Sitting of 6 February 1991

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Gulf War Casualties
    Mr. Harry Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the availability of national health service hospitals in Scotland to be used for the treatment of casualty victims of the Gulf war.
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra funds have been made available to health authorities in Scotland in respect of casualties arising from the Gulf war.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): Hospital beds in Scotland will be made available for the treatment of casualties from the Gulf. The number of casualties and their particular treatment needs will determine which hospitals become involved. It is, however, expected that the first hospitals in Scotland to be asked to receive casualties would be those in the Glasgow and Edinburgh areas. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State announced on 16 January, health boards will be reimbursed the full costs of treating any Gulf casualties.
    Mr. Ewing: May I, in advance, pay my personal tribute to the doctors, nurses and all the other support and ancillary staff for the undoubted dedication that they will show the victims of this wholly unnecessary war? Will the Secretary of State give us his commitment and an absolute guarantee that the additional resources made available will not be clawed back and that the beds that will be made available will not be closed down after the emergency is over, in appreciation of the fact that there will be a continuing civilian emergency as a result of the operations and treatments that will have been delayed?
    Mr. Lang: I am sure that the whole House will agree with the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the doctors, nurses and ancillary staff who may be involved in treating casualties from the Gulf, especially those in the medical and nursing professions who have gone to the Gulf to be available there. I am equally sure that most of the House would not agree with his reference to the conflict in the Gulf being unnecessary. I have made it clear that health
    268
    boards will be reimbursed for the costs incurred. Clearly, the minimum disruption will be caused to waiting lists and other health board interests.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are the maimed, the shockingly injured and the appallingly burnt, many of whom will suffer from long-term psychiatric damage, likely to be better treated than heroes of previous wars? Will the Secretary of State use his position in the British Cabinet to do everything possible to prevent a land war, to stop the inhuman bombing of Iraq and to accept with enthusiasm the tentative proposals put forward by the Iranians who will have to be locked into any stable settlement?
    Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the British Government are fully committed to assisting in the implementation of the United Nations resolutions. That is why our armed forces are in the Gulf. He may be assured that casualties will be given the best possible care and that the first priority will be to meet the needs of each individual casualty.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that with so many Scots serving in the Gulf on behalf of the United Nations we should assure them that if any of them are injured and return to Scottish hospitals, they will be treated properly and effectively, as only Scots can look after their own? More importantly, will we remind them that, although for years Opposition Members have called on this House and others to support the United Nations, when the chips are down they have been found wanting?
    Mr. Lang: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our first priority must be to ensure that all casualties from the Gulf receive the best possible care. An operations group in the Scottish Home and Health Department will oversee the arrangements.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all the evidence since 2 August is that Saddam Hussein is an evil psychopath and that to give in to his blackmail would be wrong? Does he further agree that the number of casualties would be greater if we waited until Saddam Hussein had a nuclear deterrent, rather than dealt with him now? This unnecessary war has been brought about because Saddam Hussein felt it necessary to attack Kuwait.
    Mr. Lang: I agree with my hon. Friend's every word. It is very much to the credit of the allied operation that every attempt has been made to minimise casualties to our own side and to minimise casualties to Iraq's civilian population.
    Mr. Galbraith: May I return to the issue at stake—the question of casualties? Will the Secretary of State agree to make available the necessary moneys for the prompt treatment of all those patients whose operations will be delayed as a result of casualties from the war? Will the right hon. Gentleman also agree that many of the Gulf casualties will be disabled and will require long-term care and rehabilitation? Facilities for such care in Scotland are at best inadequate and, at worse, non-existent. Will the Secretary of State ask the health boards to identify the numbers requiring such care and the additional services required? Will he then provide the necessary finance to the health boards and the social workers to ensure the long-term care and rehabilitation not only of our service men, but of all other national health service patients?
    Mr. Lang: I have already made it clear that the health boards will be reimbursed the full cost of treating any Gulf casualties and, therefore, none of the funds allocated to those boards for their normal activities will be in any way displaced or jeopardised.
    As to the long-term treatment and rehabilitation needs of Gulf casualties, clearly every effort will be made to give the best possible attention to the needs of each individual casualty.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his latest estimates of farm incomes in Scotland; and what financial steps he is taking to ensure the future viability of the agricultural industry.
    Mr. Lang: Latest estimates of farm incomes in Scotland were published by my Department on 21 January and details were placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
    I keep the financial health of the Scottish agricultural industry under regular review and will take what measures are necessary to ensure that the industry is able to compete effectively and to maintain its vital contribution to our rural areas.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister truly aware of the extent of the crisis currently facing the Scottish agricultural industry, with farm incomes at their lowest levels in real terms since the second world war, high interest rates, rising costs and a record number of farmers leaving the industry? Given that whatever threatens agriculture also threatens every rural community in Scotland, why has there been no main payment of the hill livestock compensatory amount
    —HLCA—to the much troubled livestock industry? Why is there no emergency package to prevent the modern-day clearances of the hills and upland areas of Scotland? When will the Government act for agriculture?
    Mr. Lang: I certainly acknowledge that some sectors of the agricultural industry are going through a period of considerable financial difficulty. The Government are keen to respond to that—our record is one of good response. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the HLCA and, in 1990, £48 million was paid to 18,000 Scottish producers. We are keen to deal with HLCA as soon as we can and I hope that the form will be going out within the next few days.
    Sir Hector Monro: May 1 thank my right hon. Friend for the help that he has given to farmers through the large increase in the suckler cow subsidy and through the advance payment of the sheep annual premium? Does he appreciate, however, that the cash flow of many farmers in the hills in particular depends upon the payment of the HLCA? I hope that he will be able to announce the figures soon and that that payment will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. Lang: I understand and share my hon. Friend's concern on this matter. He rightly drew attention to the sheep annual premium scheme—we were able to accelerate payments of that premium this year—and to the suckler cow premium scheme where we raised the level to the highest rate permitted in the less-favoured areas. I also acknowledge the need to get the funds out to the farmers as quickly as we can.

    Rural Economy, Fife
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to sustain the rural economy in north-east Fife; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): On the most recent available figures, between 1984 and 1987 total employment in the north-east Fife travel-to-work area increased by 2·2 per cent.; since 1987 unemployment has been declining sharply in north-east Fife; between 1981 and 1989 the population has grown by some 4·1 per cent.
    The Government aim to build on those highly encouraging indicators of economic progress. Fife Enterprise, the local enterprise company for the Fife region, will be able to deliver the Government's economic development, training and environmental improvement programmes in a way which is best suited to the particular needs of the area.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the Minister understand the contribution that the fishing industry makes to constituencies such as mine? Does he appreciate the resentment felt there and throughout fishing communities in Scotland at the folly of the eight-day tie-up rule? Was not that rule imposed on Scottish fishermen, at least in part, because of the culpable failure of the Government to produce an effective decommissioning scheme?
    Mr. Stewart: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that in negotiations the Government reduced the period from 10 to eight days. I must also point out the key need to conserve stocks in the North sea. I can reassure him on the general implications for the area. The business plan of Fife Enterprise emphasises the changing place of agriculture and fishing in the rural economy and gives a priority to the development of tourism and leisure. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured about the strength of the economy of north-east Fife by the figures that I gave him in my answer.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's policy of providing a strong and diverse base for the Scottish economy helps all regions?
    Mr. Allan Stewart: My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. It is significant that Scotland is the only part of Britain where unemployment is lower than a year ago and that most commentators suggest that Scotland will have had one of the highest, if not the highest, rate of growth in 1990. NatWest has forecast that Scotland will have continuing growth in 1991.
    Mr. McLeish: Is the Minister aware of the importance of Rosyth naval base to the whole of Fife, including north-east Fife? Is he also aware that the Prime Minister has said that he wants to examine closely the implications of closure of that base on Fife's economy? Will he give an assurance this afternoon that the Scottish Office will be fully involved in any such discussions and that the Secretary of State and all his ministerial team will take cognisance of what is happening? Will the Minister come back later and give an assessment of the implications for the Fife economy and the Scottish economy because there will be a dire effect on the local area as well as north-east Fife?
    Mr. Stewart: I appreciate the importance of the hon. Gentleman's point for the whole of Fife. I can confirm that no decision has been made to close Rosyth or, for that matter, any other naval base. The Government fully recognise the implications that any such closure would have for the economy. Those implications would be fully considered and examined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, along with colleagues before any such decision was taken—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me. My interest in the rural economy of north-east Fife is well known.
    To follow up the important point that the Munster made, he will be aware that there are strong signs that a Ministry of Defence working party has been established, apparently with the specific remit of closing the Rosyth naval base within the shortest possible time scale. Does that exist and is that its remit? What is the Scottish Office doing to ensure that any review of naval bases examines every option on its merits and does not prejudge the issue by putting Rosyth on a hit list of one?
    Mr. Stewart: I share the hon. Gentleman's obvious regret that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) has arrived just after his question was reached. May I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that, while I clearly cannot comment on alleged leaked documents, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will he fully involved in any such discussions about Rosyth.

    NHS Hospitals
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many (a) in-patients and (b) out-patients were treated in national health service hospitals in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what the figures were in 1979.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The number of out-patient attendances and in-patients treated has increased by a staggering 900,000 a year compared with 1979.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures above all others show the improvement in the national health service in Scotland since 1979, because they concern patients—human beings who have been treated?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only are we treating almost a million more patients but we have increased the number of doctors by about 9 per cent. and the number of nurses by 14 per cent.; and expenditure has risen from £1 billion to more than £3 billion, which represents an increase of a third, over and above prices. That is the extent of the Government's commitment to the national health service.
    Mr. Wray: As 40 per cent. of Scottish troops are in the front line and as it is estimated that we shall need 7,500 beds for them, and as thousands of people have given blood since that announcement, how does the Minister differentiate between blood for the Gulf troops and blood to be sold to the private sector?
    Mr. Forsyth: As one who has given blood as part of the appeal by the blood transfusion service—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Forsyth: I do not think that this should be a matter of controversy between us. I urge others to register as donors, if they have not already done so as part of the blood transfusion service appeal. The majority of blood donors will take the same view as I do—that blood is freely given to save lives wherever those lives are being saved.
    Mr. Riddick: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time.
    Mr. Riddick: May I congratulate my hon. Friend and all his colleagues on the excellent opinion poll in yesterday's newspapers which showed that the Conservative party—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Scottish Question Time.
    Mr. Riddick: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that one of the reasons for the excellent showing in the opinion polls in Scotland is the Government's increasing investment in the national health service there? Does he agree that the surest way of ensuring greater patient care and more investment in Scottish hospitals is the re-election of a Conservative Government at the next general election?
    Mr. Forsyth: Surprising as it might seem, my hon. Friend was referring to an opinion poll in Scotland. It is certainly good news. I have no doubt that there are various reasons for it, but the sort of behaviour that we are witnessing today among Opposition Members, who are trying to frustrate our telling the good news about the health service, is doubtless a contributory factor.

    Orkney and Shetland Ferries
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the Government subvention on the ferry services to Orkney and Shetland in 1991–92.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I discussed the issue of the subvention to ferry services with representatives of Orkney and Shetland islands councils on 25 January and my right hon. Friend and I continue to receive written representations from organisations and individuals.
    Mr. Wallace: The Minister will know that he and the Secretary of State have acknowledged that freight charge increases of more than 20 per cent. are bound to have a damaging impact on the local economy and that there may well be a need in the longer term to review the operation of the current subvention. Will he accept that we have an immediate problem and that P and 0 has not come up with anything in response to requests to review its projections for the year? If the economies of the islands are not to be damaged in coming months, help is needed, and that help can come only from the department. What is the Minister prepared to do about that?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have increased the subsidy by 17·5 per cent. and we have offered to review the situation in the summer to make certain that if P and O's estimates are wrong—we believe that they may well be

    273
    —we can make some form of arrangement to ensure that the full subsidy is paid—in line with the hon. Gentleman's request.
    As for a different type of subsidy, I made it clear to the islands council representatives that if they want to put forward proposals we shall examine them carefully. This system has served the islands well in the past.

    Primary Schools (National Tests)
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the introduction of national tests in primary schools.
    Mr. Lang: More than 100 representations about the introduction of national tests in primary schools have been received in the last three months.
    Mr. Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, having been given the chance to choose, parents are overwhelmingly saying that they do not want his national test and that he should now scrap it in favour of co-operation with parents and teachers to meet the genuine demand for diagnostic testing which everybody wants and which can be integral to the five-to-14 programme? Does he agree that that would be a constructive way forward which showed that he believes in parental choice, even when parents do not choose what he offers?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman was not listening clearly to my answer. The figure that I gave of 100 representations should be compared with the 430,000 children in primary schools. It is clear that the test process is part of the general improvement in the handling of the curriculum and assessment for primary school children. It is very much to their advantage and it benefits children, schools, teachers, parents and Scottish education.
    Mr. Ingram: Has the Secretary of State studied the detailed survey that has been carried out in my constituency and organised by St. Leonard's PTA? That survey clearly shows that the overwhelming majority of parents are opposed to this scheme. Will he take account of that view and either guarantee here and now that parents will have the right, if they choose, to opt out of the testing or, more importantly, will he scrap the scheme altogether?
    Mr. Lang: I find the hon. Gentleman's assessment of parental views incredible. These tests are for the benefit of children and Scottish education. They are a small part of an overall and continuing process of assessment and will lead to an improvement in the standards of education in Scottish primary schools.
    Mr. Worthington: Does the Secretary of State accept the legal opinion of what a regional council should do about informing parents about the test? Is it in accordance with section 28 of the 1980 Act about children being educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents? There should be a tear-off slip on the form to allow parents to decide whether their children should be tested. The parents should be given a choice, and the school and the Secretary of State should abide by the decision of the parents.
    Mr. Lang: It is reassuring to note that the Opposition are suddenly so concerned about parents' rights in
    274
    education, having tried so hard for so long to deny them. It is relevant to remind the House that the Opposition did not oppose the regulations about national tests in primary schools, and did not oppose the provision in the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 which brought them into being. I think that the Opposition believe, certainly English Opposition Members believe, that testing is a necessary part of education. Teaching without testing is like cooking without tasting or writing without reading. We cannot have one without the other.

    Sport
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what Scottish Office initiatives are planned to mark 1991 as the Year of Sport.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I have found an extra £1·5 million to launch a pound-for-pound funding scheme for local sport club facilities, to help regenerate participation in school-age team sport and to provide for the redevelopment of the Glenmore Lodge training centre.
    Mr. Canavan: When will the Minister make an announcement about the £320 million required to provide the new sports facilities that are recommended in the Scottish Sports Council's excellent document "Sports 2000"? Will the Minister respond to the report about school-age team sport, especially in view of his comments that competitive standards in team sports are a national disgrace? Will he do something about that other national disgrace, Hampden Park, by ensuring that adequate Government funding is provided either to improve Hampden Park or to replace it so that Scotland has a national stadium of which the Scots can be proud?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that I made an announcement about those matters over the weekend in a speech which, I regret to say, was not reported, no doubt because it contained more good news. The "Sports 2000" document is addressed to government and local authorities. Local authorities have to respond to it and they would be in a better position to do that if people such as the hon. Gentleman paid their community charge.
    The hon. Gentleman asks about team sport. If he had listened to my answer, he would have heard me say that I made £400,000 available for co-ordinators to be put in place to try to get team sport back and functioning. He also asked about Hampden Park. We have made it quite clear to the football authorities that we should like to see a new national stadium. They have still to decide the best way forward for that and the Government have said that they are prepared to help.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister remember that the Government once offered to contribute £8 million towards the cost of a new national stadium, although that offer was subsequently withdrawn? Index linked and allowing for inflation, that offer would be worth £20 million. Would not it be a valuable and worthwhile way to mark the year of sport to make that offer again? Will the Minister have discussions with the Scottish Football Authority about the best way to make an offer of £20 million towards the recreation of a new Hampden Park?
    Mr. Forsyth: I have been having discussion with the SFA formally and informally on this matter for some time. At the splendid international at Murrayfield, I took the

    275
    opportunity to have further discussions with the football authorities about this, and they are deciding the best way forward. It would be foolish to come to any conclusions about the Government's contribution in advance of any scheme being endorsed by the football authorities. The hon. Gentleman will, I think, find that a number of his hon. Friends share that view.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: How much of the additional money that the Minister has announced will be made available to improve the standard of rugby in Scotland, in view of the probable defeat of Scotland by Ireland?
    Mr. Forsyth: I had no idea that the right hon. Gentleman was such an optimist. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to what the rugby authorities have done to encourage youngsters to become involved in team sports, which has played no small part in achieving the splendid quality of rugby football that we have seen in recent years in Scotland.
    Sir Hector Monro: I thank my hon. Friend for his pound-for-pound scheme, which will be valuable for sports facilities. When will he introduce regulations to give a fair deal to football clubs on valuation rating? Is he aware that of the two recent new grounds, Scunthorpe in England pays £12,000 and St. Johnstone in Perth pays £90,000? That cannot be fair? Will my hon. Friend take action?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is on to something which has also been raised with me by the all-party sports group. At that time, I gave a clear commitment that we would take action. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), the Minister with responsibility for local government, is aware of this and we plan to meet the SFA to discuss how we can bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is Minister with responsibility for the national health service in Scotland and for sport in Scotland on the ground that he cares as much about the one as about the other'?
    Will the hon. Gentleman stop avoiding responsibility for "Sports 2000" and tell us why the Scottish Sports Council, two and a half years after presenting its major strategy document to him, has not yet had the courtesy of a response from the Scottish Office? Will he stop passing the buck by saying—to pre-empt his answer—that the "Sports 2000" campaign is aimed at local authorities when in fact it is aimed at the Government and Government Departments? Given the Minister's dual role, will he acknowledge that the main thrust of that document was the establishment of the important link between sports participation, investment in sports facilities and public health in Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman arrived late to the meeting of the Scottish Association. of, Local Sports Councils on Saturday, which is no doubt why he missed my great unpublicised speech making it clear that we were committed to "Sports 2000" as an important working document setting out the future, addressed both to local government and to central Government. If the hon. Gentleman is not aware of it, I will repeat it once again. When the document was published, I met the chairman of the Sports Council, gave him our support and said that we saw this as a useful means for long-term planning. Our
    276
    commitment to sports in Scotland is indeed as great as our commitment to the health service. That is why we increased funding for sports in Scotland by no less than 28 per cent. this year, just as we have increased funding to the health service by one third in real terms. Under the Labour Government, funding for both was cut.

    Law Centres
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to create more law centres in Scotland.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are no plans at present to create more law centres in Scotland.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister join me in commending the work of the Castlemilk law centre in Scotland for its excellent work on behalf of the people of Scotland? Does he accept that the work load of the two law centres has increased dramatically over the past two years as a direct result of the Government's policies, especially in areas such as debt, housing and social security? Will the Minister undertake to come to the House with proposals to increase the number of law centres in Scotland, at the very least to the same number that currently exist per capita in England?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are four law centres in Scotland. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in Committee in the summer, we changed the law to ensure that there was no statutory barrier to solicitors working in them and receiving a fee. That has all gone through. There is the Castlemilk law centre, to which the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) paid tribute, the Scottish child law centre, the Scottish legal services agency and the ethnic legal services project. If a local authority feels that there is a need for such a centre, it should submit an application for urban aid and we shall look upon it sympathetically because the law centres have an important role to play. The ethnic legal services project is funded through the urban programme. As I have already mentioned, we have changed the law to ensure that there is no statutory bar to further expansion.

    Steel Plants
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has given to the Office of Fair Trading concerning expressions of interest from potential buyers of Scottish steel plants from British Steel.
    Mr. Lang: I have given no information on potential buyers of Scottish steel plants to the Office of Fair Trading. The expressions of interest received by the Scottish Office were made in the strictest confidence and it would not be appropriate to release the details to third parties.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Minister explain further why he gives such an enormous advantage to British Steel? Does he think that the people of Scotland will ever forget that he preferred to put steel workers on the dole than to upset the board of British Steel?
    Mr. Lang: British Steel's decision to close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig and the Clydesdale tube works was taken by its board on commercial grounds. It is not a matter for the Government, who have no direct

    277
    responsibility. My concern is to ensure that the economy of Lanarkshire and the rest of Scotland is in as healthy a state as can be achieved, and it is to that that I am bending my efforts.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that casual inquiries in the United States and Tokyo by Locate in Scotland or itinerant Ministers is not a serious sales effort and will he ensure that a proper sales prospectus is prepared for British Steel assets in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman knows better than most that those assets are not mine to sell and I am not responsible for selling them. Nor is British Steel in such a dominant position as Opposition Members imply, when only some 17 per cent. of the capacity available to British Steel users is in the hands of British Steel.
    Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one thing that would help the Scottish steel industry in selling off its assets would be a clear, unequivocal undertaking from the Labour party that it would never seek to impose ministerial interference and renationalisation of that great industry?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes his point clearly and I fully understand his close interest in the steel industry.
    Mr. Dewar: The exchanges that we have just heard suggest that the Secretary of State has given up the fight entirely. Is it still his position that the Government are challenging and attempting to reverse the decision to close the strip mill at Ravenscraig? Is he really prepared to tolerate a situation in which British Steel, in its prejudice, is blocking all expressions of interest in the purchase of the strip mill? Is not that a negation of competition policy? Knowing of such interest—it was the Secretary of State who revealed it—is he not prepared to do anything to test the market? Does he intend to allow British Steel to stifle competition in a way that cannot be in the public interest?
    Mr. Lang: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the European Commission's competition directorate has given its provisional view that under the treaty of Paris the actions of British Steel are not anti-competitive. I think that he is also aware that the Director General of Fair Trading has concluded that on the basis of the evidence available to him at present, he has no reason to exercise his competition powers. Anyone wishing to bid for any of the assets of British Steel is free to approach British Steel and welcome to do so.
    I have not given up—if there is any possibility of saving any steel jobs in Scotland, I am willing to help towards that end. The trade unions have decided to accept negotiations, and the Arthur D. Little report has said that the overall climate for steel investment in Scotland is not attractive and that Scotland is not well placed to compete. I think that most people in Scotland are realistic about the situation. I certainly regard my primary responsibility as being to help regenerate the economy of Lanarkshire.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Did not the type of meddling now being advocated by Opposition Members for the steel industry result in a disastrously inefficient industry in the 1970s, and has not British Steel actually flourished since the politicians relinquished their grip? How can we take seriously professions of concern from Opposition
    278
    Members when we remember that it was their union chums who led to the Ford plant going to Spain rather than to Dundee?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes the point extremely well. Between 1975 and 1985, at today's prices, the taxpayer had to contribute no less than £14 billion—the equivalent of £25 million per week—to the steel industry. That did not improve competition, output, productivity or efficiency—all that it did was to prop up uncompetitive jobs at extreme cost to the taxpayer and considerable damage to other jobs in the economy.

