number of provisions, as the noble Lord suggested, which might reasonably be withdrawn from the statute book, it would be appropriate to pay tribute to the Law Commission for what it has come forward with in suggesting repeals of obsolete and unnecessary legislation.
My noble friend Lord Renton suggested that one way in which we might improve legislation and reduce its content and length, as I understood it, would be to get rid of those provisions on which the consent of the Treasury is required. b can only say to my noble friend that I will undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the extent to which he will view that recommendation with enthusiasm is a matter he will have to check out for himself on some future occasion.
406
My noble friend also put forward a criticism that the attempts to try to cover all hypothetical circumstances is a temptation that ought to be resisted as much as possible. I have to say that where possible the temptation is resisted, but there are undoubtedly circumstances —I am sure he can think of them —where what was thought to be hypothetical when it passed through Parliament, when it came round to the time of enacting the legislation was found to be a useful provision.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, set out in a constructive way a number of proposals for looking at the way enabling legislation might be approached. This is not a matter that has come up recently; indeed, consideration was given to it in the report to which he referred. One of the matters he put forward demonstrates the difficulty. He said that one circumstance where he would be prepared to contemplate enabling legislation was where rules might need to be adjusted from time to time; where there was a requirement for flexibility. I have to say that just yesterday, as I was introducing the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, we set out to allow just such an enabling provision to enable a code of conduct to be introduced by secondary legislation. It was seen that the conduct that might need to be regulated would change from time to time. There was a requirement for flexibility. That was exactly the argument which I put forward and which found particular favour in this House while that provision was being considered.
As I indicated, a considerable number of points have been put to me. I trust that I have answered most of them. There is in no sense an attitude of complacency on the part of the Government regarding the quality of legislation. As I said, what occasionally happens is that when criticism is made of the drafting of Bills it is not criticism of the way in which the policy is being expressed but of the policy itself. I appreciate how strongly those who have contributed to this debate feel about maintaining the quality of Bills. Within about a fortnight I anticipate that we shall have something like a re-run of a number of the arguments that have been rehearsed this evening. On that later occasion there will be additional matters to be considered.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may make a point before the noble and learned Lord sits down. He said that a great deal of the criticism made of particular Bills was because people were not very keen on the Bills themselves. That does not explain the situation where the Government themselves introduce very many amendments to their own Bills.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It is an interesting paradox which the noble Lord may wish to consider. If we were to introduce Bills that were absolutely flawless and we were confident in every respect that we had constructed legislation which was seamless in every possible way, the obvious flexibility and tolerance which have been exhibited on this side of the House so frequently of late as regards amendments would be much less forthcoming.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am sorry to prevent the noble and learned Lord finally settling down, but I wonder whether he would be good enough to answer the last question that I asked. Is there any machinery by way of standing instructions to alert the Law Officers to some questionable aspect of a piece of legislation?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I thought I had indicated that in what I said. Law Officers are members of the legislation committee. Before any Bill is considered by the committee it is circulated to the Law Officers. If they have any comment on or criticism of the legislation, that opportunity is frequently extended to them before the committee sits and at the meeting of the committee. It is very much for the Law Officers and members of their departments to assist and advise and to take up what they consider to be objectionable items of legislation.
House adjourned at three minutes past ten o'clock.

  COURTS: ADMINISTRATIVE DELAYS
  COURTS: ADMINISTRATIVE DELAYS
  EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
  EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
  VETERINARY MANPOWER AND EDUCATION
  VETERINARY MANPOWER AND EDUCATION