    Constitutional Reform
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the proposals for constitutional reform approved by the Scottish Constitutional Convention; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: The so-called convention's proposals would lead to more government and more taxes being foisted on Scots. This would not be in Scotland's interest.
    Mr. Hogg: Why have the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland set their minds against any discussions with the leaders of the Scottish Constitutional Convention? Why are they ignoring the claim of right—and the right—of the Scottish people to determine the arrangements for their own government? Would not it be better to enter negotiations now so that a parliament could be achieved within the United Kingdom, thus strengthening the union?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member ignores the fact that the so-called convention either avoids or disagrees on every difficult decision that it faces. I will give him an example. Last week a Labour campaign for electoral success was set up to stop proportional representation. The campaign is under the leadership of Mr. Eric Milligan, Mr. Pat Lalley and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who are arguably—or perhaps unarguably—the three most important and powerful men in the Scottish Labour movement. The response from the Liberal Democrats appeared in today's Glasgow Herald, when the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) contended that Labour was the most conservative force in Scottish politics—the dinosaur where messages take a long time to reach the brain. I have every hope and expectation that the plans of the so-called convention will meet the same fate as the dinosaur.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that, although there may be differences of view about the voting system, there is absolutely no difference of view between the Liberal Democrats and all members of the Labour party that we need a Scottish assembly to deal with Scottish business, that in denying the Scottish people that assembly, the present minority Government are standing against the wishes of the Scottish people, and that that verdict will be given not just in Scotland but in the United Kingdom at the next election, when the Minister will once again return to the Back Benches, but on the Opposition side?
    Mr. Stewart: On the last point, the hon. Member cannot have read the recent Scottish opinion poll, which

    279
    put the Conservative vote at 30 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—a good base on which we will build further. On the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, many people, when asked, will say that a Scottish assembly seems a good idea, but every time the hard questions are asked—how it would work, how it would relate to the United Kingdom, and what role the Secretary of State would play—there are no satisfactory answers.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister not to dismiss too lightly the concept of constitutional change within the United Kingdom in terms of Scottish interests? Many United Kingdom taxpayers would like equality of financing as between England, Scotland and Wales—and equality of representation in this House. Scottish taxpayers could meet the full cost of the new assembly if they wished, but I believe that when the figure became known, the case for keeping things as they are would be unanswerable.
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point and raises a question that the so-called convention has not satisfactorily answered. My hon. Friend is also right to remind the House that identifiable expenditure per head is 23 per cent. greater for Scotland than for England.
    Mr. Salmond: If the Minister wants to ask hard questions, why does he not do so in a referendum offering a choice between the convention's scheme, independence in Europe, and the status quo? Does not the Government's refusal to do so owe much to the fact that they know that in an independent Scotland no Minister with responsibility for industry would stand idly by and watch the destruction of the Scottish steel industry while enormous potential remains in the North sea market?
    Mr. Stewart: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman is sounding a little less confident than usual. The last Labour Government put specific legislative proposals to a referendum, but no specific proposals now exist to be put to a referendum or otherwise considered. The real test of who governs the United Kingdom is which party wins the largest number of seats in the United Kingdom Parliament. I am sure that at the next general election that will continue to be the Conservative and Unionist party.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the convention fails to meet its own criteria? One is that the new assembly should be accountable, and it fails that test. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Does my hon. Friend further agree that the failure to address the Goshen-Barnett formula and also the number of Members of Parliament required to represent Scotland in this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Member was merely casting his eyes down.
    Mr. Walker: I do not need to read this, Mr. Speaker. The convention also fails to address the 'Tam' West Lothian question. Until those three matters have been addressed, the convention will be neither credible nor accountable, and none of its measures would ever get through this Parliament.
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on each of the three points that he made. The convention fails to address any important questions, including those to which my hon. Friend drew attention.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that debate on those matters has not taken place because the Conservative party and the Government refuse to accept the legitimate demands of the Scottish people to play a constructive role in responding to them? If the Minister believes that certain issues should now be addressed, will the Government start to participate in the convention and make constructive proposals? Is it right for the Minister to continue abusing the convention when even the Confederation of British Industry and business interests in Scotland acknowledge that Scotland will have its own parliament and that they will need to work with it?
    Mr. Stewart: The convention is an entirely self-appointed body. As regards business opinion, I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 20 of The Scotsman today, where a leading multinational industrialist gives his views, under the heading,
    "Silicon Glen chief warns of devolution 'suicide'".
    He pointed out what the reaction of multinational business, which has such an important role in the Scottish economy, would be if any of these absurd proposals ever showed any likelihood of being implemented.
    Mr. McKelvey: No one on the Opposition side of the House would grudge the Minister, or any Conservative, their apparent joy in the fact that almost a third of the people in Scotland might vote for them in a forthcoming election. Nevertheless, does the Minister agree that the Conservatives are dodging the issue again, just as they have dodged the issue—and their responsibility to Scotland—by failing to serve on a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? The people of Scotland know precisely what is going on in the House and they will not accept that situation. The Government should not be afraid to put the matter to the test. We argue that if we are fighting a war to protect some sort of democracy, the call for democracy in Scotland has to be answered—and it will only be answered when the people of Scotland get the opportunity, in a referendum, to decide how Scotland is to be governed.
    Mr. Stewart: The Government will put their policies to the test at the next general election, when the people of the United Kingdom will decide.
    Mr. Maxton: The Minister can no longer pretend that the Scottish Constitutional Convention has no democratic credibility in Scotland when he and the Conservative party have none whatever. The Government do not have democratic backing from the Scottish people for any of their proposals. Is it not time, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said, that the Tory party came into the convention and discussed the proper way forward as regards constitutional change in Scotland so that a Scottish parliament can be established, which would give the people of Scotland the right to decide their own affairs within the framework of the United Kingdom? Is the Minister aware that the Conservative party's stubborn refusal to accept the Scottish people's demands for that change is putting the union itself at risk?
    Mr. Stewart: If that is true, it is surprising that the Conservative vote is going up in the opinion polls. I should

    281
    also point out to the hon. Gentleman that the convention started out as a so-called broad front of all those against the unionist position. The Scottish National party left fairly quickly, the Greens left more recently, and now it sounds as though the Liberal Democrats may be leaving, despite the fact that their position in the opinion polls suggests that they would probably remain members of almost anything that would have them.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies, I shall be seeking to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Speaker: I am grateful for the information, but it is not legitimate to raise this matter since it was not the hon. Member's question. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was."] I am sorry. In that case, I withdraw my comment. I am glad to know that the hot. Gentleman will seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Rural Ambulance Service
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the director of the Scottish ambulance service to discuss the ambulance service in rural areas.
    Mr. Forsyth: I spoke with the new general manager of the Scottish ambulance service recently and have provided an additional £8 million to strengthen the service in rural areas by eliminating single manning, to increase the numbers of ambulance men with paramedical skills and to fund the new helicopter service.
    Mrs. Michie: The Minister knows of my concern about single manning of ambulances in rural areas. Does he agree that his recent announcement of more money is not sufficient to make an immediate difference in rural areas, where there is a crying need for extra ambulance personnel? They are urgently needed in my constituency and in other parts of Scotland. When will this unacceptable practice end?
    Mr. Forsyth: I share the hon. Lady's enthusiasm for progress on this matter. We have provided an increase of about 20 per cent. in resources for the ambulance service this year and I am confident that we shall move towards the elimination of single manning. I know that the hon. Lady takes a great interest in the ambulance service in rural areas, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). I know, too, that one of the matters that have caused concern is the question of the new centralised control of the service. I have spoken to the new director, who has given that matter his attention, and I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that we can help in that respect.
    In rural areas, where circumstances merit it, we shall return to the old system enabling general practitioners to make direct contact with local ambulance crews for non-emergency transport, provided that central control is also informed. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that we are going some way towards meeting the anxieties that she and others have raised.

    Housing, Foxbar
    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to visit the Foxbar area of Paisley to assess its housing needs.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to visit the Foxbar area of Paisley.
    Mr. McMaster: At the risk of disappointing the Minister, I must tell him that I learned yesterday that he had visited Foxbar before, but that his visit went largely unnoticed. Will he consider returning, and perhaps this time trying to achieve some results for the people of Foxbar as his previous visit did not make one bit of difference to the standard of living there? While he is there, will the Minister make a day of it and come with me to Ardgowan court, Hunterhill and other places in Paisley, Johnstone and Elderslie, to see the damp and decaying houses in which people have to live as a result of his housing policy?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have visited the hon. Gentleman's district several times, and I have been to Foxbar twice. On the first occasion, I was photographed under a large placard saying, "Foxbar says no to Scottish Homes". Since then, however, Scottish Homes has indeed become established. I was pleased to learn that it had contributed some substantial and positive work in the area, as well as substantial funds. That will continue.
    The question of allocations for the other districts was raised with me by the district councillors whom I met in the summer. The provisional allocation has been £17·604 million, a higher allocation per council house than last year's. I shall, however, keep in mind the points made by the hon. Gentleman before the final allocation is made in March.

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the change in manufacturing output in Scotland for each of the last six years for which figures are available.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: The latest available full-year figures relate to 1989. In the six-year period from 1983 to 1989, manufacturing output rose by over 21 per cent.
    Between 1983 and 1984, output rose by 4·6 per cent.; between 1984 and 1985, it rose by 2·2 per cent.; over the next year, there was a fall of 2·1 per cent.; between 1986 and 1987 there was a rise of 3·0 per cent.; a large rise of 7·7 per cent. was experienced between 1987 and 1988; and between 1988 and 1989, output rose by 4·5 per cent.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the excellent increase in manufacturing productivity has fed through directly to increase the prosperity of the people of Scotland and that it has come about as a result of the Government's economic policies there? Does not that represent another reason why the Conservative party's opinion poll showing in Scotland has improved so dramatically? Do not the figures compare strikingly with the period under the last Labour Government when manufacturing output actually fell?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the first quarter of 1990, output was some 11 per cent. higher than in 1979, and some 6 per cent. higher than the previous

    283
    peak. My hon. Friend is right to point to the record of the last Labour Government—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen to this. Under the last Labour Government, manufacturing output in Scotland fell by 1·5 per cent.

    Council of Ministers
    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next attend a meeting of the European Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Lang: I am ready to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers whenever the circumstances require it.
    Sir Russell Johnston: It would be interesting to know how often in recent times the circumstances have required it—quite often, I should have thought. Is the Secretary of State aware that all the German Lander and many of the regions of France and Spain maintain separate offices in Brussels? Does he agree that that is to their advantage? Why does not the Scottish Office do likewise?
    Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, comparisons between Scotland, as part of the United Kingdom, and the Länder of Germany are irrelevant and spurious. In the European Community, Scotland's interests are very well represented through the United Kingdom's representative organisations. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that since 1979 Scotland has derived no less than £1·3 billion of benefits under various European schemes. That is six times as much as Denmark has received.

    Scottish Homes
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the chairman of Scottish Homes to discuss its budget.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Scottish Homes is expected to submit its draft expenditure programme for 1991–92 later this month. My right hon. Friend and I expect to meet the chairman thereafter to discuss this and other matters.
    Mr. Ross: Does not the proposed budget of Scottish Homes make nonsense of the rural conference that was held last year and of all the aims that were stated there? How does the Minister reconcile those aims with the proposed budget, under which none of the housing associations in Scotland will be able to provide a single new start?
    Lord James Douglas Hamilton: I have not yet received the Scottish Homes programme, which has to be approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I can say, however, that £200 million will be allocated to housing associations. I believe that full account will be taken of the needs of traditional clients. Over the years, the role of housing associations has broadened and widened to take into account the interests of not just those who live in urban areas but those who live in rural areas. I believe that that will, indeed, be done. I am confident that Scottish Homes and its board will come forward with sensible proposals.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I will take the point of order after the application under Standing Order No. 20.

Cold Weather (Elderly People)
3.31 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the urgent need for assistance for heating to be given to the elderly of limited means during the very cold weather."
The matter is specific, because of the cold weather that is being experienced all over the country. It is important, because a very large number of pensioners on very small incomes simply do not have anything like the means to keep their accommodation adequately heated. It requires urgent consideration, because it is downright scandalous that so many pensioners on such incomes should have to suffer in the present cold spell—the coldest we have had since January 1987.
The Government's cold weather payments are far from adequate. When all the conditions have been met, all that is paid is £5 a week. One could hardly describe that as a large sum of money. How many right hon. and hon. Members could keep their homes adequately heated on £5 a week? In today's Evening Standard, there is a cartoon that adequately sums up all the bureaucratic red tape that has to be cut through before the £5 is actually paid.
Let me relate to the House the information that I have. There are 64 weather stations in the country. In the areas of only a very small number of those—nine or 10—have the conditions for making the payments been met. That means that, in the great majority of areas, the payments, however inadequate, are not being made. Why is it that, in this country, 10 to 20 per cent. more elderly people die during the winter months than at other times of the year, and why is the figure here far higher than that in other European countries? In most European countries it is about 5 per cent. Surely this demonstrates the hardship, misery and deprivation that so many elderly people in this country suffer during the winter months. It is time the Government took action. It is time they allowed elderly people cold weather payments—and more.
I hope that, in view of all these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, you will consider the matter sufficiently important to allow a debate to take place.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The urgent need for assistance for heating to be given to the elderly of limited means during the very cold weather."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20 I have to announce my decision to the House without giving any reasons. I have listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, I have to decide whether the application comes within the Standing Order and, if so, whether a debate should take place today or tomorrow. I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.35 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take first the point of order from the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).
Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will accept that what I am about to say is not even an implied criticism of you. Those who follow our proceedings carefully will have been greatly surprised this afternoon that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), who is no longer in the Chamber, asked two questions when some of us did not even have an opportunity to ask one.
There could be a great deal of confusion in the minds of those who follow our proceedings, because we have now adopted a system whereby, although hon. Members, including myself, may have tabled questions a fortnight ago, if we were not in the top 40, our questions do not appear on the Order Paper. Is it possible to look at that, because it is causing confusion that we all want to avoid?
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that I was not able to call the hon. Gentleman. I think that that is really the reason for his point of order. I debated with myself whether to call the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on question 17, since we did reach it. I could have stopped there, but that would have been to the detriment of the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). I judged that, on balance, I should call Question 17.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect, perhaps you did not grasp the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). He was trying to say that hon. Members table oral questions to particular Ministers but their names may not appear on the Order Paper. For example, I have tabled three successive times for Energy questions and my name has never appeared on the Order Paper, and I have tabled questions for three successive Scottish Question Times and my name has never appeared on the Order Paper. Our constituents may begin to think that we are not trying to table questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West made a substantial point, which requires looking into. I am sure that you will see, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members are trying to table questions to respective Ministers.
Mr. Speaker: I did get the point. The hon. Gentleman will know that there was a debate on this matter before Christmas and it was agreed that there should be an experiment on printing the first 40 questions. [Interruption.] Well, that is so. The Procedure Committee has the matter under review. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has raised the substantial point that his constituents may feel that he is not tabling questions. He should put that point to the Procedure Committee which, is I have said, as currently looking into the matter, and it may come forward with an adjustment that would meet the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you, like most other

287
people, would agree that is easier to decide how many angels could fit on the head of a needle rather than what triggers the Government's severe cold weather payments. Will you confirm that the Minister for Social Security, and Disabled People who is responsible for these matters and who was giggling and chatting to his neighbour during the Standing Order No. 20 application by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), has nothing to prevent him from coming to the Dispatch Box to explain to you and the House when the Government are going to stop elderly people from freezing, and when they are going to make the cold weather payments?
Mr. Speaker: The Minister was here and undoubtedly heard what was said. I cannot comment on the other matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mr. John McFall: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), Mr. Speaker. Could not questions be shown on the Order Paper on the first possible day, so that we could show our constituents? They are becoming increasingly frustrated about hon. Members from English constituencies asking two questions, whereas we can ask none. I suggest that you concentrate on Scottish Members so that names such as Lochaber—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman expect to be called during questions in which English Members are involved?
Mr. McFall indicated assent.
Mr. Speaker: That is right—he does, because this is a United Kingdom Parliament. I must ensure a proper balance in this place, and I seek to do so.

Disability Discrimination
3.40 pm
Mr. John Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to render unlawful certain kinds of discrimination on grounds of disability; and for connected purposes.
After years and years of endless rhetoric, nice noises, reams of paper and innumerable reports, there is still an astonishing degree of public and national and local government indifference to the needs of disabled people. The process of education has failed miserably and attempts to create public and establishment awareness have been lamentably unsuccessful. It has been a waste of time—especially for disabled people and their carers, whose time is of the highest premium.
Nothing short of a national scandal exists. Every hour of every day, an employer, a transport provider, a shopkeeper, Department after Department and even hospitals discriminate against disabled people. Disgracefully, public and establishment ignorance, indifference and prejudice subjects disabled people daily to the most arduous and unnecessary physically and mentally exhausting tasks. People fail to realise that carrying out the simplest, yet essential, bodily function can become an ordeal. Unlike any other member of the public, who can pop into the nearest toilet, a disabled person who does not own a toilet key under the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation scheme or who has mislaid or lost his key is in real trouble, and may be confronted with a considerable trek to obtain relief.
A constituent of mine declares that even a routine hospital visit can be a humiliating nightmare. When she is forced to leave her most essential aid at home, she becomes, as she aptly puts it, a piece of furniture that is moved on and off an ambulance and deposited at hospital into a typist's swivel chair over which she has no control.
That problem is not unique. It affects many of my constituents and the constituents of every Member of Parliament. It is the norm, which the House and the Government have failed to do anything about. The situation is worse than that, because, in their latest proclamation, the Government are setting out to erode the meagre employment benefits of disabled people. Disgracefully, the Government ignore unjustifiable discrimination, which frustrates employment opportunities for otherwise able people.
Examples of that enormous problem, which the Government choose to ignore, are available from the many organisations that represent disabled people. They have it on record that the head of one civil service department prefers the aspidistra, rubber plants and yucca plants to a disabled person in a public place. Consider the effect of that message on an employee who is forced to sit in an office unemployed because the boss of the department did not want an executive officer with cerebral palsy dealing with the public. Can hon. Members imagine the feeling of a person with an upper limb disability because of the drug thalidomide who was turned down for a job because the interviewing panel decided that the applicant could not write as her arms looked different, even though she had completed a comprehensive job application by hand?

289
The upset and trauma that results from such insensitivity are unimaginable. Many other reasons why disabled people are humiliated are just as extreme and disgraceful. Disabled people are rejected for jobs because the managing director's dog does not like wheelchairs. They are refused access to a company pension scheme because they have scoliosis, which is a lateral curvature of the spine and has no effect on life expectancy or ability to do a job.
Surprisingly, even the magic of money, which is normally the key to any door, fails to dent the barrier of discrimination. Even a millionaire can be discriminated against. A millionaire can go along to a Giro bank and open an account, but a disabled millionaire can forget it. Giro is not interested. The extent and form of discrimination is unbelievable.
Regrettably, I even found it necessary to draw to the attention of the House in an early-day motion the circumstances of many of my disabled or elderly constituents who were effectively imprisoned in their homes for seven weeks while a major renovation programme was carried out on the lift that served their homes. In this day and age, those circumstances are unacceptable. No elderly or disabled citizen's freedom of access, or exit from his or her home should be subject to such restriction. No elderly citizen or disabled person should be housed above ground level if the accommodation is not served by two lifts.
The needs of the disabled are of the greatest magnitude. More than 6 million people are affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) have ably presented Bills on
290
this important subject. Each Bill set out to eradicate this form of discrimination. However, even after their efforts the problem still exists. It must be tackled now. The disabled cannot wait until education has erased the prejudice that prevails in every private and Government organisation.
Ideally, the first item on the agenda of any national or local government meeting should require committee members to consider whether any other item of their business discriminates against disabled people. That could be done easily and without legislation now. That simple measure, however, cannot take care of the multitude of sins against the disabled buried in present legislation, with which we cannot afford to play around. The slate needs to be wiped clean and the present legislation replaced by one Bill only, as happened in America.
The key to the problem is here in the hands of hon. Members. My Bill sets out to establish in terms of employment, transport and access, a clear and comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability. I welcome this opportunity to present a Bill which is supported by many major organisations representing disabled people.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Martin Redmond, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Disability Discrimination
  DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
  Mr. John Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to render unlawful certain kinds of discrimination on grounds of disability; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 February and to be printed. [Bill 78.]
Opposition Day
  5TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Training
    3.49 pm
    Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move,
    That this House deplores the fact that at a time of deepening recession, with thousands more each day facing unemployment, the Government is cutting back on investment in training; believes this sends entirely the wrong signal to industry; and condemns the Government's failure to deliver the training policy Britain needs to boost skills and provide for the country's industrial future.
    Let me remind the Secretary of State of the background to the debate. This year, 25,000 companies will go to the wall; this month, tens of thousands of new redundancies will be announced; last month alone, it was announced that 1,200 jobs were to go in Derby, 1,200 at British Rail Engineering Ltd., 1,000 at London Transport, 450 at Mattessons Walls and 350 at GEC, and 3,500 jobs are in jeopardy at Lewis's stores. There are countless more thousands of jobs in jeopardy up and down the country.
    When the Minister speaks, I defy him to tell us that he has any reason to believe that, when he announces next week's unemployment figures, they will be any lower than the appalling 80,000 rise in unemployment announced in December. If that is right, it means that, today and every day, 3,000 more people join the dole queue. That is the reality in Britain today under the Government.
    The recession is not some distant theory, it is here, it is now and it is everywhere. A short time ago, the new Prime Minister promised us a classless society; instead he has only brought us a classless recession, hitting everyone in equal measure.
    Let us be clear that the distinctive feature of this recession is not that it is happening in the south and not in the north, but that it is happening everywhere—in the south-east and the south as well as in the north and in Wales and Scotland. It is affecting new technology and old, manufacturing as well as services. It is affecting every region of Britain, in every sector of industry, in every occupation at the workplace.
    It is the extraordinary achievement of the Government that, having divided the nation for 11 years, they have finally united it in recession. Yet not one word of apology have we had, nor one expression of regret. We have not had one new initiative to tackle the rising unemployment that the Government have created. Let us examine the ministerial gloss that has been put on the unemployment figures by right hon. and hon. Members.
    When unemployment first rose in the spring, we were told that it was
    "a short period of slower growth, concentrated in the south, not the north".
    In the summer, as unemployment rose higher, we were told that it was
    "concentrated mainly in the south."
    In the autumn, as the figures rose again and the desperation grew greater, we were given the rather implausible excuse that it was
    "concentrated on men, not women."
    292
    Finally, two weeks ago, when unemployment levels had risen in every area of Britain, covering all categories of people, the Minister fell back on the final refuge of all failed Ministers. He told us that we must
    "get these figures in perspective."
    Let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman the perspective of my constituents and that of countless thousands and millions of other people. They were told that this Government had created an economic miracle, and they have not. They were told that the problems would be temporary, and they are not. They were promised that there would be no recession, and there is. Promises followed by betrayal, boom followed by burst, that is the record of this Tory Government and all Tory Governments.
    The Government, having created the recession, surely cannot duck their responsibilities for the victims. Perhaps what is most devastating of all in this period of rising unemployment is that we still suffer skill shortages in vital areas of industry. In the north-east for example, a report published a few days ago said that more than 20 per cent. of firms in the region experienced shortages of skilled labour. In the north-west, where unemployment has risen by about 15,000 recently, 30 per cent. of manufacturing firms were found to have major skill shortages. In the west midlands, where unemployment has risen sharply in the past few months, the Black Country development corporation conducted a survey among more than 1,800 companies. Despite the high unemployment, it was not plant capacity but skill shortages that were inhibiting expansion.
    Just a week ago—just a few days ago—the Financial Times told us that a report commissioned into the leather-making industry, a key area of trade which does £150 million-worth of trade every year, showed that the constraint to growth was lack of skills. Yet the chamber of commerce survey for the fourth quarter of 1990, bang up to date for last December, gave the staggering figure that over 50 per cent. of manufacturing companies and almost 50 per cent. of service companies reported recruiting difficulties. There was not a single area of the country where such companies did not suffer a shortage of skilled labour.
    Can there be any more fundamental indictment of failure than that—that, at a time of rising unemployment, we still cannot provide the skilled labour we need for our future? The shortages are concentrated in the very areas in which we most need to compete effectively;, the areas where we have the largest balance of payments deficit and the areas of most acute skill shortages are correlated.
    We need to train, not simply to develop people at the workplace but, crucially, for the economic success of this country.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: If the hon. Gentleman is as worried about these skills shortages as he says, perhaps he would care to tell the House why the Labour party has opposed every single training initiative since 1979. While he realises that the word for which he is groping is no, perhaps he will reflect that spending by this Government on training is exactly six times in cash terms as much as that of the Labour Government. That is the record and the case which the hon. Gentleman should answer.
    Mr. Blair: That is an extraordinary intervention in a week when the hon. Gentleman's Government have

    293
    announced the collapse of employment training, the scheme which they introduced. If he examines the comparisons between Britain and our main competitors, he will see that the areas in which we most need skills to be developed, are the very areas where skills are most lacking.
    For example, in the decade up to 1988, the number of people with intermediate vocational qualifications grew by just 3 per cent. in Britain to the paltry figure of 26 per cent. That is a critical area for manufacturing and industry. In France, the figure rose by 8 per cent. to reach 40 per cent. and Germany is already 64 per cent. ahead in that category.
    Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Blair: I give way out of generosity.
    Mr. Nicholls: Why, then, has the Labour party opposed every single major training initiative since 1979? That is the question. That is what we need to hear from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Blair: The subject of our debate is the Government's failure. The reason why we did not support the Government's training policy was that we disagreed with it. I should have thought that even the hon. Gentleman would realise that that is why we are debating this motion today.
    If the comparitive figures are broken down, for example in the critical areas of engineering and technology, we find that an astonishing gap opens out at the craft level. In Britain every year, 35,000 craftsmen and women gain their qualifications. In France, the figure is 92,000. In Germany, the figure is 120,000. Is it any wonder, when our competitors develop their skills to so much greater a degree than us, that we have the manufacturing deficit in our trade of which we are all aware? Those figures will be confirmed by a major new study as yet unpublished, by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research into intermediate skills in the United Kingdom, France and Germany. It is worth referring to that study.
    Mr. Frank Haynes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ex-Minister responsible for training, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), has a nerve? We are having the debate today because the Government have been a complete failure in training and this nation needs the opportunity of a proper training programme, not the programme which the hon. Gentleman pushed forward as a failed training Minister.
    Mr. Blair: As I am well acquainted with the hon. Gentleman, I am not the least surprised by his nerve.
    The most up-to-date comparison of numbers of technicians in manufacturing in Britain, France and Germany gives us some clue to our economic performance. Whereas Britain has 31 per cent. of technicians with no qualifications at all, France has only 27 per cent. and Germany only 8 per cent. At the critical intermediate level of those who are qualified, we find that France is about 10 or 15 per cent. ahead of Britain and Germany is producing 30 per cent. more qualified people a year.
    The report goes on to study the effect of this skills gap on our companies. Based on interviews conducted with people in British industry, it concludes:
    294
    "In Britain foremen in both spinning and engineering frequently mention that crisis management, chasing missing materials, rescheduling to cope with machine breakdown or training new staff where turnover was very high and new employees were normally untrained occupied the greater part of their time."
    The study goes on to compare the numbers of foremen and supervisors with qualifications in different countries. In the past decade, Britain has trained about 50,000 of them; in the same period, Germany has trained 50,000 every single year. Surely that is why we are not doing as well as we should.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Surely the statistics that the hon. Gentleman quotes so eloquently tend to show that the amount spent by this Government is broadly comparable with that spent by the other Governments he has mentioned. Unfortunately, our manufacturing industry has not spent as much of its own money on training as its European counterparts and has failed to see the advantages that it would derive from spending as much. Surely hon. Members on both sides of the House should urge industry to appreciate that.
    Mr. Blair: I do not believe that that is correct, but in any event I know of no main industrial competitor that would cut its training budget at a time of rising unemployment. The hon. Gentleman should pressurise Ministers to realise that.
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will a future Labour Government make an increase in the training budget an immediate priority or does the hon. Gentleman agree with the shadow Chief Secretary, who has said that the only immediate priorities for a future Labour Government would be child benefit and pensions?
    Mr. Blair: What we would not do is cut the training budget at a time like this. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be worried about the 25 per cent. increase in unemployment in his constituency in the past few months.
    Virtually all other international comparisons show the same trends. France and Germany have four times as many electricians as we do. Germany has five times the number of mechanical engineers and 10 times our output of trained staff in clothing and textiles. It produces 10 times the number of people qualified in office work every year. France produces seven times the number of people in the retail trade every year—
    Dr. Kim Howells: Is not it true that the implications of what my hon. Friend is discussing are significant for large areas of this country, because, although it is important to areas such as south Wales to have inward investment, all too often it is concentrated on assembly line factories, not on primary production or research and development, which would provide real money, real jobs and real security of employment?
    Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend is right. He mentions one of the main reasons for investing in those skills.
    The comparisons in relation to virtually every sector of industry are frightening. If we agree that we need a training revolution, surely it must start with our young people. However, in such training we have the biggest gap with the very countries with which we need to catch up. Britain is virtually the only country that is cutting capital spending on schools as a real percentage of GDP. It is the

    295
    only country in the industrialised world with fewer than 40 per cent. of young people staying on in higher education and training.
    If young people were leaving school and going into first-class training, that would give some satisfaction. There are 300,000 or more young people on the youth training scheme. On the Government's own figures, fewer than half of those receive a proper qualification at the end of the training. More than 50 per cent. of the young people employed, unemployed or in employment outside YTS receive no training whatever.
    At the very time when that is happening in Britain, Germany will this year increase the number of apprenticeships to almost 2 million. Now we can see why this country has fallen behind. Against a background of rising unemployment, skill shortages and a skills deficit in vital areas of trade, we look to see how the Government are responding.
    Mr. James Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). Would extra spending by a Labour Government be a priority or would it come about as resources allowed?
    Mr. Blair: The answer is obviously yes. If the hon. Gentleman had been here for the speech by the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), he would have heard him say exactly that. Of course that is one of our priorities. The Government are betraying the future of the country by cutting skills.
    The Government say that, because fewer young people are coming on to the Labour market, they want to cut expenditure on training. On our calculations, the youth training budget will be cut in real terms by about £100 million over the next few years. If that is because fewer young people are coming on to the labour market, would not any sensible Government, given the state of qualifications among our young people, reallocate that money and provide better quality training? The real dereliction concerns the 100,000 young people who leave school every year, go to work and receive no training whatever. In other countries it would be unthinkable—indeed, unlawful—for that to happen.
    Mr. Nicholls rose—
    Mr. Blair: I shall not give way. I should be happy to educate the hon. Gentleman, but this is a debate, not a seminar.
    There is growing support for Labour's policy of some form of intervention for young people that would put training within a proper legislative framework and ensure that public money provided decent training and proper qualifications. We are today beginning a new process of consultation on our proposal with training and enterprise councils, industry and unions. Why does not the Secretary of State do that? He should consult people to see whether there is support for proper legislation to ensure that young people are helped.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who is now dealing with TECs. I am a great supporter of TECs, and I understood that the hon. Gentleman also supported them. When he was recently out of the country, his hon. Friend the Member
    296
    for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) gave an interview on, I think, Radio Sheffield, and deliberately rubbished TECs. Is the Labour party in favour of TECs or not?
    Mr. Blair: That is complete nonsense, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) will tell us.
    The cuts in youth training are bad enough, but those in training for the unemployed are savage. Some 30 per cent., or £300 million, will be taken out of the budget for training the unemployed next year alone. Thousands of those presently receiving training will be denied it. Would any other Government, at a time of rising unemployment, when training and retraining have never been more important, cut and savage the budget for training the unemployed?
    We are proffered the reason that the Government have discovered that training is not always the best thing for the unemployed. I have only two things to say to that. First, that is a mighty curious thing to say. I remember when the predecessor of the Secretary of State for Employment introduced employment training. He told us that the reason why it had to be introduced, replacing the community programme, was because training was what the long-termed unemployed required. What has changed? Did he decide that training was no longer necessary and make the budget cut, or did he agree the cut in the budget and then cast around for an excuse to justify it?
    Secondly, in all the criticisms of employment training and in all the campaigns to change it, and in all the studies and reports of its inadequacies—including those of the South Derby TEC and the Manchester TEC, which published reports last year, that of the Select Committee on Employment, which published a report last year, and the Department's evaluation study, no one has ever said that the problem with employment training was that there was too much of it.
    When we see the cuts in youth training and employment training, we are entitled to look for some help in training for those already in work. It is here that we find the most serious gaps in Government policy. We know that, in the year 2000, 80 per cent. of those in the work force now will still be employed. We know that, in a recession, training will always be cut. A recent CBI survey shows a declining trend of those companies still wanting to invest more in training. There is no proper policy for in-work training whatever, apart from exhortation.
    The Secretary of State has endorsed the standard, developed by industry, unions and others, of investors in people. He has endorsed the kite mark for training excellence, which is given to employers who have proper training plans drawn up in consultation with their work force, involving each employee in the upgrading of his or her skill and evaluated or costed according to a universal standard. His predecessor set out as a Government target the aim that, by 31 December 1995—less than five years away—all employers, large or small, should become investors in people.
    Why can the Secretary of State not accept what the Labour party urges—that he will not succeed in that target by exhortation alone? If all that were required were persuasion, even these Ministers could have succeeded long ago. Even if he cannot accept our case on that, he should have retained the Department of Employment budget so as to find other ways to use that money to stimulate training. Are we really saying that, with some

    297
    imagination, we could not have put together a programme for management training, for a crash course for TECs to deal with skilled shortages, for improving the profile for national vocational qualifications? Any of these things could have been done, with foresight, imagination and a restored budget.
    At a time of recession, investment in skills must be maintained and increased. Is that not the case that the Government take out to industry day after day? How can the Secretary of State expect industry to heed his call to keep up its training investment when the Government set a bad example by cutting their training investment, as we can see from the recently announced figures? Only a Tory Government could have allowed Britain, the one country with the unlooked-for bonus of North sea oil, the one country with the God-given means to invest in skills and training and to prepare for our future, to be the one country that, before the single European market takes effect, will cut training investment. That is why we condemn the Government.
    The Government are not merely not investing in training; they are incapable of understanding that training policy cannot be a response to the short-term changes in the labour market. The essence of any training policy is that it should plan for the long term. It is not simply that long-term planning is incompatible with the Government's dogmatic obsession with market forces: it is that it requires a different attitude of government, a different culture in industry, a different relationship between Government and industry.
    The Government's failures in respect of training are not just those of policy, gross though they are; they are fundamental failures of leadership on a vital issue for our industrial future. If the Secretary of State really meant what he said about supporting our idea for a training revolution, he would be a spectator, not an extra in the crowd. He would be leading that revolution, creating the partnership in industry necessary to achieve it, using the power of government to legislate for our young people, providing the incentive for employers to upgrade skills, extending his Department's training initiatives.
    Other countries are not standing still. Between 1988 and 1990, when we have lost some £1,000 million from our training budget, French expenditure on training will rise by about 30 per cent. in real terms. In Italy it is also rising. We are not struggling to catch up with our competitors parked by the roadside. The distance that we have to travel is not between us and some fixed point. We have to catch up with a vehicle that is moving ahead fast, with the driver's foot on the accelerator. When we consider where we are and where we need to be, we can see that we are not even in the right business of getting our skills training right.
    The activities of our competitors are the product not just of their national pride but of economic necessity, because they know that the world of work is changing. This is the age in which the person in the workplace will become the pivot upon which the success of the enterprise turns. It is not just that we face skill shortages at a time of rising unemployment; it is not only that that is in the areas in which we most directly need to compete: it is in those very areas that the demand for skilled labour will grow.
    298
    Any analysis of occupations in the future shows that it will be in the professional occupations, the skilled manual occupations, that employment will grow, and it is in the unskilled jobs that it will fall. Most other countries know that. They appreciate that the markets of the future will be high-value-added markets where the advanced technology is applied by the most skilled people. The technology revolution of the 1960s will give way to the people revolution of the 1990s. The products from Japan and Germany are increasingly customised, individualised, precision goods, leaving mass production to other, less-developed nations.
    How long will it be before we have debates in the House where the adverse comparisons that we make are not with Germany, France and Japan but with Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Indonesia? That must not be allowed to happen, yet it is happening under this Government. It is because of that, because they have no answers to the recession or the problems that lie beneath it, because they have mismanaged the short term and failed the long term, that Britain needs a new start with new policies for the new challenges we face, one which combines commitment and a sense of urgency. The Government will never complete the task. That will be left to a Labour Government.
    4.18 pm
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    `welcomes the Government's creation of a climate and strategic framework which is encouraging employers to improve their already substantial role in the national training effort, in which participation in training and the attainment of skills is rising, and which is set fair to meet the United Kingdom's skill needs in the 1990s and beyond.'.
    We have had this afternoon from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) the usual litany of woe which he brings to our debates on this subject.
    The Government's training policy is designed precisely to achieve the objectives that are set out in the Opposition's motion—the need to boost Britain's skills and to provide for our industrial future. We are addressing those objectives, we are succeeding in achieving them, and the hon. Gentleman's speeches would have a good deal more credibility if he were to recognise and give credit for the extent to which that is the case.
    If hon. Members want to test the truth of what I have just said, all they need do is take as their text a speech made last week by the hon. Member for Sedgefield. In that speech, he set out the policy of the Labour party towards the training of young people. He said that training should be based on qualifications gained, not on time served. That is precisely our policy. It is a policy that we have put into effect. Since last spring, youth training has imposed no time limit on the training offered to young people and has been designed to ensure that those who complete it reach a minimum qualification.
    The hon. Gentleman also said that qualifications for young people undertaking training should be certified by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. I agree. Great progress towards the achievement of a national vocational qualification for every young person in training is already being made. In fact, more than two thirds of those who complete youth training already gain a vocational qualification.

    299
    The hon. Gentleman also called for closer integration of education and training. Almost 10 years ago, the Government launched the technical and vocational education initiative to achieve precisely the aim of bringing education and training closer together. We did so at a time when the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), then his party spokesman on education—I am delighted that he is with us—was parading up and down the country denouncing vocational education as fit only for second-class citizens and appropriate—he has always had the gift for a phrase—only for
    "hewers of wood and drawers of water".
    That was the phrase used by the Leader of the Opposition about TVEI. But I am always delighted to welcome late converts to the truth, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the merits of what we are doing.
    It would be difficult to gain the impression from the speech that we have just heard by the hon. Member for Sedgefield that most of the policies which he advocates on youth training are already in place. Yet that is the fact: we have given all 16 and 17-year-olds a right to training if they want it—the only country in Europe to do so. No such right existed under the last Labour Government.
    The fact is that nine out of 10 of our 16-year-olcls are today undertaking education or training—an improvement of a third since Labour was in power. We will have in place by the end of next year a system of vocational qualifications covering 80 per cent. of the occupations in Britain, which will offer every worker in those occupations a ladder of opportunity which they can climb rung by rung and which will make it possible for them to train towards a qualification.
    Of course, the availability of a national system of job-related qualifications is relevant not only to our young people but to our adult population, employed and unemployed, and there is a mass of evidence that our people are taking full advantage of the opportunities available to them.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Before my right hon. and learned Friend leaves recent speeches by Labour Members and the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), can he tell us whether there was any mention in that speech of the Labour party's decision to levy on every employer a large slice of turnover, to be given to bureaucracy, who would meddle yet again in training which ought to be done by employers?
    Mr. Howard: I was astonished by the total failure of the hon. Member for Sedgefield to say a word in his speech about the training levy, which he announced just two days ago and of which our newspapers yesterday were full. The reason why he did not say anything about it today might be that the Leader of the Opposition was sitting on the Front Bench. On 4 April last year, the Leader of the Opposition dropped the levy from his party's policy. Two days ago, we heard that the hon. Member for Sedgefield was bringing it back. No doubt because the leader of his party was sitting next to him, he did not feel able to say a word about it today.
    Employers are spending about £20 billion a year on training. The number of employees that they trained increased by about 70 per cent. between 1984 and 1989. The new training and enterprise councils are two years ahead of schedule, with 1,200 business people of the highest calibre engaged in an unprecedented partnership with Government.
    300
    We launched a major new initiative, "investors in people", which will increase employer commitment to training still further in the years ahead, and which, I was happy to note, obtained the enthusiastic endorsement of the hon. Member for Sedgefield in his remarks on Monday.
    Most encouraging of all, perhaps, the latest Confederation of British Industry quarterly trends survey indicated that, even in these difficult times, more than four times as many companies intend to maintain or increase their investment in training as intend to reduce it. If ever there was evidence that we are succeeding in revolutionising employers' attitudes to training, that survey proves it.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The Opposition's confusion over levies is mirrored—despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in response to my earlier intervention in respect of training and enterprise councils. The hon. Gentleman denied that there was any lack of support for TECs among members of the Opposition Front Bench, but, on 30 December 1990, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) said on BBC Radio Sheffield that TECs placed
    "a completely false emphasis on the nation's needs."
    Is it not the case that the same Opposition confusion exists in respect of TECs as it does in respect of levies?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. Confusion runs through all Labour party training policies, and I shall comment later on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish).
    Dr. Kim Howells: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman completely satisfied with the nation's training? If so, is that the cause of the complacency that has led to his decision to cut the money available for that activity?
    Mr. Howard: I confess to some disappointment, because I had hoped that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) was about to clear up the confusion surrounding the Opposition's policies. Of course there is more to be done with training, and of course we are in the middle of a revolution that is not yet complete. Of course we must do more to transform the attitudes of employers and individuals. Nevertheless, we ought to acknowledge that progress has already been made, and that the right policies are in place to continue and to complete that progress.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Secretary of State agree with his predecessor's comment: "We have a mountain to climb"? If so, why is he cutting training expenditure?
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment, I will address that point.
    Of course the Government also have a crucial part to play. Expenditure by my Department—as my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) pointed out has risen from the £377 million a year spent by Labour when in office to £2·6 billion a year today—six times more in cash terms, and two and a half times more in real terms. That is why we increased the planned spending on youth training for the coming year. That is why we welcome with enthusiasm the undoubted improvement in the quality of training that has occurred.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Much of the criticism so far has centred on the Government's failure to spend enough on training. Will the right hon. and learned

    301
    Gentleman comment on reports that criticised the administrative procedures used by some TECs, whose consequences included mispayments? That is an important matter, whatever the overall issue. Can the Secretary of State give the average cost for each non-vocational qualification course, to level 3 or equivalent? Some very high figures have been circulated.
    Mr. Howard: On the first of the hon. Gentleman's questions, he will appreciate that the deficiencies to which he referred were identified by the audit arrangements, which were instituted by my Department. The information which became available a few days ago is evidence of the effectiveness of those audit arrangements. They will continue to remain in place, and those weaknesses will be remedied, because the TECs will improve their administrative arrangements to ensure that those difficulties do not recur. That is already happening.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I am sure that that is what the Minister wants to happen. One of the worries about TECs is that, once one is in place, there are precious few ways in which Ministers can regain control of the organisation if it is badly managed. That is partly because, in effect, it is a self-perpetuating organisation. How does the Minister intend to exert control on TECs which are making the sort of mistakes—deliberate or otherwise—which appear to have been revealed by the Government's audit?
    Mr. Howard: The audit arrangements will continue, and TECs will continue to have to operate in accordance with the contracts that they signed with me. A considerable range of monitoring arrangements exist to ensure that they continue to provide the high-quality training that we intend them to provide.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge said in his intervention, each and every initiative which has led to the improvements in training in this country in recent years has been opposed by the Opposition. They opposed the technical and vocational education initiative when it was launched. They opposed employment training at their 1988 party conference, and called on their local authorities to boycott it, which 13 Labour-controlled local authorities did. Now the Opposition admit that they were wrong and they seek to pose as the defenders of employment training.
    The Opposition opposed training and enterprise councils when they were announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is in the Chamber today. Now they admit that they were wrong and they support them—at least, the hon. Member for Sedgefield says they support them. In a moment, we shall consider the extent to which the Opposition speak with one voice on training and enterprise councils.
    Time and time again, the Opposition have simply copied our policies, after a respectable period of time has elapsed, and ditched their own. This week the hon. Member for Sedgefield placed our "investors in people" initiative at the centre of his latest proposals.
    The hon. Member spoke at length about the alterations in training funding that we should be making from next April. Not surprisingly for him, he did not refer once to the significant increase that we shall be making in planned spending on youth training. He did not refer to the transfer of responsibility and money for work-related further
    302
    education to the training and enterprise councils, and he left out altogether any reference to the important additional flexibilities that will be given to TECs to increase the value for the taxpayer of the investment that we are making in training.
    Perhaps that is because the hon. Gentleman agrees with his five Front-Bench colleagues, who signed an early-day motion a few weeks ago, describing as "disasters" those flexibilities requested by training and enterprise councils —and warmly welcomed by TECs.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: Could the Minister explain the flexibilities that he gave to skill centres when he handed over £14 million to his friends and to friends of the Tory party, which resulted in the flexibility to close down a fair proportion of the skill centres, to sell off the sites, because they were also handed over free and gratis, and to sell off the machinery, other training equipment and facilities? What benefit is that for skill training?
    Mr. Howard: We transferred skill centres, which had been making a substantial loss for some time, to the private sector because we were convinced that that was the way in which they could provide more efficient training than they had previously made available. The evidence is that that is precisely what has happened.
    The hon. Member for Sedgefield mentioned changes in funding of employment training. The fact of the matter is that he does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to discussing funding. We might be able to take what he says a little more seriously if he had succeeded in persuading the shadow Chief Secretary that training would be one of the areas on which Labour would immediately increase spending. He constantly tried to give the impression that that would be the case. However, we know that it is not the case: the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) keeps telling us that it is not the case; the Leader of the Opposition keeps telling us that it is not the case. Training, they tell us, is something on which they hope to spend more as resources allow. I fear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if a Labour Government ever returned to power and you were waiting for "resources to allow" you would have to be very patient.
    Mr. Thomas Graham: Does the Secretary of State realise that, in Renfrewshire, our young folk were guaranteed a training place? That has never come about, however. The places cannot be filled. Does he also realise that the money to finance training for my constituents has been cut?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the youth training guarantee. That guarantee applies and will continue to apply, and young people who cannot find jobs will continue to be guaranteed a training place. As I said earlier, this is the only country in Europe to guarantee two years' training for all 16 and 17-year-old school leavers who cannot find jobs.
    We have explained many times the reasons behind our decision to alter the funding of employment training next year. I do not expect Opposition Members to understand, because to them the unemployed remain a mass of undifferentiated people to be lumped into a category, used for political purposes and treated as a lumpen proletariat.
    We take a different attitude. We believe that the unemployed deserve to be treated as individuals, and we want to give them individual help. That is why, for the first

    303
    time, since January this year every person who signs on at an unemployment benefit office is interviewed for up to three-quarters of an hour, and receives an individual back-to-work plan tailored to his individual circumstances and showing him the best route back to work.
    That is why we have taken heed of the detailed studies that we have conducted into the local labour markets in Bristol, London and the west midlands, which clearly showed that a significant proportion of the long-term unemployed already possessed the qualifications to match the vacancies in their areas. It has become very clear that, for many people, a lack of skills is not the prime obstacle to finding a job: for many, the main difficulty is lack of morale or lack of motivation. That is why we are determined to provide the unemployed with the widest possible range of help to assist them to return to work as quickly as possible.
    Mr. John P. Smith: The Secretary of State has mentioned attitudes to the unemployed, and the way in which they are treated as a homogeneous mass. Will he explain why, in September 1982, the Government —for some inexplicable reason—stopped conducting an occupational analysis of the unemployed and keeping the statistics?
    Mr. Howard: I must confess that my memory of these matters does not go back to September 1982. If the hon. Gentleman was listening to what I was saying, however, and understanding the information that a range of help was now available for people who had lost their jobs, he will know that that range is wider than it has ever been before.
    Because we want to ensure that we provide a wide range of help, we shall be increasing the number of places at job clubs, and in the job interview guarantee scheme, by up to 100,000 next year. Employment training, on which we shall still be spending £750 million next year, will have an important part to play. Training, however, is not the only, or always the best, way in which we can help people without jobs back into the world of work.
    You would never guess, Madam Deputy Speaker, from the language of the Opposition, that those who lost their jobs when unemployment doubled under the last Labour Government had no access to employment training or a restart interview, no chance of a place in a job club, no prospect of assistance through the job interview guarantee scheme and no guarantee of an in-depth interview with a new client adviser as soon as they registered as unemployed. The present Government introduced this comprehensive package of assistance for the unemployed, and created the conditions for a record number of jobs—2 million more than existed in 1979. The present Government have presided over the creation of more jobs in recent years than any other European Community Government.
    It is, of course, the case that at the heart of our policy on training lie the training and enterprise councils. These councils provide a direct solution to the problem that has plagued Britain's training performance for the last two centuries—the difficulty of securing active employer involvement and commitment to training. The Labour party believes that it is possible to achieve employment commitment to training only by taxing employers, by penalising employers and by legislating against employers.
    304
    At the very most, such negative policies could only secure grudging employer involvement, and would generate great resentment amongst them.
    Mr. Blair indicated dissent.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Is he abandoning the levy announcement that he made as recently as Monday? If not, what is the levy but a tax on employers?
    Mr. Blair: What we are saying is that the "investors in people" standard can be made to work, and the target set out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor met, only if those employers who do not meet it make some contribution to overall training, and those who do meet it do not make a contribution.
    Mr. Howard: Of course it will be a tax. Or will it be a voluntary contribution? What on earth is a compulsory contribution except a tax? Policies of compulsion—perhaps "compulsory contributions" is the phrase that we should use—were tried in this country in the 1960s and the 1970s, and they failed. They led to a climate in which employers were forced into training by numbers and mindless form-filling in order to avoid levies.
    The hon. Gentleman need not take my word for it. These are the words of the CBI just last month:
    "The CBI members continue to reject the use of statutory measures as a means of increasing training activity. No legislative approaches have been devised that relate training to business needs."
    Coercing employers is not the way to secure the full-hearted and genuine commitment to training that we need if we are to secure the high levels of skills that will be very important in the years ahead.
    Training and enterprise councils provide the solution. They engage employers because they are led by employers; they have an impact with those working in the private sector because they are private sector bodies; and they can deliver increased commitment to training from employers because they are led by employers with a demonstrated commitment to training themselves.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The Secretary of State talks about getting a more active commitment from employers via the TEC mechanism. Would he care to comment on the case of the South Glamorgan TEC, which covers my constituency? The chairman of that body—Mr. Helliwell, of the building company William Cowlin and Sons—asked one of the civil servants who had been loaned to the TEC to shred the two tenders submitted in competition with that from his own firm to build the TEC's offices. The contract is worth about £450,000.
    Is that what the Secretary of State means when he talks about getting more active involvement by employers in the affairs of the TECs? Can he tell us what the outcome of this case will be? I understand that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales had to ring up Mr. Helliwell and tell him not only that his firm should not proceed with its now winning tender, the other two having been shredded by his civil servants—reluctantly, obviously, but on instruction from the chairman of the TEC—but that it should not take part in the re-tendering processes suggested by the Secretary of State for Wales in direct communication with Mr. Helliwell.
    Mr. Howard: I have no detailed knowledge of the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers. What

    305
    is the purport of his question? Is he suggesting that that is a basis for opposing the development of TECs? Is he suggesting that opposing TECs should therefore be the policy of his party? If so, he should have a word with the hon. Member for Sedgefield.
    Mr. Morgan: The point that I am making is that there are limits to the degree of freedom that employers may be given to run organisations that spend public money. If the Secretary of State's Department were to set up a more efficient monitoring organisation to watch what is happening in the TECs, we should be much happier about the expenditure of public money by private sector organisations, which he seems to think is the be-all and end-all of policy making in this field.
    Mr. Howard: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have effective monitoring arrangements and that we shall make sure that TECs behave in accordance with the contract that they have signed and in accordance with the high standards that we expect of them.
    Mr. Morgan: High standards?
    Mr. Howard: Yes, high standards.
    Already, training and enterprise councils have secured greater employer involvement in training at a senior level than has ever been achieved before in this country. More than 1,200 of the most important business people in the country have committed themselves to their local TECs. By last October every TEC had entered at least its development phase, completing the national network two years ahead of the schedule we set in 1988. In fact, 51 of the 82 across the country are already operational.
    I am the first to welcome expressions of support for Government policy from the Opposition, so I am delighted that the hon. Member for Sedgefield has gone on record repeatedly in support of training and enterprise councils. But it is a pity that his enthusiasm is not always shared by his own Front-Bench team. No sooner had the hon. Member told the "Today" programme on Radio 4 that TECs were important because of the extent of employer commitment to them than his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Fife, Central, launched what will no doubt go down in the history of these matters as his Sheffield initiative.
    On 13 December the hon. Gentleman went to Sheffield. His first call was at a trade union meeting organised by those in the Department of Employment who were understandably concerned about the consequences for their jobs of the changes that we are making in the way in which training is organised.
    We all know that the first rule of Labour party politics is that, when a Labour spokesman is addressing a trade union audience, he tells them what they want to hear. The hon. Member for Fife, Central behaved like a model Labour party spokesman when he went to Sheffield on 13 December. He told the trade union meeting that he regarded TECs as "new and unproven", and he urged the Government to "ease up" on the speed of their introduction. He said that the Labour party was opposed to the reductions in the size of the national administrative staff—reductions that are, of course, an inevitable consequence of a move to a locally based system. He supported the criticisms of the new financial flexibilities
    306
    granted by the Government to training and enterprise councils at their request, made by some 60 Labour Members of Parliament, including five Front-Bench spokesmen, in an early-day motion in November last year.
    The hon. Gentleman's second call was at BBC Radio Sheffield. By the time he got there, his blood was up. He said that the Government were moving far too quickly in establishing TECs, which he considered to be
    "a completely false emphasis on the nation's needs."
    I do not know how significant it is that the hon. Member for Sedgefield was out of the country on 13 December. I do not know how much this episode really was a case of "when the cat's away, the mouse will play", but I do think that the House and the country are entitled to a clear explanation of who it is that speaks for the Labour party on these matters. Which is the authentic voice of the Opposition? Is it the hon. Member for Sedgefield, the pro-TEC Dr. Jekyll? Or is it the hon. Member for Fife, Central, the anti-TEC Mr. Hyde? Or is it simply that the party is in favour of TECs when the hon. Member for Sedgefield is in the country but against them whenever he goes abroad?
    I have already outlined the progress that we have made in providing training opportunities for our young people.
    Mr. Blair: Perhaps the Minister would like to say whether he agrees with this comment in The Economist a couple of weeks ago:
    "Almost two years after its launch, to the sound of grandiloquent claims from Tory Ministers and loud cheers from businessmen, the Department of Employment's market-led training policy is in danger of falling apart."
    Mr. Howard: I do not agree with that comment in The Economist, but the person who wrote the article does not sit beside me on the Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman might expect rather more sympathy and support from his colleagues who sit beside him.
    In less than three months, we shall be launching training vouchers in 11 pilot areas. In those areas every school leaver will be issued with a voucher, worth an average of £1,500, with which they will be able to purchase any approved training course of their choice. They will be able to use their voucher with an employer, at a further education college or at any other local training provider approved by the relevant training and enterprise council.
    Training vouchers directly address the issue of increasing the proportion of our young people who receive training. They define very clearly the difference between the Government and the Labour party. We want to encourage young people by giving them choice and by giving them control over resources. We will give them the very best advice and guidance available, but we will then leave it up to them to make their own decisions.
    The Labour party, on the other hand, wants to force young people to fit into the pattern that it would design for them. It would close down opportunities to those young people who wish to pursue careers which do not require training from the very beginning, and it has no interest at all in transferring control of resources from the national to the local level, let alone into the hands of young people themselves.
    Mr. Ron Leighton: The Secretary of State has made a welcome announcement. To give real freedom of choice, will he also pay an allowance

    307
    to youngsters staying on at school after 16? It is important that many youngsters stay on at school, and we should not just pay them money and bribe them to leave school.
    Mr. Howard: It is important that young people should stay at school and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, they are doing so in increasing numbers. The voucher is designed to pay for training and not for anything else, so the hon. Gentleman's comparison is inappropriate.
    I have already referred to the astonishing omission from the hon. Member for Sedgefield's speech of his proposal, repeated earlier this week, for a training levy. If we look at the history of total confusion on this issue, we shall understand why he decided that it would be prudent to remain silent.
    The story begins in November 1986, when the Labour party's then employment spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), committed his party to introducing a training levy of 1 per cent. on the turnover of all companies. Two days later, he was flatly contradicted by the then shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who ruled out such a levy by saying:
    "I can't imagine it's going to be the policy."
    It was not long before the Leader of the Opposition tried to perform his usual act of reconciling the irreconcilable. On 20 March 1987 the right hon. Gentleman said
    "A levy on turnover would not be appropriate in many industries."
    That was the "maybe a levy" stage in the evolution of the Labour party's policy. By the time we get to 1989, we find a different levy. In "Meet the Challenge—Make the Change", we read that a major source of funding for the national training fund will be a contribution by all enterprises of 0·5 per cent. of payroll, to be known as the training investment contribution.
    Just a few months later, on 6 February 1990, the hon. Members for Sedgefield and for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) launched a new policy document covering technology which did not mention the levy at all. In March last year, in another document, "Investing in Britain's Future", there was again complete silence about the levy.
    On 22 March last year, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Circencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East brought the levy back. He said that it was still a part of the Labour party's proposals. That was affirmed later that month by the hon. Member for Sedgefield in a debate on training.
    On 5 April last year, the Leader of the Opposition re-entered the fray. The Independent of that date said:
    "Labour's plans to impose a £1·25 billion job tax on company payrolls to help finance the national training programme were quietly dropped yesterday. The unheralded climbdown was made by the Leader of the Opposition".
    A month later the Labour party produced yet another document, which made a proposal for a different levy. It said:
    "A purely voluntary approach will not work. We will therefore set employers … an initial minimum of 0·5 per cent. of their payroll to invest in high quality training to clear and agreed standards."
    Yesterday there was yet a further version of a levy, this time tied up with investment in training.
    Those dizzying changes of direction make the Labour party look ridiculous. The hon. Member for Sedgefield
    308
    resembles nothing so much as a spinning top, and it is not surprising that he omitted all reference to the levy from his speech.
    I want to make a serious offer to the Labour party, which is directly relevant to the question of skills shortages to which the hon. Member for Sedgefield referred. There is one thing that we need above all if we are to succeed in transforming the skills performance of our country in the decade ahead. We need to make sure that the attainment of relevant skills is suitably rewarded. That means recognising the importance of differentials in pay.
    There is not a great deal that Government can do to help achieve that objective, but there is an enormous amount that the Government can do to hinder it. Nothing would hinder it more than the introduction of the minimum wage to which the Labour party is so devoted. On even modest assumptions about consequential effects on differentials, a minimum wage as proposed by the Labour party would lose 750,000 jobs. They can only deny the validity of that estimate by suggesting that no attempt would be made to maintain differentials after a minimum wage was introduced. If that were to happen, it would sound the death knell of our hopes for improving the skills of the British people. If the Labour party is serious about the need to improve skills, it will abandon its proposals for a minimum wage. The two objectives are utterly inconsistent.
    There is a very clear choice on the issue of training lying before the House and the British people. It is a choice between a Government who set the pace on training and an Opposition who struggle to catch up. It is a choice between a Government committed to work in partnership with British employers and an Opposition pledged to work against them. It is a choice between a Government who have already delivered a massive increase in spending on training and an Opposition unable to comment on their spending plans.
    It is a choice between a Government committed to expanding training choices and opportunities for our young people and an Opposition determined to conscript them into a rigid framework. It is a choice between a Government determined to deliver training on a local basis, matched to local needs, and an Opposition pledged to centralise, regulate and nationalise. Above all, it is a choice between a Government who have already delivered the most significant improvements in this nation's training performance in our history and who have put in place the policy for a dramatic leap forward in our national training performance in the 1990s—and an Opposition condemned by their own blinkered ignorance to a policy mish-mash of cheap imitation and impractical extremism.
    Training is a serious business. It requires a serious Government, certain of the way forward and committed to work with every part of our society to deliver improvements in our training performance. There is only one party in the House and the nation able to form such a Government. That is why we shall stay on the Government Benches long after the next general election.
    4.57 pm
    Mr. Ron Leighton: In the war in the Gulf we are continually told two things about our service men. We are told about the quality of their equipment and the standard of their training and that a

    309
    land battle will not begin until the troops are adequately trained. Training makes for success or failure, victory or defeat.
    There is another war that is possibly more important and of greater long-term significance for the future of this country and that is the battle for economic survival in an increasingly competitive world. Our responsibility is to give our people the best equipment and training for that battle. We are not doing so. We are failing our people. While our competitors forge ahead with state-of-the-art, high-tech equipment, investment in Britain is negative. Our training is woefully and scandalously inadequate. We are sending our people into the battle of economic competition with one arm tied behind their back. We have the worst educated and trained work force in the industrialised world. We have a staggering skills shortage alongside large-scale unemployment, often in those industries where the balance of payments deficit is greatest.
    That failure is deep-seated. More than a century ago, in 1884, the Royal Commission on technical instruction said:
    "Neglect of training is the key reason for Britain's lack of competitiveness."
    There has been a history of failure and neglect.
    One country that we must match is Germany. In simple industries such as furniture, nine tenths of German workers have served a three-year, externally examined apprenticeship, whereas in Britain the figure is fewer than one in 10. Is it any wonder that German productivity is 60 per cent. higher than ours and that much of the kitchen furniture sold in this country is made in Germany? Hon. Members may have noticed that high-quality garments and textiles also bear the "Made in Germany" tag. Eighty per cent. of German machinists have served a three-year apprenticeship, but hardly any British machinist has done so.
    The same is true in virtually every other trade, such as the hotel trade. German sales assistants have product knowledge. One rarely meets a British shop assistant who is able to explain what he is selling. Countries such as Germany are not standing still, but are making progress all the time and at a much faster rate than us. They have three, four or five times as many skilled workers, which gives them an enormous competitive advantage.
    We have fallen behind not only European countries but countries of the Pacific and the Pacific ring. We face not only the powerful economy of Japan, but countries such as South Korea, which hopes that by the end of this decade 80 per cent. of its young people will reach university entrance standards. We are hoping for 30 per cent. The position is dire. The industrialised world is undergoing a technological revolution. Evidence that the Select Committee on Employment has received shows that in the next decade between 70 and 80 per cent. of new jobs will require brain not muscle power, and that almost half of them—roughly 40 per cent.—will require brain skills equal to a university degree or its equivalent. Unless we take drastic action, the revolution will pass us by.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): May I attempt to correct an often-quoted mistake in the interpretation of the higher education figures, which I recall from my previous responsibilities for education? The hon. Gentleman is comparing the proportion of our young
    310
    people who enter higher education with that in other countries. A relatively low proportion enter higher education in Britain because we have a selective system of entry, unlike other countries, where everyone who attains the equivalent of our A-level has a right to higher education. The benefit of our system is that people do not drop out of it; more stay in higher education than elsewhere. The proportion of our young people who graduate with degrees and diplomas is one of the highest in the world.
    Mr. Leighton: I am always interested to hear the hon. Gentleman on these matters, on which he is an expert. I hope that he is not being complacent. The figures that I have show that at the end of the decade about 30 per cent. of British youngsters will achieve university entrance standards, whereas South Korea is aiming for 80 per cent. The point that I am making is that we are falling behind not only western Europe but the countries of the Pacific and that, because we do not grasp the gravity of the problem, we are in danger of falling further behind. We led the first industrial revolution, but I fear that unless we take more drastic action we shall fall behind and be relegated to the low-wage, low-productivity third division of nations. The relative decline in the British economy is accelerating and it will be extremely difficult to reverse.
    Surely the facts are known; our failure in training has been analysed to death. There has been a stream of reports, which we all know about, but what are we going to do? The Government's record is hopelessly inadequate. The ever-worsening skills gap surely is testimony to their failure. We have had YOPS, TOPS, the community programme, the youth training scheme, and the new JTS and ET. All those measures were much trumpeted, but most of them have been scrapped. All were underfunded, largely cosmetic and had as much to do with massaging the unemployment figures as with training.
    We had the Manpower Services Commission, which was a tripartite body. The Government dislike tripartite bodies and are hostile to unions. They robbed the MSC of its independence, leaned on it, gave it instructions and treated it like a puppet. They kicked the trade union representatives off it, swamped it with employers and killed it.
    Next, we had the Training Agency, but the Government killed that. We now have no national body with overall responsibility for training. The industrial training boards have been abolished, and in their place we have small and weak industry training organisations, which again are under-resourced. The unions are being kept out. They are neglected and few people know that those organisations exist.
    After two or three years of further upheaval and reorganisation, training and enterprise councils were introduced. The launch of the TECs was accompanied by substantial reductions in funding. As the Secretary of State knows, there was disappointment among business men on TECs and they expressed their doubts and despondency. They felt that the reduction in funding undermined the credibility of the Government's commitment. What a way to start an initiative. What a way to launch the TECs—greatly to reduce the funding available.
    If we are to achieve world-class results, it will cost money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) pointed out, the training budget of the Department of Employment has been cut every year since

    311
    1986—87. Provision for next year is three quarters the amount for 1986—87 in real terms. Provision for ET this year is 29 per cent. down on last year and next year there will be a further cut of 34 per cent. Next year's resources devoted to ET will be less than half the total of two years ago.
    Employers have been complaining about the cuts. I shall mention the industry with which I am connected—the printing industry. I had dinner last night with the British Printing Industries Federation, the body which represents printing employers. It said that reports in the national press on 29 January of a reduction of £79 million in the youth training budget for 1991–92 confirms its worse fears. In 1987, as a national managing agent, the BPIF was able to offer grants to companies of nearly £28 a week. In a briefing, it says:
    "As a direct result of reductions in Government expenditure on YT, we are currently able to offer only £16 a week. Allowing for the effects of inflation between 1987 and 1990, the grants have been eroded by 54 per cent. in real terms. The incentive value of the grants is already weak. A further cut … combined with the effects of inflation, would almost certainly rule out any BPIF participation in future."
    That is the printing employers. Cuts have made them so despondent that they are likely to opt out, resulting in the elimination of 1,200 high-quality training placements each year—a significant loss not only to the printing industry but to the new TECs. If the Secretary of State does not take any notice of what I say to him, I hope that he will listen to the printing employers.
    We all wish the TECs well, if only because they are the only show in town. The best that can be said of them is that they are unproven. We cannot say what they have done because they are only just coming into existence. They have not done anything yet, so they are still unproven. Their chief feature is that they are employer-led. Of course we must involve employers, but this is where the scepticism comes in. Can training be left to employers? What has stopped them training hitherto? No one has prevented them from doing so. The yawning skills gap, of which we are all aware, exists precisely because employers failed us in the past. Many employers can see no further than their noses. They regard training as an expendable overhead. It goes first when times get hard. They take a short-term view. Many prefer to poach rather than to train employees
    Dr. Kim Howells: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are employers who recognise the importance of training and have good training programmes? Does not that reinforce his remark that all too often they find their trained personnel poached by employers who do not train their staff? Does he agree that that is a serious consideration for any industry investing in any area?
    Mr. Leighton: That is absolutely true. All successful employers, businesses and companies train staff. We must ensure that their efforts are not undercut by bad employers who do not train, but poach. That is the argument for a levy. We should not apologise for speaking about a levy. It is exactly what we want. It is difficult to have confidence in an approach which leaves everything to employers.
    My main criticism of the Government is that, when a radical improvement in national training and education is needed urgently and badly, they abdicate all responsibility. If anyone asks about training, he is always referred back to the TECs. It has nothing to do with the Government. Ministers repeat endlessly that training is a matter for employers and nothing to do with the Government. They
    312
    wash their hands of it. That is the Government's major sin of omission. It is a view driven by dogma. They have an ideological aversion to intervention. That is the nub of the issue and where things have gone wrong. It is incredible that the Government should be so shortsighted. The market mechanism—the invisible hand of Adam Smith —will not produce enough training. In the present recession manufacturing companies are struggling to survive. They are cutting anything that can be cut and often training is one of the first casualties.
    Mr. James Paice: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that in the past training has been one of the areas to be cut. Is he aware that in these present difficult times that is not happening? The CBI is saying that for the first time industry is recognising the importance of maintaining its training budgets and that they are not being cut.
    Mr. Leighton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the best employers now understand the importance of training. Nevertheless, this is not an economic climate which encourages training, as the hon. Gentleman will agree from his knowledge of these matters.
    Employers' interests are often the short-term, specific training needs of their particular company. It should be fairly simple for everyone to grasp that the aggregate of the present needs of individual companies does not equal the national need or national interest. Somebody must look not just at the perception of present needs, but at the country's future needs. Who can speak up for the nation's needs in the overall national interest? Only the Government, not individual employers. That is what divides us in the House.
    We in the Labour party think that the Government should accept that responsibility. Obviously, there must be local efforts, but they must add up to a national strategy. The seriousness of our situation means that it cannot be left to a purely voluntary approach and to market forces. Statutory underpinning is needed. The Government should set clear, national targets and monitor progress regularly.
    The previous Secretary of State, who I am pleased to see always attends our debates on these matters, advocated setting national targets. He was on the right lines. The new Secretary of State has reneged on all that. He has made a dramatic U-turn and gone backwards.
    Mr. Howard rose—
    Mr. Leighton: Perhaps the Secretary of State will change his mind and say that he accepts the targets laid down by his predecessor.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have said that targets must be clearly related to responsibilities. I set out the responsibilities of those who have a role to play in these matters in my national strategic guidance which I issued in the autumn. I have welcomed the CBI's initiative. It is consulting about national targets. I have said that when the CBI's initiative is complete, I shall consider with it how best the Government can be associated with the targets that come from that exercise, so long as they are closely related to the relevant responsibility.
    Mr. Leighton: Perhaps the present incumbent has not completely fallen back on the previous position. Perhaps

    313
    he is on a learning curve and is coming round to the idea of accepting the responsibility of setting national goals. Last night, I had the chance of speaking to Sir Bryan Nicholson of the CBI who has done a great deal of work on this issue. He has the right idea and the previous Secretary of State had the right idea. I hope that the present Secretary of State will come round to it. I should be grateful if he would write to me and set out exactly what his policy is on these matters.
    All 16 to 18-year-olds should get education and training leading to a recognised qualification. I was pleased to hear what the Secretary of State said about that today. It should be unlawful to employ youngsters without training.
    In order to provide a real choice for youngsters of whether to stay on or to leave school at 16, an allowance should be paid to those who stay on. A youngster who leaves school and goes on a youth training scheme receives an allowance. In other words, we pay people to leave school. We should pay them a similar amount to stay at school from the age of 16. That point must be addressed.
    It is not only the young; all workers need training. Every year time should be allocated for training. All our people at every level, now and throughout their working life, need training to cope with the changing world. I am attracted to the idea of everyone having a training passport. It would outline their entitlements to training —their rights. It would also outline the details of their achievements. We need to make a special effort to reach out to women, especially those who return to work, and ethnic minorities. There should be training committees in every work place just as there are safety committees. We should ensure that good firms are not undercut by bad ones—that those who train are not undercut by those who poach.
    How are we to pay for this? In my experience, everything comes back in the end to money and who pays. The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) said that the British Government put as much money into training as continental Governments and that historically British employers have not invested an equal sum. We could gain by looking at the French practice. The French have a levy on pay bills to be spent on training. I think that it is 1·4 per cent., but we can discuss how much it should be. The great merit of that is that there is no bureaucracy. When a firm's accounts are audited, if the money has been spent on training, that is fine and if not, it is taken in tax. The levy should be linked to the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, which Sir Bryan Nicholson is promoting. In that way training will be seen not as a cost, but as an essential investment leading to increased productivity and competitiveness. It would be a way of getting more out of the work force by having less machine downtime, the ability to use more advanced technology, to innovate and respond to change. A systematic investment in our greatest renewable resource—our people—will yield increasing results and returns over time. For the individual, training is the gateway to opportunity, to rewards, to success and to job satisfaction.
    My criticism of the Government is their failure to respond to the challenge and to accept their responsibility. They have refused to set targets, but, given what the Secretary of State has just said, I look forward to targets being set. The Government have refused the money that is
    314
    available, which is the wrong signal to send now. They persist in relying upon voluntaryism, and in that way they have failed the nation.
    5.19 pm
    Sir Norman Fowler: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in his concern for training for the long-term unemployed. I am also touched by his concern for employment training and the employment training programme. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that that concern would be a darned sight more convincing if it had not arisen after a period in which many in the Labour party had campaigned against employment training and proper training for the long-term unemployed.
    The previous shadow spokesman on training went round the country seeking to campaign against employment training. The Trades Union Congress did the same, and went against it at its conference. Its decision was not only against my advice, but against the advice of the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sedgefield remembers that his right hon. Friend pleaded with the TUC to reconsider its decision. The Labour party is not in such a strong position now as the hon. Member for Sedgefield suggested it was to take a moral stand on training.
    Mr. Blair: Surely the criticism of employment training was based not on the notion of training for the unemployed, but on the insufficiency of training within the scheme. If that is so, surely the important thing is to use any extra resources to improve the quality of training.
    Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is trying to re-write history. I understand his embarrassment, but it is all down on the record. Despite the hon. Gentleman's considerable techniques as a lawyer, I do not believe that even he can square the fact that the leader of his party went to the TUC to ask it to vote one way, but it voted the other way. If that is a victory for the Labour party, may it have many similar victories in other areas.
    Mr. Tony Worthington: I advise the right hon. Gentleman not to pursue that argument too far, because he should know that his successor is backing away at speed from employment training because he has realised what a waste of money it has been in terms of outcome.
    Sir Norman Fowler: That is not right; it is yet another fundamental misconception of employment training. I accept that employment training is not sacrosanct, but there is no proposal to abolish it.
    There is more agreement on both sides of the House about training than this debate has so far illustrated, which is a pity—the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) touched upon that. Some schemes and programmes have been remarkably successful, for example, the compacts. Under that scheme, industry and schools have come together so that children who meet particular requirements have a job with training. That scheme was long overdue. The first compact initiative was a scheme undertaken in Newham, but the major initiative was carried out by the Government after I had visited Boston.

    315
    I would have been happy if we had had four or five compacts as a result of our initiative, but we now have 47 and another 16 are on stream. About 5,0000 employers take part in those compacts, and 25,000 jobs with training are available. That is an outstanding result. For years we have all spoken about the importance of industry and education working closer together. The compacts have achieved just that, for the benefit of young people.
    There are two ways in which we can approach this debate. First, we can treat it as a party knockabout, in which the Opposition seek to establish that all the problems in training have suddenly arisen in the past 10 years. That is a silly argument and anyone who knows anything about training knows that it is nonsense. If we pursue such an argument, it will not add a great deal to our debate. Alternatively, we can recognise that training and the lack of training are a long-term problem.
    In terms of training, this country has a great deal about which to be modest. We have run behind countries such as Germany not just for 10 or 20 years, but for the entire century. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East, with his knowledge of the subject, made that precise point. In terms of training we have run behind our major competitors in western Europe for the past 90 years. If we accept that, however, we should try to put together the best ideas available so that we can make a recovery. That recovery has started in the 1990s, and it must go on into the next century. However, we shall not be able to change the whole basis of training in a matter of a few months or years—such change must continue decade after decade.
    Given the problems faced by British industry, this may seem an odd time to raise the subject of training, but training is a long-term policy that must be followed. In one respect, we are better placed now to tackle the problem of training than at any time in the past 40 years. In the past, many of our managers had to deal exclusively with strikes and other industrial relations problems. However, in part due to reform of the industrial relations law, such disputes are not anything like as much a problem now as they were in the 1960s. Industrial relations are much better than they were, and I am sure hon. Members will welcome that improvement. The question for the Government and the nation is, what is the next step?
    Mr. Mark Wolfson: I agree with my right hon. Friend that now is a good moment to ensure that there is a greater emphasis on training on the part of employers. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that there is a necessary requirement to raise the quality of goods and services, and that to link quality with training is a necessary step forward?
    Sir Norman Fowler: Yes, the challenge now facing the country is to make its work force as skilled as possible.
    A range of actions are required to improve the skills of our work force. We should be open to the challenge, and we should consider all the options. I am sure that all hon. Members recognise that we must ensure that those in the 16 to 19-year-old age group are trained well. We know about the shortage of young people coming on to the labour market, and we must ensure that that age group is treated for what it is—a scarce resource. Too many young people go into jobs without training and the time has come to consider radical steps to ensure that that no longer happens.
    316
    We should not, however, run away from the consequences, and if that means some kind of mandatory training, so be it. I strongly advocate that that issue be considered anew. The public would support some change if the reward was better training for young people and that people in the 16-to-19 age group did not enter the labour market without any training or prospect of training.
    We must also remember that people who are beyond school age and youth training, even though it goes up to the age of 19, are at work now. It is important to realise that training does not simply take place at an initial, introductory stage, but must continue through life. We must be signed up to that concept.
    We have a duty to unemployed people: there is no question about that. We have a particular duty to the long-term unemployed. When I examined some employment training programmes, it struck me that there was a great deal of talent among long-term unemployed people if only we could use it properly. There is a massive agenda for training.
    There is a mountain to climb in training. No matter which party is in power, that mountain exists, because the problem is so long-standing in Britain. I make three suggestions for the future. First, there must be some consistency in training policy. Clearly, schemes can be changed and developed. Changes in employment training are not a source of criticism, but the basic structure should remain. It is important to have national standards, but it is also vital to have local delivery. In that I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The training and enterprise councils are of fundamental importance because they involve local industry, local commitment and some excellent managers.
    The hon. Member for Sedgefield referred to the comment in The Economist. I believe that The Economist has got it entirely wrong on training and enterprise councils. It published an article on their history which I knew from my knowledge and experience was entirely misplaced and wrong. The chairman of the National Training Task Force replied to the article and The Economist has returned to the fray. It does no good. It simply betrays the fact that it is not aware of the developments taking place in training in Britain.
    Having created training and enterprise councils and attracted some outstanding managers to them, we must devolve to the TECs. There must be no question of lingering bureaucracy or, dare I say it, the Department of Employment, or a part of it, remotely getting in the way or drowning the councils in forms and regulations. The TECs must have the freedom to deliver.
    My second suggestion is that it must be recognised that Government have a financial duty and responsibility to train unemployed people. I hear what is said about employment training. I agree that one of the major problems—the hon. Member for Newham, North-East will accept this—is to persuade people to consider the training schemes and opportunities on offer. Often it is not a case of people going on employment training programmes or to job clubs and saying, "We do not like this. It is inadequate." People simply do not go, even if they have agreed to do so. If anything could be done to alleviate that problem, everyone would be happy.
    The London survey, and to a lesser extent the west midlands survey, showed that a great number of long-term unemployed people had qualifications. Many had a

    317
    degree. It was not a lack of training that was at fault but a lack of will—perhaps motivation is a better word—to return to employment.
    When unemployment falls, as it did in the past two or three years, the cash for training unemployed people is reduced. I agreed to reduce it. If one means what one says about giving priority to other areas such as the health service, Ministers should be prepared to reduce their budgets. However, I must say in the gentlest way that that is not the position today. Unemployment is not falling, it is increasing, and better training is one way of tackling it. I address those words not to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment but rather to the shadowy unseen guest at all our debates, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
    We have a substantial training budget in Britain of £2·6 billion. By any standards, that is a substantial amount. It is certainly much more substantial than the amount spent by the previous Labour Government, but I hope that we can take a new look at the matter.
    My third point is also about money and resources. There are two possible sources of money for training. One is the Government and the other is industry. When I say "the Government", I really mean the taxpayer. Training for industry is the responsibility of industry. But we then come up against the old problem that the best companies train and the others tend to poach the people who have been trained. That argument has bedevilled the training debate year after year in the House.
    I say to the hon. Member for Sedgefield that I am cautious about a national levy collected by a national body and policed—inevitably, such schemes must be policed —by a national bureaucracy, which was how it worked on the last occasion that such a scheme was tried. However, I say openly that I am not opposed in principle to those who avoid providing training making some financial contribution.
    The obvious solution—here I take up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—is to ask the training and enterprise councils and the National Training Task Force for their advice and proposals. It is they who represent industry. They know the training position. They know the impact of training on industry and the financial impact on industry itself. They include some outstanding people. It would be in accordance with our views on the training and enterprise councils to ask them to examine the position and make proposals on a basis of all options being open.
    The training and enterprise councils are much more likely than we are to know what is best for industry. We should recognise that training has changed in Britain and that we have passed the stage where the centre seeks to know best on all subjects, whether that centre is the Department of Employment, Sheffield, the Manpower Services Commission or the Training Agency. We now have a potentially much more flexible and practically experienced organisation. My only plea is that we should use it to its maximum effect and impact. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do so.
    Few subjects in government are more important than training. If we can get it right, we can have a skilled work force and a prosperous country. If we fail, our future is
    318
    unquestionably much more limited. There is a long way to go, but the Government are getting it right, and they certainly deserve our support tonight.
    5.39 pm
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: In some ways the speech by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was the most thoughtful in the debate so far. That was partly due to his privilege as one who has moved beyond the job rather than being in it or aspiring to it. A number of his comments were well worth discussing and I hope that the Minister will deal with one of them in particular—the right hon. Gentleman's emphasis on the fact that there is still a mountain to climb.
    The Secretary of State often says that the Labour Opposition would do better if they gave credit where it was due. I am happy to give such credit. The Government's achievement is that of having introduced the principle of entitlement where previously there was virtually none. It is a definite step forward and now we need to discuss quality, methods of delivery and the necessary investment to back up that entitlement.
    Much of what the Secretary of State discussed, however, concerned travelling through the foothills—ascending a peak, dropping down the other side and ascending another one, whereupon the Government raise a flag and congratulate themselves on having climbed another foothill. But the mountain remains to be climbed. In some cases we need to build on what is already in place; in others, we must make new departures.
    My speech will differ from the Labour party's contribution to this debate in three essential respects. First, I intend to concentrate on an outline of our policy proposals instead of discussing what is happening or what has happened, which does not get us very far. Secondly, my party has clearly identified education and training as priorities and we have also clearly stated that increased investment, for which we call, may imply an increase in taxation. If people do not believe that to be a correct priority they will reject it, but they face a clear choice on our stance.
    Thirdly, I make no apology for concentrating much of what I have to say on subjects that are the responsibility not of Employment Ministers but of Ministers at the Department of Education and Science. Our policy would be to bring training and education together in one Ministry—a necessary change.
    Much of what needs to be done to lay the skills base for this country should be directed at the 16 to 19-year-olds and their involvement in continuing education and training. Much of the context of this debate was outlined at rather too great length by the Opposition spokesman, who did not leave himself time to spell out Labour's alternative—it would have been useful to know its alternative.
    In June last year the estimates day debate on training fell in the same week as the publication of the Employment Select Committee report on the subject. The report highlighted the poor record of this country in training people in the skills needed for the new high technology age which we are entering. Eight months later there has been no adequate response to the points made in the report. The Government are not sufficiently heeding the warnings about what will happen—if they do not act more quickly —to our competitive position and to the future of young

    319
    people who will continue to be turned out without the skills that they need. We may talk about adult training, but if 16 to 19-year-olds miss out at that age it is difficult for them to retrieve later what they missed. That is why we must move as rapidly as possible to improve what they are being given so that we can stop turning out so many youngsters without skills and start to turn them out with skills.
    The Government have implemented cuts in training. I understand the argument that unemployment has fallen, but my party believes that that opportunity should have been taken to begin a massive improvement, not to economise. Ministers talk of the importance of training; they deliver a cut of 30 per cent. for training programmes for the adult unemployed. They talk of the importance of skills; they deliver reduced expenditure on employment training. They talk of the importance of training for the young, but they cut expenditure on youth training in real terms.
    So what hope, what prospect and what promise of opportunity does this give the unemployed and the young? The problem is becoming increasingly urgent. As unemployment rises, demand for education and training will become more apparent. I crave the indulgence of the House for an example from my constituency. In September last year, the largest single employer in St. Austell, English China Clays, announced 750 redundancies—a devastating blow for what is in some ways a one-industry town. Most males there are employed in that industry, which is relatively unskilled but which provides stable employment opportunities for young people growing up in the area.
    Not so long ago English China Clays' executives were rather unhappy about programmes of investment in alternative employment in the area because they believed that they could use all the male labour that was likely to come on the market and they did not fancy the idea of having to compete for employees.
    We now recognise that such employment is in long-term decline. The headquarters staff of the company are moving out of St. Austell in response to the company's international concerns. Some of the workers face compulsory redundancy, but the greatest impact is on the employment prospects for 16 to 19-year-olds, who used to expect and receive training and employment from the town's major employer.
    That highlights the inadequacy of investment in the skills that would enable these young people to build alternative careers or would attract employers who might want to make St. Austell a centre for alternative skills. Far as we are from the mainstream, apart from the extractive industries—tin, clay, fish or food, the traditional industries of Cornwall—there are not many other reasons for employers to set up in the area if the work force lacks the necessary skills.
    In Cornwall, wages are 20 per cent. lower than the national average and unemployment is double the national average. Whatever happens to wages or unemployment elsewhere in the country, statistics for Cornwall are always roughly the same: wages 20 per cent. below and unemployment roughly double. The only way to overcome the problem is to build a skills base that can begin to transform the economy of my part of the world. Rather in the same way as Cornwall is on the edge of the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom is on the edge of Europe, and in the long term the United Kingdom itself may
    320
    become an economy with low wages, high unemployment and few skills—just as the economy of Cornwall has traditionally been.
    Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that employers all over the country are taking much more interest in schools and are running some of the courses in those schools to help groom youngsters for the industries in which they are interested? Training and enterprise councils, made up of the top management of top local companies, are an enormous success. Gone are the old moans from industry that schools do not produce the type of people that it wants. Now, local industries train the people whom they need for the skills to match their industries. At the same time, I realise that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is a peculiar case.
    Mr. Taylor: I do not deny the importance of the involvement of business in schools. I encourage it; I should like more of it. Neither do I dismiss the work in which TECs are engaged or some of the experiments, such as credit systems, that are being conducted, or the work of companies such as Sight and Sound Education Ltd that are delivering skills, not just training. That is interesting and points to new initiatives that would bring a high return on investment. That has not always been the case; nor is it the case now.
    As I say, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) is talking about the foothills, not the mountain. We are not overcoming the problem as a whole. TECs are essentially a system of management and delivery and do not deal with how much is delivered or with the quality levels that are needed. The Government have to initiate that, because they set the financial limits and decide on the quality levels. The Government must tackle that much more strongly.
    I shall now deal with training for 16 to 19-year-olds. The debate about the crisis in training should not get bogged down in the immediate technical problems of how it is delivered, although such problems urgently need to be tackled. We will solve this once and for all only by looking into the slightly longer term to see what needs to be achieved. The long-term skills shortage is a tragedy. If we do not deliver the goods now, we will face difficulties in future and will not be able to retrieve the position.
    I am angry at the way in which we have failed the majority of our 16 to 19-year-olds. We should be ashamed of the way in which their potential is marginalised by a system that focuses on the academic minority. In Britain only 35 per cent. of 16 to 19-year-olds are in full-time education or training. In Germany the figure is 47 per cent., in France it is 66 per cent., in Japan 77 per cent. and in the USA it is 79 per cent. One third of our 16 to 19-year-olds are not receiving even part-time education or training, and no solution to the skills shortage will be found unless the needs of that age group are met. We need to create a climate in which it is natural for young people automatically to continue education and training of some sort until the age of 19. In the world that we are entering we cannot safely say that we have completed anybody's education and training at the age of 16. To say that is to sell people and the country short, because it will not be long before we find skills shortages emerging. Young people must be given a sound skills base.

    321
    Too many young people are cut off from future education opportunities, and that means that the needs of our economy are not met. At 16, many young people are disillusioned with education and seek independence and the attraction of earning money. We need to find a way to reconcile that with the need to continue their education and training. It is scandalous that so many employers are keen to capitalise on the desire to earn and have independence and buy young people out of training into low-status jobs for life. Such jobs have limited career potential and no opportunity for training. We know that employers offer youth trainees a few pounds extra to leave courses which would give them the qualifications that they will later need to improve themselves and which the country will also need. We must tackle that problem.
    The Liberal Democrats have proposed a radical measure to address the natural aspirations of young people while providing them with education and training. We do not flinch from arguing that all employees under the age of 19 should spend two days a week in education and training, part of it at the direction of the employer and part depending on the choice of the individual. The benefits of those two days are undisputed. Whether the principle of compulsion is disputed is another matter, but the benefits will be better skills, improved education and career prospects, and the better trained work force that the economy needs.
    Two days is the base from which young people could be sufficiently qualified to go back into higher education at a later stage. That is crucial. Those two days would be spent following recognised and validated courses with a range of standards. The best of the young people would be able to meet standards that would enable them to return to publicly funded higher and further education. All policies currently aimed at those who leave school at 16 fail to do that. We would offer to those young people the choice of either staying full time at school or taking up employment offering two days a week qualified education and training, from which the best of them on either route could see a way into further or higher education. That would begin to bring about a dramatic change in the way that we treat our young people, especially those who could not otherwise afford to take such opportunities.
    Mr. Ian McCartney: There is a more feasible, cost-effective and better organised way to deal with this issue. The Government and the Opposition are committed to the Business and Technician Education Council, which is wedded to the system of preparing people for work and for education opportunities in school and on entering employment. Some schools are involved in projects with the Department of Education and Science, specifically to provide that type of curriculum for 16 to 19-year-olds who are in education and working for local authorities. They work to a curriculum agreed with the Department of Education and Science and BTEC and have recognised standards to reach. That is a far more logical way to deal with the matter than the way proposed by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Taylor: BTEC has many advantages and much can be built on it, but I do not think that it addresses the
    322
    problem that I seek to address. I do not propose to give way again because I wish to outline a package and I am concerned about the time.
    Through the element of compulsion we can break the present cycle, which leads to many people rejecting education and training at 16, often because their parents did that or because their expectations are low. Some parents are not prepared to allow their children to continue with their education and training because they cannot afford to see it through. We would provide a valuable freedom by saying to young people that they can have the independence of a salary and the responsibilities of employment, but that the option of further education and training is still available, as it will be if young people obtain an accredited qualification as a result of their two days out-of-work training.
    That is not a proposal for sending 16-year-olds back to school. It is to give them an opportunity to receive training or education in any subject they like, academic or practical, relevant to their job, for their own development, or for its own value. We need such an initiative to reverse attitudes in Britain, and there is no point in pretending that anything less will deliver the kind of change that we need within the time that is available.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Taylor: If time allows I shall give way later, but I should like to make some progress.
    In order to achieve what is needed we must question the Government's insistence on maintaining the academic and technical divide and the A-level system. We must have a fully modular single system of academic and tertiary qualifications, overseen by a national body. Employers and other groups must be able to set up courses that are validated and approved by that body, and are tailored to the needs of a company, group or sector. That would provide a system of education for 16 to 19-year-olds that would meet the needs of every individual and ensure that no horizons are unnecessarily limited by the nature of the system itself.
    The problem as a whole cannot simply be tackled by considering only 16 to 19-year-olds, because we have already allowed too many people in that age group to slip through and reach adulthood without the skills which they now need on the shop floor and which they will need even more in future. That means giving equal importance to adult education. First, we must develop and give to people the right to return to training or education. The period of training would be equivalent to one year but would probably be taken in modules. There must be investment in such a system, and we must ensure that business is prepared to recognise its value.
    Secondly, if we are to do that at an achievable cost, we must use new techniques and new methods. I mentioned some of the developments earlier. We must look at the open learning and distance learning techniques, developed by the Open university at graduate level, but applicable at all levels. Although the Government have started to move on this, they have not yet done anything effective, particularly at the Open college. The matter must be re-addressed.
    If we have both a new start for 16 to 19-year-olds—the group which misses out under the British education and training system—and help for adults who cannot make up

    323
    for what was not delivered to them at an earlier stage, we shall begin to develop a system that will put us at the forefront of what is happening in Europe and the world rather than at the back. Rather than criticising, the Labour party should have been offering that as an agenda. We are prepared to face up to the costs of such a system, but it is not. The Government may argue that they have already made many achievements, but that is to concentrate only on the foothills and to forget the mountain that there is still to climb.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The minimum time taken by Back-Bench Members has been 20 minutes each. This is a short debate and the winding-up speeches are to start at a little before 6.30. I appeal for brevity.
    6 pm
    Mr. Lewis Stevens: I agree with the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). Apart from covering almost everything to do with training, he expressed a moderate and non-partisan view of the aims for training with which many of us agree. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) also put forward aims with which we can agree.
    The Opposition motion is a little audacious. If ever there was a party which did not recognise the importance of training to the country, it was the Labour party. I agree that in the past even the Tory party gave less importance to training than it does now, and that industry was reluctant to see the importance of training. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), said that the needs of the country and those of employers often did not coincide, but they must come somewhere near to coinciding if they are to succeed. If they do not, the danger will be that the centre will have to set out what everyone should do. That has been tried in the past and it did not work. The system provided opportunities for education and training. If that suited the individual, that was fine; but if it did not, nothing else was available. What was on offer was restricted.
    There was a similar problem with the training boards. Instead of the employer and the trainee getting what they wanted and the system being fitted around that, the boards and the Department laid down rules. Through the training and enterprise councils, the Government are trying to provide a system which takes account of what the individual and the company need. In particular, the youth training scheme will be geared to the needs of the individual. That is what training is all about.
    The hon. Member for Truro spoke about providing for the 16 to 19-year-olds. I accept that this is an important group. Of particular importance are those in it who do not go on to further education and who, in general, need some training. I wonder how many of those who leave school at 16 from choice would look forward to the opportunity that the hon. Member for Truro would like to provide for them. YTS has brought about a recognition by 16 to 19-year-olds that training is desirable. Before YTS, many who left school at 16 did not accept that training should be a part of their future. They did not realise that it was necessary and they resented doing it. Even today, many young people would prefer to leave school at 16 without having to go into training. That may be a fault of the
    324
    education system. Unless the development and acceptance of training which have been a part of YTS are carried on, things will never improve.
    Mr. McCartney: In the 1960s, when I left school, everyone in my class who left at 15 started an apprenticeship the following Monday. That was traditional, but since then the apprenticeship system has been destroyed, along with the opportunity to learn skills. When I left school, anyone who wanted an apprenticeship was guaranteed one. Nowadays, those leaving school are offered short-term YTS places.
    Mr. Stevens: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In the 1960s, people could go into fully paid jobs rather than apprenticeships. Whether they believed in that or not, the trade unions encouraged the development of such jobs. Often, because of the way the wages were set, one would not necessarily get better wages for having completed an apprenticeship than for having a national certificate. The lack of differentials between skilled and semi-skilled work was a great deterrent to training. It also did not encourage companies.
    I welcome the approach that the Government have taken and their success in the way the TECs have developed. For the first time, industry, local education authorities and the community have come together to generate the training to serve an area and the people in it. So often, facilities were available for training but did not provide the skills necessary for the area. As a result, industry did not have the skills that it wanted at the right time. Time is essential in training. One cannot guess what might happen in five years' time, particularly if the projection is a national one. For example, population forecasts of what might happen in five years are often not fulfilled for 10 years. If that happened with training, we would have an awful lot of trouble on our hands. TECs are important because they understand their areas and offer a facility that we have not previously had.
    The hon. Member for Newham, North-East was critical of the TECs in comparison with the other schemes of the past 10 years. However, the acceptance by 16 to 19-year-olds of training because of YTS and the changes that we have made in the training available to them has brought us to the position where, instead of having a general national concept, we can focus on local areas, relying on businesses and local education authorities to provide training. If we had said 10 years ago that we could get industry and commerce enthusiastic about combining with schools, LEAs, technical colleges, polytechnics and universities to work on a training scheme in their local area, we would have been told that it could not happen. The evolution of the Government's training scheme has brought us to that position. There is a mountain to climb, but we are over the foothills to which the hon. Member for Truro referred, and we can start the ascent, confident that the guides that we have put in place in the TECs are among the best possible.
    It is generally accepted that in the months ahead more people will, unfortunately, be made redundant, and one group may be less well provided for in the new TEC structure—those for whom the community programme was devised. I appreciate that the community programme did not, in general, provide good training, but it served some purpose for some people. As well as assisting with some of the jobs that needed to be done in the local

    325
    community, it provided a base for people who were not ready for a more sophisticated training set-up and who, under the TEC system, may not be regarded as suitable for training to a particular level of skill by commercial and industrial bodies. Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State consider whether some community programme type work should be retained?
    Organisations such as Apex trust have set up some good schemes for the rehabilitation of offenders, particularly those between 16 and 19 years of age who often find it difficult to return to the employment or training in which they were engaged before their conviction. I appreciate that such organisations are not eliminated, but they do not automatically fit easily into the TEC structure. There may be one or two other similar groups which I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to consider when he meets the chairmen and chief executives of the TECs.
    We are going in the right direction, however, and there is more confidence in the provision of training in Coventry and Warwickshire than I have seen for a long time.
    6.12 pm
    Ms. Diane Abbott: Training has become like sunshine—everybody is in favour of it—but the Government do not want to pay for it.
    Last Thursday, I went to the launch of the City and Inner London North Training and Enterprise Council—CILNTEC—my local TEC covering the City, Hackney and Islington, which took place in the Mansion house. I was struck by the grandeur of the surroundings, which were very impressive to a girl from Hackney. I was impressed by the energy, enthusiam and ability of the people who have been found to serve on the TEC—notably the chairman, David Peake from Kleinwort Benson, and our two Hackney representatives, Christopher Latham and Julian Royle. Above all, in the glittering surroundings of the Mansion house, I was struck by the fact that the future life chances of the thousands of young people in Hackney whom I represent depend on the initiative succeeding. That is why I want to talk positively about what I want to see from the TEC initiative.
    Nevertheless, it would be unrealistic not to put the TEC initiative in the context of the failure of publicly funded training in the past decade. Conservative Members from outside London who talk in glowing terms of YTS can never have talked to inner-city youngsters about their experiences of it. They saw themselves being used as cheap labour, they came off the schemes to no jobs, and they felt that they were being exploited. Past attempts at publicly funded training have a deservedly bad reputation among some of the young people whom such training was designed to help.
    Looking at the Government's training record in the past 10 years, it is difficult to escape the impression that their training schemes were far more concerned with massaging down unemployment figures than with genuinely providing some sort of hope, future and marketable skills for the kind of young people whom I represent. There can be no doubt that the TECS are an attempt by the Government to try to nudge and push
    326
    training into the private sector, and to make the private sector tackle endemic unemployment and training issues which are not really the business of the private sector.
    CILNTEC has been launched in adverse circumstances. First, there is the recession which, until a few months ago, Ministers refused to talk about. It was the recession that dared not speak its name. But we in Hackney know that there is a recession. The head of the local school careers service says that jobs for her school leavers have dried up. Small companies, estate agents, small manufacturers and builders' merchants in Hackney know that there is a recession. Inevitably, recession means that businesses have less money to spend on training and many firms will go out of business altogether. The TECs could not have more adverse circumstances in which to try to get off the ground, and to add insult to injury their expected budgets have been cut by up to a third.
    Mr. George Howarth: Is it not scandalous that a 50 per cent. cut in training places on Merseyside was announced last week? Inadequate though the scheme is, that cut will make a huge difference to the training prospects of young people on Merseyside—exactly the kind of people my hon. Friend is talking about.
    Ms. Abbott: I agree entirely. Such cuts are an act of bad faith with the many genuine and committed business people and members of the community who are giving up their time to serve on TECs. Many life-long Conservatives serving on TECs are shocked and affronted that the Government could welch on them in that way.
    It is unreasonable and cynical of the Government to expect the private sector—which, certainly in the south, is experiencing a worse recession and slump than in the early 1980s—to take up the slack in training provision which will result from the Government's cuts. It is no use talking about lowering the number of unemployed when the Government have massaged unemployment figures year in and year out. Ministers will have seen a survey carried out by the London School of Economics in December 1990 which shows that even now TECs are struggling to cope with their responsibilities due to the lack of support and funding problems.
    I represent one of the poorest constituencies in the country, with precisely the kind of people who need training, who want training and who have a positive contribution to make to the economy if they can only have that training, and I want to see certain things from the TECs as they develop.
    All TEC chairmen want to see a commitment from the Government to fund the TECs properly. They all want proper support from the Government. In the move to employer-based training—employer-led, semi-privatised training—the weakest and most vulnerable of our young people should not go to the wall.
    It would not be proper to leave the subject without touching on black trainees in the inner cities. As Ministers will be aware, one in five of trainees on schemes in London are black, but they are twice as likely to be unemployed. The unemployment level overall for trainees leaving schemes is 16·3 per cent., but the level for Afro-Caribbean trainees leaving schemes is 28·6 per cent. Black trainees with the same qualifications, and as much energy, commitment and will to succeed, have found great difficulty with the current schemes. There has been a

    327
    marked reluctance by private sector employers to take them on. Investigations and surveys have found that there is discrimination.
    It is all very well for Ministers to consider short-term accountancy and cuts, but if they are pursuing a training policy which allows the weakest to go to the wall and allows a pool of disaffected inner-city youth to fester and grow, they are storing up problems for themselves which will cost far more to solve. I do not want to see young people in the inner city squeezed out under the TEC regime because of its employer-based nature and the stringency of funds.
    Conservative Members are smiling. They do not live in the inner city and they do not know what a hard and cruel life the young people have. They do not understand what it is like in Hackney, where the unemployment rate for young black males is one in two. I do not want the House to discover what that might mean in instability and social tension.
    I want the TECs to work and to meet the needs of all young people. I do not want the needs of inner-city young people, particularly young black people, to be marginalised because they may be more difficult, more complex and more expensive to deal with, with the result that employers will not be interested in that social dimension.
    For better or worse, millions of young people want the new employer-based training to work. It will be a terrible fraud on them and their parents if the TECs are set up almost to fail because they are so much under-resourced by the Government. In their vision of the future for training, how do Ministers seek to meet the needs of inner-city young people, and young people from ethnic minorities and other groups whose needs were largely met by the community programme?
    The new TEC in Hackney combines the tremendous resources and jobs base of the City with the energy, enterprise and passion to achieve of some of my constituents. We can achieve great things in Hackney. It is easy for the Government to make short-term cuts in training to ensure that their books balance. However, regardless of political affiliation, people will believe that a Government unwilling to invest in training and in the future of young people disregards its responsibility to the country.
    Even with all their limitations and problems, I should like the TECs to succeed. I can only reflect on what concerned business men have said to me about their fears because the Government have left the TECs so short of money. In inner cities, we want not just training which is cheap and convenient for the Government to provide and which brings down unemployment artificially; 'but real, high-quality training which offers hope to all young people, whatever their colour or creed.
    6.23 pm
    Mr. Simon Coombs: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott). She suggested that Conservative Members were smiling at what she was saying. If she was referring to me, it could only have been because 1 was agreeing with her about the problems that she was describing. I was a member of the Select Committee on Employment which looked into the problems of
    328
    employment in the London Docklands development corporation area. We were very conscious of some of the points to which the hon. Lady has just referred.
    To cheer the hon. Lady up a little, I would point out to her that it was remarkable that one of the first educational compacts was set up in that area by private enterprise, which felt that it needed to do something to help disadvantaged youngsters there. I hope that the hon. Lady agrees that the position is not as gloomy as some people have suggested.
    This has been a good debate, although it has not been long enough to address all the problems. In general, the debate has been carried on in a good spirit of co-operative and constructive thought. I am sorry, therefore, that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) opened with a slashing attack on the Government, as if they had managed to achieve nothing in the last 11 years. I am sure that in private he would not dream of suggesting that, but when he gets to the Dispatch Box he feels the need to go wild.
    The hon. Gentleman dismissed the idea that the Secretary of State should refer to the need for perspective. I can see no reason why we should not have a sense of perspective. Perhaps it was the absence of a sense of perspective which led the hon. Gentleman into one or two excesses to which his speech was prone. It is right to set the debate in context and in perspective.
    As has been said several times, the Government have spent two and a half times more, in real terms, on training than the Labour Government spent in the last year that they were in office. So for the Labour party to cast a stone in our direction is not justifiable on the facts. If we are doing so badly, how much worse did the Labour party do in failing to recognise that Government had a role in training?
    There was a complete absence from the speech of the hon. Gentleman of any reference to the remarkable efforts of the private sector. That is important. The estimate of what the private sector is putting into training this year is £20 billion. That is not an insignificant amount.
    The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, who is not now in the Chamber, said that we could not rely on the private sector during a slump. The answer is that we can, because obviously the private sector is carrying through its responsibility. The CBI survey last week showed that, by comparison with previous difficult times, the private sector is carrying on with the job that it has set itself of providing good quality training, in-house.
    When the debate was announced for today, all the private sector companies and organisations which wrote to Conservative Members—perhaps they did not write to Opposition Members—including Ford, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the CBI, wanted to tell us what they were doing in training, how important they thought it was, and how committed they were to it.
    In my constituency there is an organisation called the Swindon Partnership, which was set up by private companies to get to know the schools in the area, to provide them with computers and to give them a chance to send their pupils into companies to learn how industry works. There is tremendous enthusiasm for this in my part of the world, and I know that we are not unique. Much more is happening than the Labour party is ever prepared to admit. I do not know why, unless it is for the narrow partisan political advantage that it is always seeking.

    329
    The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said—how well we understand Labour party thinking on this—that the nub of the matter is intervention. I do not think that I have quoted him inaccurately. He is not here to defend himself, but I am sure he will when we next meet in the Select Committee. What is youth training and employment training if not a very positive form of intervention in training? The Government may and will no doubt be accused of many things, but surely they cannot be accused of not having been prepared to intervene in the training market.
    The Labour party is always against everything we try to do. The Leader of the Opposition was here at the beginning of the debate and I am sure that he enjoyed the rip-roaring stuff from the hon. Member for Sedgefield. He was nodding throughout the speech—until the point when some of my hon. Friends asked about how he had referred to TVEI when he was the Opposition spokesman on education in 1983. I saw the Leader of the Opposition mouth the words, "Not true," when it was said that he had described TVEI as beneath contempt and only suitable for
    "hewers of wood and drawers of water".
    The right hon. Gentleman said that on "Panorama", and we know that anything that the BBC broadcasts must be true. I dare say that there are even some right hon. and hon. Members who watched "Panorama" on that occasion.
    It is no use Opposition Members wagging their fingers at me, because that statement is on record. Labour was against that innovation, in the same way that they always oppose anything that we try to do to help. It is time—I will be very patronising—that Labour Members adopted the approach taken by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who will, perhaps, stop writing and pay attention to the debate. At least that hon. Gentleman gave some thought to the matter, and is not in the business of being aggressive and horrid to anyone who tries to help. That is a splendid sign from that Bench.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition often fall into the trap of thinking that just by throwing resources at the problem everything will be that much better? Is it not much more important to involve the right people, companies and trainers? That approach has worked well in Oldham and Rochdale, because we have the right calibre of people. It did not cost any more money. Additional resources are not always the answer.
    Mr. Coombs: I could not have put it better myself, and of course I agree with my hon. Friend.
    The Labour party, having opposed employment training and youth training, now opposes any reduction in the size of the training effort—even though that might result from a reduction also in the number who can benefit.
    Labour Members always take the approach that the more money they promise to spend, the more virile they are. Members of the Opposition Front Bench look virile only when they are promising to spend money. If I run the risk of resuming my seat in a few minutes' time, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) will get to his feet with a promise of more hope for the future, if only more money can be spent.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) referred to climbing mountains. We always look
    330
    for the best way up, and if that sometimes requires a change of direction, we should not hesitate to take it. If that means spending a little less on employment training and a little more on providing the good advice that is available from job clubs, and on preparing personalised statements that recognise people's individual needs, that should be the way forward. The answer is not simply to go on throwing money at the problem.
    Labour, as always, is bereft of ideas. It is panicking because it knows that we are winning the battle to create a better training environment. Labour will remain in opposition for as long as it only opposes ideas and fails to make constructive suggestions—as other hon. Members have done in tonight's debate.
    6.32 pm
    Mr. Henry McLeish: It appeared that the Secretary of State wanted to talk more about the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) did not make, in respect of training investment, than the speech that he did make.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to remarks attributed to me on a visit to Sheffield. That contrived assault on a perceived policy difference highlights the fact that the Government are losing the argument. I put it on record that I very much support TECs. I warmed to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who said that TECs could have a role in a statutory framework, in respect of companies that do not train. That was a constructive proposal and one with which we identify. I hope that the Secretary of State will take it on board.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), who always makes informed contributions as Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, emphasised that the key training issue is economic performance in the decade ahead.
    I endorse also the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield that Britain's skills crisis existed long before the last war, and he made a specific reference to the mid-1880s. I quote from an article by someone who I am sure is a friend of the Conservatives, Dr. Correlli Barnett:
    "Where Britain does have successful industries, such as aerospace—£2·5 billion in the black in 1989—these are hampered by shortages of scientists and technicians. Britain still displays patterns of weakness that can be traced back to about 1840."
    No one disputes that the training skills crisis has long endured. No one would argue either against the proposition that it is a complex problem, for which there is no quick fix or instant panacea. Nor would anyone disagree that the problems are deep seated, cultural and involve attitudes. Politicians can attempt to effect changes, but it often takes decades for them to have any bearing on the problems that such changes are meant to overcome.
    Over the past 12 years, the Government have failed to display the urgency, sensitivity and immediacy required to resolve a deep-seated skills problem that is also structural. Given 1992, European monetary union beyond that, the threat from the Pacific rim countries, and intensification of supply-side policies in France, Germany, Italy and Japan, we must act quickly. There is no room for complacency, yet the Government often exude complacency in respect of skills training.

    331
    Skills should be used to unlock the potential that individuals have to make a contribution to our economic well-being. We talk a great deal about productivity, profitability and performance, but the key difference between Britain and its major competitor countries is that they have invested in skills training for much longer, so their cultures have adjusted and they can now enjoy the fruits of that investment in the form of measured economic success.
    The Government had an opportunity in the 1980s to take the supply-side initiative. There was a massive shake-out of labour in the early 1980s and productivity improved, but there was no skills initiative. In the mid-1980s, to coincide with the electoral cycle, there was an economy boom, but still no initiative was taken on skills investment. There is now a possibility that Britain's entry into the exchange rate mechanism could create difficulties, unless we invest in the tools that will bring success.
    There is a crisis of confidence in the industrial community in respect of the Government's ability to resolve the skills crisis. The Government will not speak of the devastating cuts that there have been, but in 1991–92 there will be cuts of about £367 million in employment training alone. Why do the Government show such contempt for training providers? The newspapers are littered with stories about providers going under and being treated in a cavalier fashion—receiving just a phone call or a letter from the Training Agency saying that their figures and budgets have been cut. There is no negotiation or discussion—just contempt.
    One of the problems with TECs is that, although the Secretary of State is unwilling to fight in Cabinet for resources, the TECs are squeezing him for more. The net effect of all that is that TECs are now writing to the press, and confiding in us, saying, "Yes, we have a job to do, but we need the tools to do it." I believe that they are under funded and the Government must tackle that.
    There is another aspect to special needs provision. Understandably, there is an emphasis on skills and the economy, but what about the excellent schemes that have been set up throughout the country to tackle the problems facing adults and young people with handicaps and disabilities? Surely it is the measure of a civilised society that, no matter how the Government view the recession, they do not walk away from people who find it enormously difficult to climb the first rung on the ladder of employment or further education. The Government should ring-fence the budget for that training.
    The cash crisis is another aspect of this issue. Today we have heard much about the money that the Government have spent during the past 12 years. The Government are right. They have thrown money at the problem. The Department of Employment will have spent £46 billion between 1979 and outturn in 1992–93. But what do we see for that expenditure? Where is the training infrastructure? Where are the employment trainees' qualifications? Where are the youth trainees with qualifications? The key point about that investment is that the Government have squandered billions of pounds of taxpayers' money and have not achieved the desired effect, which is improving the economy, extending opportunities for individuals and providing the social and regional cohesion that the nation desperately needs.
    When we talk about money, let us use the Government adage that it is all about "value for money". What value
    332
    for money? The Government say that their policy is all about output-led investment. What are the outputs? I should like someone to tell me why we spend so much money. Indeed, considering the Gulf, the phrase comes to mind, "Why is so much money being spent on so many people, with so few results?"
    The third problem that worries us is the policy chaos that the Government exude. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield made a thoughtful contribution to the debate, emphasising qualifications. He had an excellent idea and set radical and ambitious targets in November 1989. The new Minister of State, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), said in a press release that the Fowler targets were to be abandoned. More recently there has been another slight about-turn—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members wish to see the press cuttings, which I cannot quote because of lack of time, I am willing to oblige them.
    The Secretary of State for Employment has returned to the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. He has said that by 1992,80 per cent. of the work force should be exposed to vocational qualifications. He did not say that 80 per cent. should be achieving vocational qualifications. He could have said that 150 per cent. of the work force should be exposed to them; his statement is utterly meaningless.
    The Government would be better served by returning to the radical propositions suggested by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield when he was in that high office. The right hon. Member also said that the way for the unemployed to get work was through gaining skills. However, the present Secretary of State for Employment said that training might not be the best way to get the unemployed back to work. He suggested that they should have job interviews or more counselling—anything that did not cost the Government more money.
    At a time of recession, and when we are investing in TECs and on those aged between 16 and 19, we cannot allow the unemployed to be treated as second-class citizens and, as a consequence, be asked by the Government to eat cake as regards proper provision for them.
    Investment is linked to training policy. When will the Government come clean with TEC chairmen, G10 and the thousands of business men throughout the country who are making a contribution, and who came into this exercise in good faith? Employers wanted to make a commitment. It was employer investment, employer-led—those are sound concepts. There is only one problem—TECs did not get the levels of cash that they expected. Now the Secretary of State and the rest of the Government are running around trading flexibilities. They are saying, "Let's give them work-related further education. Let's get them involved in TVEI." They are doing every conceivable thing except to give TECs extra cash so that they can make a contribution to our economic success.
    Another problem that the Government have not tackled is the key substantive issues that the Labour party is now tackling. Why is it that after 12 years we have the most incoherent programme for 16 to 19-year-olds in Europe? We have had scheme after scheme, but there has been no coherence, no stability of policy and no stability of investment. Fewer young people now stay on at school, and fewer young people enter a proper traineeship. That trend has to be reversed. It is a substantive issue which the Government have been guilty of ignoring in the past 12 years.

    333
    The Government believe in voluntarism. However, in the past 140 years voluntarism has not worked in the provision of training for employees in employment. If it had worked, we, as the first industrialised nation, should be the best trading nation on earth, but we are not. We are not facing up to key issues which other countries are tackling.
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman rose—
    Mr. McLeish: The hon. Lady has only just come into the Chamber, so I shall not give way.
    Voluntarism has failed and all our modern successor countries are now considering a statutory framework for training.
    Another substantive issue concerns the unemployed. We believe that they should be regarded no differently from people in work or from those aged between 16 and 19. The unemployed should have a personal skills development plan aimed at acquisition, ownership and enhancement of skills. That has to be backed up by resources and not rhetoric. That is another reason why we distance ourselves from the Government Benches.
    If the Government are serious about training, we require leadership from their Front Bench and resources to replace rhetoric. We need a statutory framework that provides an opportunity for companies that train employees not to have them poached by companies that are doing nothing whatsoever. We must set standards for success, which means that we must invest more money in the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, and that we must establish a partnership in industry among employee representatives, trade unions and employers. That is the way forward.
    Conservative Members mumble and laugh, but if they consider what has happened in Germany, France, Italy, Japan, parts of the United States, Denmark, the Scandinavian countries and the Pacific rim they will not laugh. Those countries have shown that taking skills seriously is the passport to economic success and to individual opportunity.
    My hon. Friends may not win the vote tonight, but we shall win the election, and tackle the skills crisis.
    6.48 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): Parliament is a place where the Government are held to account and that is quite right, but that should not lead us into the fallacy of believing that whenever we identify a problem it is all the current Government's fault—whatever party it may be—and that only the Government can do anything about it.
    In the course of this debate we have had many examples of that fallacy. It was the basic premise running right through the speech by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), it was explicitly affirmed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, and I am afraid that it was also a feature of an otherwise admirable speech by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who I fear also fell victim to that fallacy.
    I do not want to dwell on the negative features of this debate, because I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) that it has been very constructive.
    334
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) said, there has been a lot of common ground and I welcome that. The common ground is that we all want an improvement in both the quantity and the quality of training in Britain. I especially noted the eloquent remarks that the hon. Member for Truro made about his experience in St. Austell, in his constituency.
    In pursuing our common objective—more and better training—we must ensure that the right strategy is adopted. A good point at which to start defining that strategy is the survey into the way in which training is funded in Britain which the Government carried out in 1986. That survey showed—the facts are not disputed—that, in 1986, the state was investing about £7 billion a year in training while individuals were spending about £8 billion and employers some £18 billion. The last figure has since risen to about £20 billion. I have no doubt that a similar pattern can be seen in other countries. Incidentally, the study produced no evidence that we as a nation are investing less than other countries in training; in so far as it is possible to make international comparisons, they tend to show that the Government's investment is relatively high.
    What is clear from the figures is that, although the Government's role is undoubtedly important, if we are to achieve the improved total national effort that we all seek, the central contribution must come from employers. I was surprised at how little appreciation the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) seemed to show when she spoke of the privatisation of training.
    I intend to develop the point about the role of employers later, because it is fundamental to any solid, properly conceived training strategy. First, however, I wish to say a few words about the proper role of Government. Governments have an important role to play. As has been said, they must provide leadership and set the framework. We need to encourage the development of incentives to achieve more and better training, and we must remove or reduce the disincentives. We also need good delivery mechanisms for Government programmes—for example, the setting up of the new training and enterprise councils.
    Mr. McCartney: My constituency contains an active TEC. The problem is the continuation of programmes that the TEC has taken over, and access to those programmes for the disabled. Some of the groups involved in drawing up provisions for the disabled might like an opportunity to discuss such matters with the Minister.
    A second problem relates to the pilot schemes involving vouchers that TECs are to operate. How will young people be protected if the participating companies experience closures and redundancies halfway through the scheme? Will the money be chopped up so that such people can shift without any financial loss and another company can continue their training?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman has sat through the debate very patiently, and I am sorry that he was not given the opportunity to speak. I have mentioned delivery mechanisms. While it is clearly important that the TECs are given the freedom to manage the budgets allocated to them—that, I think, is common ground in the House—they will have to address the problems themselves. None

    335
    the less, I am willing to discuss the problems of people with disabilities with the hon. Gentleman, and anyone whom he may care to bring with him. The Government must, of course, take on board the hon. Gentleman's point about vouchers in regard to pilot schemes. We certainly do not want any young person to waste the opportunity provided by vouchers; nor do we want taxpayers' money to be wasted.
    As I have said, we need good delivery mechanisms. Those are being provided in the form of the TECs, and it is good to see that they are being given so much support. Another point which came across to an extent in today's debate but which needs to be emphasised more strongly is the need for a strong and relevant framework of vocational qualifications. The achievements of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications are important in that connection.
    The Government also have a key role to play in ensuring that young people are properly educated and trained. We have introduced such programmes as youth training, and we are launching a training credit scheme. I was interested to hear the suggestions made by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. We must also ensure that training is available for unemployed people who will benefit from it. I can tell the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington that we share her concern about the inner cities and ethnic minorities, and are pleased to learn that she supports her local TEC. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton spoke of special need groups: we and the TECs take their problems very seriously, and will consider them carefully.
    Let me remind the House of the scale of the Government's operations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) pointed out, they are now spending two and a half times as much, in real terms, as was spent on training 12 years ago; 900,000 people have benefited from the employment training programme since it started two and a half years ago; 88 per cent. of people who completed youth training in 1988–90 went into jobs, further training and further education, while 67 per cent. of those gained a vocational qualification. Given the large numbers who participated, that is a significant figure: some 2·7 million young people have benefited from youth training since the scheme began in 1983. I feel that that considerable achievement should be recognised.
    I said that I wanted to focus on the central strategic question of how to persuade employers to increase their commitment to more and better training. I appreciated what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, and, indeed, the hon. Member for Sedgefield, about consulting TECs and about the way forward. I assure them both that we are engaged in constant dialogue with the TECs, and are actively seeking their suggestions for ways in which to increase employers' investment in training.
    Mr. Wolfson: A number of us find it worrying that, although good companies spend a good deal of money on training, many companies do not. I think that that message should be delivered.
    Mr. Jackson: That is indeed important; I am about to say something about it. The same theme was touched on a number of times in today's debate, although was disappointed that the hon. Member for Sedgefield had so
    336
    little to say about what he recognises as a central question. It is a pity that he did not choose to present to the House the idea of a central training levy which he presented to the press only last week. Nevertheless, I propose to take his idea seriously, even if he has not done so.
    We feel that the best way in which to achieve our common objectives—here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson)—is to co-operate with employers to enhance their commitment, rather than coercing them. We must not forget that we have been here before. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton reminded us that a system of legislative compulsion operated from the early 1960s until the end of the 1970s, under Governments of both parties, and I have met no one who considers that that was a success. If we have a training problem today, its roots go back to those 15 years.
    We must also take into account the experience of other countries. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East said that voluntarism in training would not work, but the fact is that our major competitors—the United States, Japan and Germany—all operate voluntary systems. None has a general system of compulsory training taxes of the kind sometimes advocated by the Opposition. Only France is doing what the Opposition seem to advocate, and the general verdict of those who have viewed the French experience dispassionately is that its arrangements for legislative compulsion have not been a significant factor in its admittedly considerable training achievements.
    What, then, is the Government's strategy for training? In a sentence, it is—while continuing our spending programmes—to encourage, to "incentivise" and to enable employers and individuals to undertake more and better training. That is the strategy behind the TECs. I welcome the Opposition's support for the concept, whose key features are employer leadership and local control.
    It is a pity that the hon. Member for Fife, Central has been showing some equivocation, which was very wittily exposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. However, I am delighted—indeed, the whole House is delighted—that the hon. Gentleman is willing to eat his words about the training and enterprise councils. The strategy that lies behind training credits—individual young people—is the most hopeful new development. I welcome the support that we have received for this idea from the hon. Member for Newham, North-East, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee, and I hope that we shall be able to get stronger support for it from the official Opposition spokesman. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks that it is the strategy behind the very important new "investors in people" initiative. Despite the strictures of the hon. Member for Truro about the supposedly limited managerial role of TECs, they will play a key role in managing the "investors in people" initiative to ensure an improvement in training investment by companies up and down the land.
    It is perhaps inevitable that in debates of this kind deficiencies and failures should be emphasised. At least so far as the Opposition are concerned, there is a premium on gloom. However, it is important to get a balanced picture. That balanced picture shows that we are making very real progress. Employers' investment in skills is rising, and is now of the order of £20 billion per year; the number of employees being trained in a given month has risen over the last five years by about 70 per cent.; the CBI's monthly surveys show a consistently rising trend of investment in

    337
    training by employers; the skill levels of our work force are rising; we have statistics to show that the proportion of economically active people with qualifications is going up; the number of people with A-levels is rising; the number of people in professional and technical jobs is rising; the number of young people staying on at school is rising; the numbers of people in further and higher education are rising quite dramatically; and more and more qualified young people are entering the labour force.
    The fact is that we are making very considerable progress in training. The Opposition have tried to pretend that we are not, but it is clear to all who have attended this debate that they have failed to make their case.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question: —
    The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 283.

    Division No. 59]

    [7.1 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Darling, Alistair

    Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Allen, Graham

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Alton, David

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

    Anderson, Donald

    Dewar, Donald

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Dixon, Don

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Dobson, Frank

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Doran, Frank

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Douglas, Dick

    Ashton, Joe

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Barron, Kevin

    Eadie, Alexander

    Battle, John

    Eastham, Ken

    Beckett, Margaret

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Beith, A. J.

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Bell, Stuart

    Fatchett, Derek

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Faulds, Andrew

    Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

    Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

    Benton, Joseph

    Fisher, Mark

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Flynn, Paul

    Bldwell, Sydney

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Blair, Tony

    Foster, Derek

    Blunkett, David

    Foulkes, George

    Boateng, Paul

    Fraser, John

    Boyes, Roland

    Fyfe, Maria

    Bradley, Keith

    Galbraith, Sam

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    George, Bruce

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Gould, Bryan

    Buckley, George J.

    Graham, Thomas

    Caborn, Richard

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Canavan, Dennis

    Haynes, Frank

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Cartwright, John

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Henderson, Doug

    Clelland, David

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Home Robertson, John

    Corbett, Robin

    Hood, Jimmy

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cousins, Jim

    Howells, Geraint

    Cox, Tom

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Crowther, Stan

    Hoyle, Doug

    Cryer, Bob

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Cummings, John

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    338

    Illsley, Eric

    Patchett, Terry

    Ingram, Adam

    Pike, Peter L.

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Prescott, John

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Kennedy, Charles

    Radice, Giles

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Randall, Stuart

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Lambie, David

    Reid, Dr John

    Lamond, James

    Richardson, Jo

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Robertson, George

    Leighton, Ron

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Rogers, Allan

    Lewis, Terry

    Rooker, Jeff

    Litherland, Robert

    Rooney, Terence

    Livingstone, Ken

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Livsey, Richard

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Salmond, Alex

    Loyden, Eddie

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McAllion, John

    Sheerman, Barry

    McCartney, Ian

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McFall, John

    Short, Clare

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Skinner, Dennis

    McKelvey, William

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McLeish, Henry

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

    Maclennan, Robert

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

    McMaster, Gordon

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Snape, Peter

    McWilliam, John

    Soley, Clive

    Madden, Max

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Marek, Dr John

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Stott, Roger

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Straw, Jack

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Martlew, Eric

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Maxton, John

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Meacher, Michael

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Meale, Alan

    Turner, Dennis

    Michael, Alun

    Vaz, Keith

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Wallace, James

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Walley, Joan

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Morley, Elliot

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Mullin, Chris

    Wilson, Brian

    Murphy, Paul

    Winnick, David

    Nellist, Dave

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Worthington, Tony

    O'Brien, William

    Wray, Jimmy

    O'Hara, Edward

    O'Neill, Martin

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Mr. Martyn Jones and

    Parry, Robert

    Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Benyon, W.

    Alexander, Richard

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Allason, Rupert

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Amos, Alan

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Arbuthnot, James

    Body, Sir Richard

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Ashby, David

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Boswell, Tim

    Atkinson, David

    Bottomley, Peter

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Baldry, Tony

    Bowis, John

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Batiste, Spencer

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Brazier, Julian

    Bellingham, Henry

    Bright, Graham

    Bendall, Vivian

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    339

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

    Grylls, Michael

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Hague, William

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Burns, Simon

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Butler, Chris

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Butterfill, John

    Hannam, John

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

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

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Harris, David

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hayward, Robert

    Cash, William

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hind, Kenneth

    Chope, Christopher

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Churchill, Mr

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

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Conway, Derek

    Irvine, Michael

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Irving, Sir Charles

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jackson, Robert

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Janman, Tim

    Cormack, Patrick

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Couchman, James

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Cran, James

    Jones, Robert B (Herfs W)

    Critchley, Julian

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

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

    Kilfedder, James

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Day, Stephen

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Devlin, Tim

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Knapman, Roger

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Dover, Den

    Knox, David

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Eggar, Tim

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Evennett, David

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Fallon, Michael

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Favell, Tony

    Lilley, Peter

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Lord, Michael

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Forman, Nigel

    McCrindle, Sir Robert

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Franks, Cecil

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    French, Douglas

    Maclean, David

    Fry, Peter

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gale, Roger

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Malins, Humfrey

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Mans, Keith

    Gill, Christopher

    Maples, John

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Marland, Paul

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mates, Michael

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Gregory, Conal

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Grist, Ian

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Ground, Patrick

    Moate, Roger

    340

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Squire, Robin

    Moss, Malcolm

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Mudd, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Neale, Sir Gerrard

    Steen, Anthony

    Nelson, Anthony

    Stern, Michael

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Stevens, Lewis

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Sumberg, David

    Norris, Steve

    Summerson, Hugo

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Page, Richard

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Paice, James

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Patnick, Irvine

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Thorne, Neil

    Pawsey, James

    Thurnham, Peter

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Tracey, Richard

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Tredinnick, David

    Price, Sir David

    Trippier, David

    Raffan, Keith

    Trotter, Neville

    Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Redwood, John

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Walden, George

    Riddick, Graham

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Waller, Gary

    Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

    Ward, John

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Rost, Peter

    Warren, Kenneth

    Rowe, Andrew

    Watts, John

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Wells, Bowen

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Whitney, Ray

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wilkinson, John

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Wilshire, David

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Shelton, Sir William

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Yeo, Tim

    Shersby, Michael

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Mr. Nicholas Baker and

    Speed, Keith

    Mr. Timothy Wood.

    Speller, Tony

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the Government's creation of a climate and strategic framework which is encouraging employers to improve their already substantial role in the national training effort, in which participation in training and the attainment of skills is rising, and which is set fair to meet the United Kingdom's skill needs in the 1990s and beyond.

Science Policy
7.16 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the decision by Her Majesty's Government to make real cuts in the Science Budget which will terminate vital areas of research and postpone urgent new programmes; is outraged at the decision of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to suppress the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils made public in previous years; is deeply concerned at the continued crisis in the supply of science teachers and equipment in schools; and calls for a new strategy for science to restore industrial competitiveness, to raise investment in research and development to the level of the United Kingdom's foreign competitors, to raise standards in science education, and to ensure Britain's scientists are able to co-operate fully with their European partners.
It is the success of science that has made the world what it is today. It is scientific invention and inquiry above all else that has made the quality of life for many so immeasurably better than it was even 40 years ago and which, at the same time, has given politicians the power of mass destruction in war and, potentially, the means to end starvation and ill health across the globe. There is the closest correlation between the science base of nations and the resilience of their economies. Science policy has never been of greater importance.
All that should seem obvious—except, it would appear, to the Government. We have a great Department of State—the Department of Education and Science—which has the word "science" in its title. But the Government's recognition of the importance of science is a token one. In six years, there has not been a single debate in Government time on the Government conduct of science policy. The last such debate was in 1985, four Secretaries of State ago, halfway through the previous Parliament. The only debates—there have been three—in this Parliament have been called by the Labour party in its limited Supply time.
Ministers' unwillingness to debate their stewardship of science policy and the science budget arises partly from their defensiveness, and defensive they may be, given their record, as I shall show. Also, their reluctance to debate reflects something deeper—a lack of science culture in Government and a lack of proper understanding of science among the wider public. With the absence of a science culture and understanding comes a lack of confidence to engage in the many critical issues of science policy in public debate.
The charges that we make in our motion are serious, and each can be sustained by the evidence. We charge that the Government are failing properly or sufficiently to fund the science base and, as the decisions of the Science and Engineering Research Council earlier today show, that failure is a fundamental one. We charge that things are so bad that the Secretary of State has, for the first time, suppressed the advice that he has received from the independent Advisory Board for the Research Councils so as to reduce public understanding even further.
We charge that the Government have seriously neglected the supply of properly qualified science teachers in our schools and the proper equipment of our science laboratories. We charge that the Government are failing to provide an effective European dimension to British science policy, as the Select Committee made clear, and that, overall, they have no clear or coherent strategy for British science.
342
I am sure that the Secretary of State will produce a scattering of figures designed to prove how generous has been the Government's funding of the science base, as the Under-Secretary sought to do on the radio this morning. Neither the Government's record nor their promises stand up to serious examination. By virtually any measure, the 12 years of this Government have been 12 years in which Britain has slipped down the league of first division science nations, while others have moved up. According to the "Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development", published by the Cabinet Office:
"British investment in research and development is failing to match that of other nations and research output, measured by the number of patents granted in the United States, is suffering accordingly."
An international survey of funding carried out by Nature showed Britain as the black spot for research. Britain is at the bottom of the league table for spending on research and development and the science base. As The Daily Telegraph pointed out on Monday, it is planned that there should be a £300 million real terms cut in the funding of research and development between now and 1993. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Britain spends less per capita than any other major competitor. The director general of the Design Council, Mr. Ivor Owen, has said that Britain is facing a national emergency in its failure to capitalise on scientific and technical expertise in the United Kingdom.
The Government's failure to invest in the science base is matched by industry's relative failure. There is a strong correlation between investment in research and development by various industries and their success in the world market. Is it any wonder, therefore, that British manufacturing industry is running its worst ever deficit in overseas trade? With the signal exception of chemical and pharmaceutical industries, which showed a 13 per cent. annual increase in investment and research and development, all other manufacturing sectors showed a decline between 1985 and 1988.
Britain's industry-funded research and development is less than 1 per cent. of GDP, compared with 1·6 per cent. in Germany and 2 per cent. in Japan. The Government do not even have a policy for insisting that companies disclose and report on their research and development in their annual reports.
The Government are responsible for the poor record of industry. That record is a product of the Government's approach to economic policy, which gives higher priority to short-term profit than long-term investment—an economic policy in which the City is the master and not the servant of wealth-producing manufacturing industries.
The science budget for 1991–92 is being increased by £32 million to £920 million. After account is taken of inflation, that means a real terms cut of £30 million from £897 million this year to £868 million next year. In paragraph 65 of its most recent report, the Conservative-dominated Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts condemned and described that as "wholly unsatisfactory".
Mr. James Arbuthnot: Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that, since 1979, the science budget has increased by almost a quarter in real terms, whereas under the Government of which he was a member it was stagnant in real terms?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman does well to read the brief that he has been provided with by Conservative central office, but as is often the case with those briefs, it is wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "In what way is it wrong?"] In what way is it wrong? What is wrong is that the Government have continually underestimated the impact of inflation on the science base, and they have done so this year. This year, British science is being told that inflation is 3 per cent., whereas it is more than 10 per cent. That is why the Under-Secretary was put up by the Secretary of State this morning to patter the words that the budget is increasing, when everybody knows that it is going clown, most of all those in the research councils, who are faced with the most vicious and serious cuts in the science base for more than two decades.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the science budget has not increased by 23 per cent. in the past five years, will he reflect on the fact that one of the reasons why it did not increase in real terms under the previous Labour Government was that under them, on average, inflation was 15 per cent.—twice as high as under this Government?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has not read the Conservative central office brief. He said that the budget had increased by a quarter in five years, whereas the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) said that it had increased by a quarter in 12 years. They should at least agree the mistruths before stating them.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that such is the penny-pinching the British Library has been forced to suspend its subscriptions to many scientific journals, thus depriving our science researchers of access to information that is available to researchers in other countries?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Only half of the British Library will be built, thanks to the penny-pinching of the Government. [Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh, but I wonder whether they will laugh when they learn of the decisions that were made this afternoon by the Science and Engineering Research Council. I wonder whether they will laugh about the consequences of those decisions and of the cuts that this Secretary of State has made in the science base.
The consequences of those cuts are dire. Sir Mark Richmond, the new chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council, described the science budget for next year, which Conservative Members have applauded, as "lousy". Sir David Phillips, the distinguished chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, went even further. He said:
"The consequences of the budgets imposed on us are extremely damaging … Our entire range of scientific activities will have to be reduced considerably … In the short term, it means we are going to have to stop all short-term research grants for university scientists."
Is that a matter for laughter, I ask Conservative Members?
"In the longer term, we will have to pull out of major projects".
Sadly for the whole of the science establishment and for all those involved in science, the long term that Sir David Phillips was worried about has come all too quickly. According to its chairman, the Medical Research Council has said that
"research vital to human health"
344
will now have to be postponed. The Economic and Social Research Council has issued a list of cuts that it will have to make.
Mr. John P. Smith: Does my hon. Friend think that that explains the disgraceful decision taken by the Government to close the Natural Environment Research Council unit at Barry dock, which has been involved in world-beating research into the environment and the depletion of the ozone layer? It will be swallowed up by bureaucrats in Southampton.
Mr. Straw: It does explain that, but the closure of research services at Barry in my hon. Friend's constituency is not the only cut being suffered by the NERC.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): It is not being cut; it is moving to Southampton, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not Secretary of State when the decision was made. Had he been, he would know that it involves the cut that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
Cuts are being made in the budgets and programmes of the Economic and Social Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Agricultural and Food Research Council.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: The hon. Gentleman said that he does not like the figures being quoted by the Government. Does he agree with the figures that 1 was given this afternoon by the Library, which show that the Government's total research and development budget is a higher proportion of gross domestic product than any other developed country in the world except France?
Mr. Straw: I do not agree with the figures—[Laughter]—and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. The House of Lords report on research and development shows that the Government should not take account of a good half of the amount allegedly spent on research and development, because research and development for defence should not be included. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will see that Britain's GDP figure of 2·3 per cent. is lower than that of many of our major competitors.
Moreover, investment in this country as a proportion of GDP, even according to the very generous measures of this Government, has stagnated in the past five years, while in other countries it has increased. If there is any doubt about that, it will be dispelled by the situation in the Science and Engineering Research Council.
Mr. Allen McKay: Would my hon. Friend be interested to know that today I asked the directors of a pharmaceutical company, British owned and proud to be so, why they had moved their research and development abroad to six countries and the answer was that our education system had failed and that we no longer produce the quantity and quality of scientists that we used to? All they want is for the Government to provide research and development money for the base, and they will see to the markets after that.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. Had Government investment in research and development been as wonderful as Tory Members who parrot central office briefs say, British science would not now face a serious crisis and we would not have to import millions of pounds more goods

345
than we export. Nor would the Conservative-dominated Select Committee on Education and Science have said at paragraph 65 of its most recent report:
"We recommend that Government funding of civil R & D be increased to match that of our major partners in the EC, France and Germany, who currently spend around 0·9 per cent. of GDP compared with less than 0·6 per cent. spent by the UK."
I can well understand why the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) is furrowing his brow. I prefer to take my evidence from that provided by the Select Committee than from his source.
Mr. Batiste: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: No. I have been generous in giving way.
Mr. Dennis Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so that I can confirm entirely what he has said. I am a member of the Select Committee on Education and Science and went on the visit to Heidelberg, Geneva and Grenoble. [Laughter.] Our report confirms what my hon. Friend has said. All members of the Select Committee would concede that all the British scientists whom we met in every one of those scientific establishments told us that they felt depressed and undervalued. Yet Tory Members say that the Government are supporting those scientists. I must advise my hon. Friend that when I listened to those comments about the lack of Government support I was ashamed to be British.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. If British scientists were depressed when he met them, they will be even more depressed by the SERC's decisions this afternoon.
The SERC faces greater difficulties than any other research council, partly because it accounts for more than half of the total of the science budget and partly because of the impact of the subscription to CERN, the European centre for nuclear research, on its domestic budget. This afternoon, the SERC held a meeting to discuss the present problems. It has announced measures
"to combat the shortfall in its funding for 1991–92 and the effects of this on subsequent financial years."
I assume that the Secretary of State also has a copy of this. The consequences of the shortfall are serious.
In engineering, the allocation will require
"sharp cutbacks in a number of areas, notably in: information technology, the application of computing in manufacturing engineering, engineering design, support provided by Rutherford Appleton Laboratory for engineering applications of computing in universities and polytechnics."
One could scarcely imagine more serious damage being done to major parts of engineering and information technology, in which we should lead the world, than by those decisions forced on the SERC.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: No, I will not. I have been generous in giving way and I need to get on and make my speech in this short debate. If the Government want to provide a full day to debate their record, naturally I should be more than delighted in that debate to give way.
The SERC says that the level of funding allocated to the science board cannot sustain its existing programme. There is no question of expansion. In particular, it cannot
346
"afford to support two major neutron facilities … in Grenoble and ISIS at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at the present level."
Nuclear physics has already been the subject of considerable comment in the press. There are concerns about the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury, near Warrington. The SERC says:
"The Council is committed to pay the UK share of the CERN subscription and the associated UK research on particle physics. For the Nuclear Physics Board to remain within its budget, it will have to reduce very significantly its support for nuclear structure physics. To achieve this Council will have to make plans for the possible closure of the Nuclear Structure Facility at the Daresbury Laboratory."
In case Tory Members are not aware of this, the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury is one of the most renowned of such research facilities in the world. It is widely acclaimed not only by British scientists, but by all engaged in nuclear physics research in the world. If that laboratory is to close, Britain will lose its significant facility for nuclear physics research. Yet the Government willingly contemplate ending an area of research, in which we were formerly world leaders and which will shut us out of research developments in future at a stroke.
In commenting on this, the chairman of the SERC, Sir Mark Richmond, said:
"This is a leading facility for this type of research in the world which we had hoped would keep the UK in the forefront of nuclear structure science for some years ahead. I greatly regret the shadow cast over this facility, its staff and the community it supports. Council will look urgently for ways to run the facility through 1991 and 1992, so we can honour the first stage of the UK-French Agreement to develop and run the EUROGAM detector array."
The SERC stated:
"To help the Council in its further consideration of these issues, a study will be set up to assess the importance of the science in the context of the Council work as a whole."
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is telling the House that, under a Labour Government, these research councils would have no need to choose priorities. If that is so, how much would be invested and where would it come from?
Mr. Straw: I was not saying that. Obviously the hon. Gentleman has not been listening. [Interruption.] Of course there are difficult choices to be made in science at all times, but the last way to make them is as this Government are making them—in a wholly irrational and ham-fisted way. We would increase the science budget.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question was kindly provided yesterday by the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the chairman of the Conservative party, who—even under Conservative economic policy, which has produced a lower rate of growth over the years than ever occurred under a Labour Government—said:
"there will certainly be a growth dividend which can help ensure a substantial and sustained improvement in the quality of our schools and hospitals."
I add to that the science base.
The right hon. Gentleman was saying that the resources were available and that it was a matter of choice whether the resources from growth are used to cut taxation for the very rich or to provide essential services for our hospitals, schools and science base.
Mr. Richard Tracey rose—
Mr. Straw: Let me deal directly with the potential closure of the Daresbury research facility.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: No, I shall continue.
Perhaps the Secretary of State can confirm this, but I do not believe that when Ministers made their decisions about the science base they had any idea that a potential consequence of setting the science budget at the level they did was the potential closure of the Daresbury nuclear research facility. If it was, and the Secretary of State knew that the SERC would make these decisions, he had better say so. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) asked me a question, and I am giving him the answer.
Obviously there will always be more bids than resources. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Of course that is the case. For a Government who claim to have funded science well, the least they can do, and the least that we would do, is to ensure sufficient funds year by year to match inflation. That is what this Secretary of State is not doing next year. That answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
Furthermore, we must ensure that, when difficult decisions are to be made, they are made in a rational way. It is preposterous that the Daresbury research facility is being offered up as a sacrificial lamb because the Government did not do their sums on the total cost of the CERN project. They have included the cost of CERN in the domestic science budget, and they have decided to protect the CERN subscription, but not to offer similar protection to the rest of the science budget. As a consequence, the Government appear to be saying that we must lose a world-beating research facility.
There will always be major issues to be decided at any time about big science versus little science. Those decisions should be the subject of public debate and effective review. It should not he the case that, as a result of his own carelessness and negligence, the Secretary of State did not notice that a consequence of the way in which he treated the CERN subscription would be that major areas of science research in this country would be wiped out. That is unacceptable.
If anything is needed to prove the culpability of the Secretary of State, it is the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, unique among his predecessors, has decided to keep secret the advice he has received from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. I hope that he will explain why that advice has been kept secret.
Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
Mr. Straw: I have already explained that time is short, and I have been very generous in giving way to interventions.
In 1985, in response to a request from my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, now Lord Joseph, agreed that the advice that he received from the ABRC should be made public for the better information of Parliament, which votes the moneys for science, and of the public. That practice was commendably followed by each of Lord Joseph's successors.
To their credit, the right hon. Members for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) and for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) followed that practice even though they were not always able to agree with everything proposed by the ABRC. They had confidence in the decisions made, and the right hon. Member for Mole Valley was not scared to say, "This
348
is what has been said to me by Sir David Phillips and his colleagues. This is what I have decided to do, and here are the reasons". In common with his predecessor and successor, the right hon. Gentleman was canny enough to recognise that the publication of the ABRC's advice strengthened his hand as Secretary of State in discussions with the Treasury.
In a characteristically high-handed and authoritarian approach, the present Secretary of State has decided that Parliament should not receive information that was previously publicly available. He has suddenly decided that that information, which is critical to the judgments that we should make about the science budget, should be suppressed. No explanation was offered for that decision, but the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science was put up to answer on 19 November, when he said that his right hon. and learned Friend
"considers that the advice that the board offers as part of the public expenditure survey should be confidential, as is normal for similar advice from other bodies such as the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council."—[Official Report, 19 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 30.]
That is a putrid excuse. There is no parallel between the advice offered by the ABRC and that offered by the PCFC and the UFC.
It is a principle now that, whenever a Government-appointed committee offers advice that bears on the public expenditure survey, that advice should be kept secret. Does that mean that the views of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions, which has massive public expenditure implications, should have been made confidential? Does that mean that all sorts of other advice should be suppressed? That speaks volumes for the Secretary of State's approach to government and decision-making—
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It was my predecessor.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to wriggle out of it. There is a simple way in which to deal with his predecessor's decision—he should now publish the ABRC's advice.
What is outrageous about the Government's attitude is that they treat decisions about the spending of public money on public institutions as though that money were private money. That is intolerable. In a democracy, such decisions should not be treated in that way.
Mr. Roger Knapman rose—
Mr. Straw: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I am not giving way.
On radio this morning, the Under-Secretary of State sought to say that the Secretary of State had accepted the advice of the ABRC when he made his decisions. Although the report from the ABRC has been suppressed, we are now being treated to selected quotations from it.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has accepted the ABRC's advice, why can we not see what advice he accepted? I do not believe for a second that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has accepted its advice as to the global size of the budget, because I do not believe that Sir David Phillips would be remotely confident about the budget that the Secretary of State has agreed. It may be

349
that the specific advice from the ABRC about which the Minister spoke this morning concerns the distribution of the total cake.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: That is right.
Mr. Straw: Well, if we are given a peep at the advice that the right hon. and learned Gentleman prays in aid, why can we not see the rest of the advice, so that we can see what the ABRC has recommended and measure that against the decisions that the Secretary of State has made? Why is the House continually denied that right?
The foundation of the science base must be laid in schools. There has been similar negligence and underfunding of the science base in schools as there has been of the science base of universities and research establishments. There is a severe shortage of technicians in schools. Oxford university conducted a survey of 16 to 19-year-olds on their attitude to science and technology. The researchers asked those questioned to rank 13 professions and, in terms of pay and status, I am sad to say that solicitors, doctors and accountants were top, with chemists, engineers and science teachers at the bottom. The researchers reported,
"the lack of government investment in research, and the low status, pay and morale of science teachers has deterred pupils from such work".
The recruiting problems associated with science teachers are well documented in the latest report of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions, Cm. 1415. In paragraph 3.10, it states:
"recruitment is notably low in mathematics, physics and chemistry."
It also expressed anxiety at the quality of entrants to teacher training in those subjects and said that it was
"concerned that institutions may be finding it increasingly difficult to maintain even current entry standards."
Those standards are already far too low, and far too many are going into postgraduate teacher education in the key areas of science without the adequate degree qualifications. What is even worse is that half of those who teach maths or physics in school do not even have a post-A-level qualification in those subjects.
On top of the problem of a shortage of science teachers there is also the problem caused by the total incoherence of the Government's approach to science qualifications and science education post-16.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: It is in chaos.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. The Government talk about A-levels as the gold standard. When the Secretary of State examines the better science education record of other countries, he should recognise that all those other countries ensure that students do more than three subjects between the ages of 16 and 19. They study between five and six subjects so that, not least, a majority of those highly trained young people carry on studying at least one science to the age of 18. In this country, a minority of students study science post-16.
As the Gulf war has shown with terrifying illumination, the world's nations and people live and die by science. Britain was the first scientific nation. It was responsible for more discovery, invention and inquiry than any other
350
nation of similar size. Today, however, the House must acknowledge that there is the deepest anxiety about the continuation of our science base.
That anxiety is coupled with a growing understanding that our appalling economic performance in the 1980s and now is linked to the lack of vision and funding for research and development and the science base by the Government. We need a Government who know that British science and Britain's future are inextricably linked, a Government ready to invest in Britain's future. From Labour, we shall have that Government.
7.49 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'applauds the steps being taken by the Government to sustain and improve still further the strengths and quality of science and science education in the United Kingdom; and notes in particular the successful implementation of the science, mathematics and technology components of the National Curriculum, efforts being made to increase the number of qualified science teachers, the increase in the age participation rate in higher education over the last decade from one in eight to one in five, the significant increase in the science budget since 1979, and the allocation of funds to improve our understanding of the global environment, which provide a sound base for British scientists to play a full role with their European partners, to improve the quality of life, and to underpin the technological competitiveness of British industry.'.
I begin by agreeing that, for all the reasons given by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for many more reasons, it is extremely important that Britain gives proper importance to science and to scholarship and research in every part of our society. A strong science base is essential to not only Britain's economic well-being and competitiveness and its industrial base, but our status as a civilised nation. We want to remain in the forefront of discovery and the extension of the bounds of human knowledge, as we always have been.
The acquisition of modern technology and the application of science to human problems are important for the creation of wealth, as we are all aware, but they are also important for the solution of many other social and human problems. The pure spirit of intellectual curiosity is an important quality in its own right. In acknowledging that that is what we all desire, we should also acknowledge that the quality of British science today is outstanding and is internationally acclaimed. There is no evidence that the quality of scientific work done in this country is inferior to that done in any of our rival and competitor nations.
One of the several mistakes that the hon. Member for Blackburn made was to make his case so highly coloured that he wound up painting a picture of a nation in scientific and technological decline, which is the precise opposite of the truth and a grotesque overselling of his case, which was based on a narrow interpretation of some statistics and public spending figures. We could argue at length about how exactly the output of the scientific community should be measured. The measure that the hon. Gentleman used throughout his speech—if I heard him correctly—was the number of patents taken out in the United States of America, or something—
Mr. Straw: It was not "or something". It was the central conclusion of the Cabinet Office's own survey. It

351
decided that surveying United States patents was one of the fairest ways of comparing the scientific endeavour of various countries. It concluded that Britain was losing out.
Mr. Clarke: That was one of the conclusions of a document from which the hon. Gentleman quoted highly selectively. I quote the number of papers on basic and applied research published in the main scientific journals, which the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) will concede is a perfectly good measure of scientific achievement. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South will denounce the level of science practised in Britain or the level of our achievements.
Between 1981 and 1986—the years on which the figures are based—the United Kingdom percentage of the total world output production remained constant at 8·3 per cent. Germany's percentage has fallen from less than ours when it started—6·3 per cent.—to 5·9 per cent. France's percentage has fallen from 5·1 to 4·8 per cent. We have a strong science base in Britain and we should pay tribute to it and discuss, in a somewhat more dispassionate and sensible way than the hon. Gentleman is prepared to do, how we can support it and develop it in future.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Clarke: I should like to make a little progress before I start giving way.
In response to the last part of the hon. Member for Blackburn's speech, I agree with him that any serious long-term policy for science must start by securing an adequate supply of new, highly qualified scientists and engineers. The hon. Gentleman went in for a light and quick attack on the position of science in our schools and the way in which we are producing the next generation of scientists, engineers and technologists.
The background against which we are debating the subject is that science has been given an important new emphasis in our schools. For the first time, we have introduced science, technology and mathematics into the national curriculum. The national curriculum will ensure that every pupil from primary school to the age of 16 does maths, science and technology as part of a developing curriculum. That is a matter for debate in more detail on another occasion, but we are putting more science into our schools.
Let us consider what is already being achieved. The output from our schools feeds on to our higher education institutions. We all acknowledge that our universities, polytechnics and colleges must also turn out increased numbers of scientists and technologists.
Sir Timothy Raison: I do not quarrel with what my right hon. and learned Friend says, but there is a special problem in girls' schools such as Aylesbury high school in my constituency. Such schools have a great deal of catching up to do to provide the same level of scientific provision as corresponding boys' schools. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider carefully the case for providing more in the way of scientific facilities to enable girls' schools to catch up with their boy counterparts?
Mr. Clarke: The introduction of primary school science for the first time and identical science teaching for girls and boys, covering the same fields, will make a difference. It has always been a curious pattern of the British education that very few girls study physics. It was an overwhelmingly
352
male study. When girls continued with science, overwhelmingly they studied biology. In future, both boys and girls will cover either the same general science curriculum to the age of 16 or separate sciences, if they opt for that. That is an important change. I accept that some girls' schools where girls have not been accustomed to scientific education will have to adjust over a period of time and invest in kit and facilities.
Higher education needs to turn out more scientists and engineers of the same high quality that we have always achieved in Britain. They are doing that on a spectacular scale which the public do not seem to follow and certainly do not always acknowledge. I am glad to say that a dramatic change is taking place in the proportion of young people going on to higher education. Ten years ago, only one in eight young people in Britain entered higher education. This year the rate is one in five. We are well on course to make it one in four by the year 2000.
Numbers of students on science-related courses have made a more or less constant proportion of the rising total. We expect the higher proportion of pupils studying science in schools, to which I have just referred, to increase the proportion of young people who opt in future for science and engineering.
Let us consider the overall figures for science and engineering graduates. The total number of graduates leaving university in Britain has risen from 778,000 in 1979 to 1,061,000 in 1989. That is a 36 per cent. increase in the number of graduates coming out of British higher education during the Government's period of office, and the number is still rising. As the science and engineering proportion has risen slightly, a greatly increased number of scientists of both sexes and of high quality are coming into our community.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Clarke: With apologies to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) who tried to intervene earlier, I give way.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State comment on a point that bothers the Royal Society of Chemistry? Relatively expensive substances such as silver nitrate, without which one cannot do analytical chemistry, are beyond the pockets of some universities. Does the Secretary of State have any thoughts on the provision of equipment, particularly for chemists?
Mr. Clarke: We have increased funding for universities by 10 per cent. for next year, which is ahead of inflation. Within that, science tends to take an ever-rising proportion. Not only silver nitrate but other equipment continually becomes more expensive. I shall consider the point at leisure after the debate.
Our projections of student numbers show that we shall have a further spectacular increase. The number of engineering graduates is projected to rise by some 15 per cent. from the 1988–89 figure to 15,000 by 1993–94. Science and mathematics graduates are projected to increase by one third to 28,000 over the same period. The background is a spectacular increase in the proportion of our young people going through our universities and the proportion who come out as scientists and engineers.
Before we denigrate the education system too much—I agree with everyone else that it should be improved

353
—we must not get carried away by the foolish notion that our system is being left behind by our rivals and that we are not producing the right work force. Our education system is not all that bad—certainly not at the higher education level. We compare very well with all our most important competitors when it comes to young people with higher education qualifications in science. The figures for 1986—I believe that they are OECD figures, and they are the most up to date that I have—show that 15 per cent. of the relevant age group of young people had higher education qualifications in science. In France and in West Germany, only 12 per cent. had them. The figure for Italy is 5 per cent. We are up with the United States, at 11 to 15 per cent., depending on how the comparison is made, and with Japan at 10 to 15 per cent. So we are producing the numbers—[Interruption.] The percentage of the age group is a fair and constant comparison. I can think of no better way of comparing the output of our higher education institutions. Of course, the United States and Japan have larger populations, but we are producing as good a proportion of quality scientists.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: The fallacy in the well-known figures that the Secretary of State has quoted is that they omit engineers. If they were included, we would fall far behind.
Mr. Clarke: I have just given the projections for an increase in the number of engineers. I look forward to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South producing a better form of comparison. We have already heard some foolish comparisons on scientific funding, with which I now want to deal.
The hon. Member for Blackburn said that he was not going to bandy figures, but he threw out the percentage of GDP that we spend on science. I know from my experience in health and in other Departments that comparisons based on percentages of GDP are pretty damned silly. People throw the figures at us at the moment because we had a record rate of growth in our gross domestic product throughout the 1980s. Other countries may increase the percentage of GDP spent on science by going into recession and a period of decline. The hon. Member for Blackburn said that we spend less as a proportion of GDP on civil research than Germany and France. However, using OECD figures again, it is clear that we spend more on civil R and D than do Japan, the United States, Belgium, Canada, Australia, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Greece—half the countries of the OECD. So it is foolish to suggest that we do not bear comparison with our competitors. What matters is what we are doing now and where we go next.
The hon. Member for Blackburn made a great deal of today's press release by the Science and Engineering Research Council. I assume that it was because he spotted that the council was to hold a meeting today that this debate is being held. On the strength of that, he built up a ludicrous case in which he maintained that the excellent British scientific base is somehow crumbling. Let us examine what the current year holds.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: May I remind the Secretary of State of the Select Committee report published in December 1990, paragraph 63 of which points out that
354
"the UK is the only OECD country where growth in spending on research was less than growth in GDP"?
That is why we are at the bottom of the international league.
Mr. Clarke: When a country's GDP rises quickly, funding may sometimes fall behind. When a country goes into steep economic decline, spending on science as a proportion of GDP may rise spectacularly. I have listed some formidable countries, most notably Japan and the United States, which still spend less than we do as a percentage of GDP on civil R and D. It is a daft comparison, but if we are to make it, the example of the United States and Japan is relevant.
Sir Peter Emery: May I recruit my right hon. and learned Friend to the following idea? Will he bear in mind that the Procedure Committee has said that science and technology is too important a matter to be absent from the agenda of the House of Commons? It recommends that a Select Committee should deal with the matter jointly with the House of Lords, or that it should be dealt with as part of the work of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. In that way some of these matters might be better understood in the House and I hope that I can count on my right hon. and learned Friend's support, with the Leader of the House, in moving in that direction.
Mr. Clarke: The composition of Select Committees is a matter for the House, not the Government. I know that there has been pressure for a Select Committee on Science for some time, and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will deal with the matter.
Dr. Bray: The Secretary of State is a little confused about GDP. Science is not measured in tonnes, like steel. If scientists' pay goes up by no more than the national average, the so-called real measure of R and D expenditure increases proportionately to GDP, by definition. So-called level funding means a decline in research done and a decline in the number of scientists at the same rate at which GDP is growing. I shall back up that assertion with detailed figures later.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman will find on reflection that in most countries, and certainly in ours, the increase in incomes exceeds the growth of GDP. I cannot recall when the pay of any group of workers in this country, except possibly in the midst of the fiercest pay policies of the late 1970s, did not rise faster than GDP. It is no good trying to invent a special measure of inflation for a particular public service. If the hon. Member for Motherwell, South ever finds himself in the public service arguing a case against the Treasury, he will learn that every Department can produce special rates of inflation which it says apply only to itself. But the fact is that all pay and other pressures apply to the whole economy. The percentage of GDP is not very useful because GDP varies rather more than spending usually does. Trying to qualify the argument with talk of pay increases for scientists will not do.
This year, the Government's overall expenditure on research and development is more than £5.1 billion, of which £2·8 billion goes on civil research. That puts in proportion the tremendous fuss made by the hon. Member for Blackburn about £1 million or £2 million for the laboratory at Daresbury. Among the aspects for which I

355
am responsible, research undertaken at universities, polytechnics and higher education institutions will be funded at about £1·8 billion, of which expenditure through the research councils—the so-called science budget—forms just over half.
I have made it as clear as I can that the Government are committed to maintaining a healthy science base. We have demonstrated that commitment by keeping the science budget at a level that has enabled research councils to carry out leading-edge research at their own establishments and to fund high-quality research initiatives. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State correctly said on the radio this morning, the so-called science budget part of our overall spending has increased by 23 per cent. in real terms under this Government. Just two years ago it rose by 8 per cent. in real terms at one go; since then the figure has remained level. Nevertheless, funding has increased by almost a quarter in real terms since 1979. We cannot sustain that sort of increase every year and it is not possible to carry out in this or any other country every element of scientific research that people might want within such an expanding budget.
Seen against the background of a 23 per cent. increase in expenditure, the diatribes of the hon. Member for Blackburn can be seen in their true light. It is true that in 1991–92 the value of the underlying science budget will remain level in real terms. There is no fancy accounting in that. Lower figures could be produced by leaving out capital expenditure that has been completed. We have just finished an Antarctic survey ship which, I think, cost £36 million, and a new headquarters for the research councils in Swindon and have made some alteration in the timing of the payments of postgraduate fees. When those are left out and we get down to what matters, we find that the money that is available for scientific research willl be up by 6 per cent. next year in line with the forecast on inflation, and that is a level-terms year. There has been a substantial real terms uplift in the past, especially the big 8 per cent. uplift which took place two years ago.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that of the total research council budget spending only 2 per cent. is spent in Wales? Will he say whether the atmospheric radar station at Aberystwyth, which was opened by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales only two months ago, will continue to be funded by the research council?
Mr. Clarke: The distribution of funding is determined by scientific merit, not by geography. It should remain like that. As far as I am aware—I shall take advice and write to the hon. Gentleman—I do not think that at the moment there is any threat to the establishment at Aberystwyth.
Mr. Tony Lloyd rose—
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) has been very patient. I shall now give way to him.
Mr. Lloyd: I have not really been patient. I listened with keen interest to what the Secretary of State said about the maintenance of the budget. Obviously, and whether he likes it or not, he will be influenced by what is achieved in practice. When we see facilities that have been centres of scientific excellence for many years threatened with closure we will tell the Secretary of State that something is going wrong. Not only Opposition Members will say that; it will
356
be said by people outside. Jodrell Bank has been a world leader in its field for many years. It is under serious threat that could lead to its work being truncated and to its closure. How does the Secretary of State respond to that?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that there is concern in all parts of the House when a facility has a cut in its budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) is in his place and is no doubt following with interest the debate about Daresbury. I have been following the discussions about Jodrell Bank. It is not the case that the Universities Funding Council is reducing the funding of Jodrell Bank. There seems to be some dispute in Manchester university about whether that university can sustain it. I do not believe that Jodrell Bank is threatened.
We have had a large real-terms growth and a level funding base this year. I must now deal with decisions concerning the Science and Engineering Research Council.
The hon. Member for Blackburn completely failed to respond to a relevant comment which we are bound to make and which was put to him in an intervention. We have a 23 per cent. increase in real terms. No one can argue with that, unless he goes in for fancy accounting and says that there are special factors. When Labour was last in power, in 1974–75 and for 1979–80 there was no real-terms increase in the science budget. It was an ice age for the science budget when Labour was in power.
Difficult choices have to be made. The hon. Member for Blackburn did not tell us about any that he would make. Such debates are a permanent feature of scientific study throughout the world and are not confined to this country. Not only are we not behind our competitors, but we are having the same discussion as science communities in every part of the world. In the New Scientist of 2 February, under the so-called "Talking Point", there was an article by Mr. Daniel Greenberg, who is the editor of Science and Government Reform, which is an American publication. In that article, which Mr. Greenberg describes as
"The phony crisis in American science",
he states:
"Is American science sinking because of financial neglect? Leading scientists created this impression by besieging Washington with cries for more money. By all means take note of their pleas, but understand that much of their distress is their own making in collaboration with their politician friends."
In another part of the article Mr. Greenberg states:
"The reality is that science in America has never been bigger, richer or more productive than it is today. What is suffers from is an unrestrained appetite for doing all things possible by neglecting to set priorities for research."
If we are not careful, we could wind up substituting the United Kingdom for the United States in that article, because the choice of priorities which the hon. Member for Blackburn is plainly not prepared to make has to be made to get the best out of expenditure on science.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not listen to what I said. It is acknowledged in all parts of the House that choices have to be made. The crucial question is about the manner and circumstances in which they are made. What is objectionable is the process by which the SERC has been forced to make decisions which otherwise would not have to be made. Was the Secretary of State aware that the budget decisions would lead to the possibility of closures without any review at all of whether this country should stay in basic nuclear physics?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman always says that hard choices have to be made, but makes it quite plain that he would not make them, because he did not mention one. He talked a lot of nonsense which slightly implied that a Labour Government might spend more so that no choices would be made. He latched on to the defence of a victim of a choice that has been made by scientists.
Mr. Straw: That is bluster.
Mr. Clarke: It is not bluster. One of the biggest weaknesses of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen is that on all these matters they speak without conviction about facing up to difficult priorities. When they are challenged about where the money will come from to avoid the hard choices that they talk about, they either wander off into evasiveness or do not answer.
Sir Gerard Vaughan: While accepting entirely that my right hon. and learned Friend is doing much good work, may I ask whether he agrees that there is something very odd when the procedure for funding CERN over which the research councils have no control means that we now have to consider shutting down an internationally well-known and important facility? Will he give an undertaking to have a look at that?
Mr. Clarke: It is an important point, but I shall not try to digress too long on it. We are making a major contribution to the CERN project. There are arguments about the wider impacts on investment in particle physics, at Daresbury, for example. In recent years the Government have looked at this several times. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science was at the Foreign Office and I was at the Department of Trade and Industry when we last looked at the matter in government. Tempting as it is from the point of view of scientific lobbyists—and I almost count myself among them because I am the Secretary of State for Education and Science—if we spend money on CERN at the behest of British scientists, that means public expenditure on nuclear physics. The idea that somehow it does not count if the money is spent in Switzerland and should not have any impact on what is left to spend in Cheshire is appealing but illogical.
Secondly, I can safely say that at one time the Government looked seriously at the question of withdrawing from CERN and discussed it with the scientific community. On the strength of much scientific advice to remain in CERN, we decided to do so. The discussions about CERN have been going on for years. It was at the British behest that we seriously addressed the question of the management, financial control and the scale of the investment in CERN. I was astonished to find when I came to this Department, having, as it were, passed through science when I was in the Department of Trade and Industry, that our present subscription to CERN is lower than it was some years ago because other countries, at the behest of Britain, have acted to improve the management of CERN.
Sir Gerard Vaughan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Clarke: This must be the last intervention because other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
Sir Gerard Vaughan: The increasing subscription, which is totally outside British hands, has thrown the CERN budget into total disarray.
Mr. Clarke: As I have just explained, matters have improved. It is still true that the CERN subscription which British scientists want us to continue has an impact on the money that we have available for other matters. I shall put that in context and try to deal with the immediate issues that have arisen at Daresbury and elsewhere.
The key question is how to distribute the money and how to make the difficult choices that the hon. Member for Blackburn would not be prepared to make. The advice from the research councils is channelled to me through the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. I rely on that advice about scientific and research priorities within our resources. In terms of the scientific merits, I keep an arm's-length relationship and the Secretary of State in any Government would be well advised to do the same. I am predisposed to accept that advice, and usually do. I have just accepted the ABRC's advice about the distribution of funds to the councils.
I think that the hon. Member for Blackburn would agree that in the end the difficult choices about priorities within the science budget should essentially be scientific decisions and not primarily political ones. That means that their difficult role is to give me advice, within the resources made available to them—
Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Clarke: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. This is a short debate and many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part. Some of these interventions might be saved either for the winding-up speech or the speeches that hon. Members make themselves.
Mr. Clarke: I will take your advice Mr. Deputy Speaker, particularly as the same point is being made in intervention after intervention.
It is important to realise that when a project is turned down the research councils are saying that there are better ways to spend money within the allocation made to them, and those better ways are based on scientific grounds. The overriding political responsibility is mine and I get advice on the scientific priorities. I feel that I should receive that advice in confidence. My predecessor, now the Leader of the House, made the wise decision not to publish this year's advice on the public spending round. I have decided not to publish the ABRC's full advice on the distribution of funds and, as has been said, we have followed the financial division between the councils that the advisory board recommended. When one has advisers of this kind, carrying out this role, the relationship is best one of confidential close advice, not one of public debate.
Mr. Straw: Why not?
Mr. Clarke: I do not have public debates with my civil servants. I am notorious for frequently not taking their advice. If a body has the key role of giving advice in confidence, but that advice is given in a public document to which I have to respond publicly, it becomes just another part of the public debate.
Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Clarke: No, I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman has harped on all day, both on the radio and here, about this point, and he is wrong. He accuses me of making what he calls a characteristically autocratic decision, but, as with many other parts of my portfolio, I am following the wise precedent set by my predecessor. I feel that the relationships with the research councils will be greatly improved when we stop having this megaphone debate and replace it with a close confidential relationship on scientific priorities.
The Government suffer a similar problem in arts with the Arts Council and in sport with the Sports Council. We allocate money, the research councils distribute it and the public debate concentrates on those projects that the research council will not be funding. The only scientific projects about which the public ever hears are the ones that have been refused priority or have suddenly lost priority vis-à-vis the rest of the scientific budget. They suddenly become centres of excellence—some of those affected today are centres of excellence. The radio schedule fills up with descriptions of, for example, a chap with a project who was on the point of breaking through on the method of transportation of some disease. All the projects that have been given higher scientific priority and have got the money do not see the light of day in the media. That is how it has gone this year.
All this gives me no chance to talk about the projects that the research councils are funding and that are producing excellent work. For example, there is the work by the Medical Research Council on autism, the breakthrough achieved by the Agriculture and Food Research Council in the Institute of Animal Health in sorting out the seal virus, the earthquake predictions method developed in this country, the tremendous work done on monoclonal antibodies by the M RC's laboratory of molecular biology. We never hear anything about those, although they are financed. We hear only about the ones that have lost out in this afternoon's agenda of the Science and Engineering Research Council because it decided to spend the money on something else that it judged to have higher scientific priority.
There is a difficulty for the SERC that is not of the making of the chairman and the people who assembled this afternoon. Sir Mark Richardson became the chairman in October 1990 and immediately made it clear that he wished to carry out a review of the excessive commitments, particularly to large projects, into which the SERC has entered. He initiated a moratorium on all new commitments on 21 November, which I am glad to say the SERC is now lifting. It made some announcements on 19 December. What has since happened is what is wrongly described as the £40 million shortfall. It is simply that the SERC had embarked on a series of commitments to a number of big projects and they were outrunning the resources given to the SERC, which was therefore not following its remit.
I congratulate the council not on individual decisions, although I can do that, but on its scientific expertise, which is better than mine. It knows what is to be cut out in the review I am not able to compare the study of particle physics at Daresbury or at Strasbourg with the nuclear structure at Mainz, or nuclear physics as against some other part of the science and engineering budget. The SERC has cut back on commitments and it has had to be selective in doing so. Some of the other projects on which it has made cuts have not been mentioned. For example,
360
it has said that it cannot comtemplate for at least two years the gravitational wave detector project. That is an Anglo-German project which the Germans also want to postpone because they cannot afford it.
One can spend a fortune on space astronomy. I once faced a similar problem in getting us out of what I regarded as an extraordinary manned space project in which the European Space Agency and the French wanted us to invest, and did so with the full support of the research councils, although I was attacked by enthusiasts in the House of Commons for trying to save us millions of pounds on a mad international project that would have impacted on our domestic science. I also had a good run with the HOTOL project, and I got us out of spending a few billions on that—money that would have come out of the science budget. The councils are looking carefully at some of the space astronomy projects. The Americans have deferred similar projects for 12 months. Once one gets into this sort of research, the noughts on the end of the bill have an impact on the science budget.
Daresbury—on which we have just had the announcement—presented a difficult choice. It is our only accelerator devoted to basic research in nuclear physics. Irrespective of today's announcement, the SERC has already made it clear that it will continue support of nuclear structure physics and continue funding of individual experiments, and that the NFC agreement on Eurogam with the University of Strasbourg will not be terminated before there is an opportunity to exploit the project. Furthermore, United Kingdom nuclear physicists will have access to the Eurogam machine and be eligible for certain research grants. There will be collaboration between Daresbury and Strasbourg for the next year or two.
I could read, but I shall not, a list of projects that are going ahead under the patronage of the SERC. One of the first things that I did when I came to the Department was to open the new 32 m telescope at Cambridge which had been financed by the SERC. The council faces difficult decisions in astronomy which is an expensive big international science. I am glad that it has been able to lift the moratorium on the smaller grants. If it does not have the courage to carry out this fundamental review, the danger will be that commitment to big projects will roll on while key small grants to people operating in universities, where the future often lies, are put under a moratorium or cut.
We recognise the need for well-judged policies. I have explained to the House what they are. We are committed to a strong scientific base. We have an excellent record of scientific achievement and this is one of the most attractive places in the world to invest for anybody looking for high-quality science. The Government will support research councils in the difficult choices that they have to make when distributing the resources available to them. We shall commit to science those resources that the country can afford and hope to build on our excellent record.
At the behest of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) I recently had a meeting, chaired by the Prime Minister, with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and many distinguished scientists who came to discuss this matter. The Prime Minister emphasised his personal interest in science and his determination to continue to chair, from time to time, meetings of the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology and to

361
continue the practice of his predecessor of chairing all meetings of the Cabinet committee that was set up specifically to deal with science matters across the Government. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Havant will agree that the Prime Minister listened with considerable interest to pleas from distinguished scientists for continuity of funding, and for a strategic look at where we are going on science. With the research councils, we shall try to take that look.
I urge the House to accept that this sudden explosion of rage about the consequences of one research council meeting this afternoon and the bandying of selective figures do not accurately give a picture of British science. We have some of the best scientists in the world. Some of the greatest achievements in the world of science are made in the United Kingdom and the Government have demonstrated their support in the most practical way by putting resources into science and by developing schools and higher education systems in such a way that we shall produce further generations of equally good scientists and technologists in ever-greater numbers.
8.29 pm
Mr. Adam Ingram: I do not enter the debate as a scientist, an engineer, or even a technologist, and I suspect that the same is true of the Secretary of State, having listened to him read from a close script about the various scientific—
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Written by me.
Mr. Ingram: That may be, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to be reading closely some of the technological details.
I have worked in industry, spending a long period in the electricity supply industry as a computer systems analyst, and I have always taken a close interest in science, whether pure science or technological development.
For many years—irrespective of what the Secretary of State has said, I tend to support the arguments advanced from the Opposition Front Bench in terms of statistics—there has been a steady decline in research and development and in pure science in Britain. Much of that has clearly been the result of lack of foresight on the part of industry. It has not been investing in the way in which our international competitors have. We can see that in the way in which we lose out in international markets and the way in which our trade in those areas has been declining.
What was happening in science and research and development was brought home to me when I entered the House in 1987. I do not wish to go into all the details associated with my point, but I am referring to the Government's attempt, in effect, to disable the National Engineering Laboratory in my constituency, which was and still is a world-renowned research establishment undertaking engineering research projects, some of which are not carried out anywhere else in the United Kingdom and possibly even the world. American universities send people to that establishment to use its facilities.
On 27 May 1988, Dr. Donald Bell, then director of the laboratory, said:
"The range of services provided by NEL in the mechanical engineering field is unique. Not only do we have facilities that would be difficult to match—for example, the strong floor
362
used for structural testing and the flow measurement laboratory—but the collective expertise of our staff and the number and variety of testing rigs here are unrivalled."
In 1988 Lord Young, then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, announced that the NEL was to be privatised on the incredibly short-sighted basis that it had to become profit making. A laboratory which had established itself in the forefront of research and development for 40 years all of a sudden had to become profit making. Industry was not asking for that; the Government made the decision.
The decision was made in the face of major opposition from industry, some of which was never heard about in the public forum but which we knew took place. The industry made representations to the Government that it needed the research facility. To privatise it in the way proposed would have been detrimental to some of the key industries in the Scottish economy and throughout the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord Young, in his ideological zeal and determination to get rid of the establishment, was prepared to give it away at a knock-down price to a French-owned company. Sell it off to the foreigners, we no longer want it, was the philosophy of the then Secretary of State.
The work force, the trade unions and the wider industry reacted strongly against that dogmatic proposal. As a result of that campaign the Government were forced into a U-turn. Since Lord Young left office there have been many other failed Secretaries of State in the Department of Trade and Industry, but all have continued to look for ways to dispose of that valuable asset regardless of the impact that that would have on the local economy in Scotland and on British engineering.
In the past two years, more than 200 members of staff at the laboratory have been disposed of and the question whether it can be commercially viable now arises. Some of those who are no longer with the laboratory were the brightest and best among engineering research scientists in Britain today. They were disposed of because it was decided that there had to be a cut in that area. The laboratory is now fighting for its survival against a hostile Government who want it to achieve 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. funding from commercial contracts by 1995, compared with 20 per cent. funding from that source now.
The Secretary of State says that the Government have a great commitment towards research and development, but that example alone tells me otherwise. They have put a major resource at risk on the basis of the Secretary of State's dogmatic approach, resulting in the disposal of some key scientists. What happened and is continuing to happen at that establishment is indicative of the Government-created malaise which now afflicts the majority of manufacturing research and development and broader scientific research in Britain.
I know of no British scientist, eminent or otherwise, who is not outraged by the rapid decline in state support in this area. The weight of opinion is against the Secretary of State. It is not a case of bandying around statistics; this is what the practitioners in the field are saying is happening to their area of research. It is not just our domestic scientists who are saying that; scientists from countries with whom we collaborate and against whom we compete in international markets are amazed at the way in which the first-class reputation of British science has been steadily eroded.

363
I will not quote the figures that I had intended to give to show the decline in research and development. Instead, I will quote from a press release from the Royal Society dated 8 January 1991, to which I was not allowed to refer in an intervention. That is a prominent body, not one to come to its conclusions lightly or even to make mistakes in its calculations. The press release is headed:
"Royal Society launches major enquiry into UK science policy".
That seems to show some concern in that area. I shall not quote it all, but it says:
"Over the last 10–15 years there have been major structural changes in the conduct of and framework for scientific research in the UK. Some of these changes have been unintended results of policies implemented for other purposes and are having serious consequences for the health of UK research. Examples of structural changes include the following:
The proportion of general national expenditure on R and D financed by Government sources dropped from 50 per cent. in 1983 to 37 per cent. in 1988;
Government expenditure on the Science Base has declined steadily from 0·35 per cent. of GDP in 1981 to 0·28 per cent. now".
That is significantly different from what the Secretary of State was saying. Does he repudiate the Royal Society's figures? With regard to the health of our educational establishments, the Royal Society goes on to say:
"1,200 permanent science and engineering posts in universities have been lost since 1979".
That does not seem to me to show the healthy state of our scientific community. I would be interested to hear the Minister's reaction to that when he replies.
At a time of recession, when one needs to find a way out of the problems that the economy faces, it is scarcely credible that there should be a massive cut of £28·5 million in real terms in pure science. One of the bleakest pieces of evidence of cuts that I have seen is that by 1993–94 the United Kingdom will be spending less in real terms on the work of all five United Kingdom research councils than in 1990–91. That is happening at a time when we should be spending more to compete in a highly competitive world.
It is because of all those points, which have been highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), that the scientific community is now in a state of ferment. We should remember also that these scientists are not motivated by political point scoring. They are reluctantly coming forward to politicians to ask them to argue their case. They are not used to it. I was telephoned the other night by a professor asking me to sign an EDM. I thought that he knew what an early-day motion was, but he did not. He is a professor of pure science. I gave him the background. That shows how remote scientists are from what happens here. They think that if they talk to a Member of Parliament and ask him to sign a statement, the Government will respond. I had to tell him otherwise. Perhaps I was able to educate that professor. Scientists are not motivated by political point scoring against the Government, but they know what is happening in research and development establishments and in universities.
It is probable that the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury will be closed. I see the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler), whose constituency it is in. I will listen with interest to what he says in the debate, and I shall be even more interested to see which Division Lobby he goes into at the end of the debate.
Debates here may be hot-tempered, but the nuclear facility has been described by Claude Detraz, chairman of
364
the Associated Committee for Nuclear Physics at the European Science Foundation, as "world class". He goes on to say of those working at Daresbury:
"In their selected field of activity UK scientists have gained recognised leadership."
The New Scientist of 2 February 1991—again, an independent publication—states:
"At a time when nuclear physics in Britain is acknowledged as an internationally successful area of research, the country will soon find itself with fewer nuclear physicists than Iraq. What is going on?"
What, indeed, is going on? When British scientists develop into world-class performers like those at Daresbury, what is their reward? The Government have told them that there will be reduced funding, and have left the scientific community to get on with implementing cuts. The scientific community is being left to make the harsh decisions. That is being done against a background of no proper consultation and no proper inquiry into what is happening in the scientific community. That is why the Royal Society has had to undertake the role.
The Secretary of State said that the debate had been generated because of excitement which had been whipped up unnecessarily. Before the debate was arranged, I was approached by Dr. Jim Kellie, whom I had never met before, a nuclear physicist who lives in my constituency. He passed to me a copy of a letter from Sir Mark Richmond, chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council. Sir Mark said:
"I fully recognise that the nuclear science facility acts as a focus for much of the nuclear structure physics programme.
Its closure will reduce substantially SERC's support for the subject, but not remove it completely. We are under considerable pressure as a result of recent Government decisions on funding and it is, I am afraid, inevitable that some areas of science will be hard hit."
That letter was from the chairman of SERC itself, again someone who is not involved in the political to-ing and fro-ing of the House, but a cold dispassionate scientist who is concerned about what is happening in the world in which he is a professional. What he says is at variance with everything that the Secretary of State said.
The Secretary of State mentioned the Eurogam programme. In preparing for the debate, I found it interesting to note that the Eurogam programme is one year ahead of anything else, certainly in the USA. That means that British nuclear scientists are leading the field in a key area of nuclear research. The photon tagger, which is also linked with the nuclear debate, was developed arid built by Glasgow and Edinburgh universities. Again that is developmental work at the very forefront of world research.
If those facilities are closed down or put at risk, two things will follow. First, the highly talented British scientists who are currently working in the facilities will see their years of hard work destroyed at a stroke; that will inevitably lead to them going abroad to continue their research, and we shall lose talented scientists. Secondly, it will mean that the culture of pure science at British establishments, the excitement among young scientists and the energy that they put into the years of work to produce results for the good of the nation will be lost. When we lose talented people and projects in that way, no young, bright scientists will come forward in the future. We can turn them out of our universities by the thousand, but if there is no work for them, they will go abroad.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Hurry up.
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Member shouts from a sedentary position, but I intend to debate in my own time. If the hon. Member has a point to make, let him make it.
The overall effects of the cuts, not just in the programmes that I have mentioned, will mean that in years ahead Britain will be without trained nuclear scientists, at a time when we need more trained personnel because of the demands of decommissioning nuclear power stations and because of environmental studies.
The savings being made now may be written off as small beer by the Secretary of State, but they will cost us dear in the future. There is nothing sensible or constructive about the Government's policy on British science and research and development. At best it is a Luddite policy of the worst sort. It has become sadly apparent what the Prime Minister meant when he talked about a classless society. The message from the decisions on science to the young scientists in the classrooms of Britain today is that there is no point in going to class because in the long run their talent will no longer be needed.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Time is getting very short, and many hon. Members wish to speak.
8.47 pm
Sir Ian Lloyd: Everyone realises that we are under great pressure. We are grateful to the Opposition for making time for the debate. I regret very much that there has not been a full-scale debate on the subject for six years, but my perspective goes back further. When the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) talked about resource allocation in the sense of a relationship between expenditure on science and science policy and the immediate consequences, he was starting at the beginning of the 1980s; he said that the consequences were felt almost immediately in that decade. With that I disagree.
It is important to note that we are looking at a much more fundamental and much longer-scale relationship, especially between the work in pure science and the subsequent benefit to society. We should consider a period of 15 to 20 years. It is for that very reason that, generally speaking, when we get into these debates we tend to get locked into statistical argument and inevitably pick up the language of those who write to us and properly protest.
Of course, as the Secretary of State said, we are not a nation in scientific decline. If any of us thought that, we probably would not be here and we would be taking a much more serious view of the whole thing. What are the questions we should be asking ourselves?
Mr. Ernie Ross: Is this a joke?
Sir Ian Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman said that if science was in decline we would all be elsewhere. Surely we would be here, bringing it to people's attention.
Sir Ian Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted me. We would certainly be taking it far more seriously than we are. We would be here much more often and we would be taking evidence from a much wider spectrum of opinion.
We are not talking about total funding or about the national division between total expenditure on research
366
and total expenditure on development. We are not discussing the structural division between the public and private sectors or about the divisions even within each sector. These are immensely important topics. Where should fundamental science be done? In a world in which what is described as big science is unavoidably international, how much should be done, in which fields, and who should pay? How should the burden fall, and how should adjustments be made?
Many legitimate differences of opinion are possible. Statistics inevitably envelop most arguments, and they are neither conclusive nor dispensable—but they are often revealing. However, it would be unfortunate to adopt the view that such discussion, because it is difficult, should become increasingly confidential. I also regret that the 1990 report of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils has not been made available, because that published in 1989 was of immense value.
The statistics are not encouraging. There is profound and widespread concern in the scientific community that is greater than any I have experienced since I first entered the House. That concern has existed for many years, and has been gravely aggravated by inflation—particularly that affecting the price of new and expensive highly technical equipment. The identifiable problems will be alleviated, but not solved by higher funding alone. That is a necessary but not a sufficient condition.
When I last spoke on this subject, I ended with the word "priorities". The latest analysis of public expenditure figures for 1993–94, which was published yesterday or the day before, shows for the first time the extremely interesting figures for expenditure per head.
Total Government expenditure per head of the population in 1989–90 was the large sum of £2,431. Of that, research and development on defence accounted for £45; education and science, £33; Department of Trade and Industry, £7; energy, £3; and others, £5—making a total of £93, leaving £2,338 remaining. Of that sum, no less than £1,426 was spent on health and social security—£513 on the former, and £913 on the latter; £361 on education; and £551 on other areas.
Those figures inject a degree of perspective, as they reveal also that we spend £257 million on the running costs of leisure centres. That kind of imbalance is seldom discussed in the House. That sum is equal to £4·5 gross per head of the population, and £2·5 net. The Science and Engineering Research Council deficit this year of £8 million is equal to 0·39p per head of the population. If the figure is £14 million next year, that will be equal to 0·69p. That figure is seldom related to, and weighed in the balance against, the £2,431 of total expenditure per head of the population. Only debates of the kind that have not been held for six years, particularly in respect of science funding, can reveal such disparities.
It is no use trying to apportion blame without taking a longer perspective. We should ask ourselves what is the critical path analysis of recovery from now until the year 2005, what policies are required, and what should be the distribution of expenditure. Those questions cannot be answered without a great deal of work and analysis, although we may make guesses.
However, we can identify the critical path analysis arrived at by Japan for the years 1960 to 1965, which yielded that country's dominance today. I use that word advisedly, having read two reports from the British embassy in Tokyo, which undoubtedly confirm; that

367
judgment. Could we have emulated the Japanese? I have no doubt that we could have done so—but, both then and now, the answers would be different. However, Germany, Japan and the United States are not weakening their basic science.
Whatever we do, we must identify and support the critical path network for research and development in the United Kingdom, which involves taking a forward perspective—however difficult that may be—of at least 15 or 20 years. If that were done, right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House could try to agree a common basis and set of objectives. As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, we must create greater public awareness of the relationship between today's education and science and tomorrow's fundamental science, for the standard of living that will exist in 2010 will clearly depend on its application.
The Overseas Technical Information Service summary of the Japanese "White Paper on Science and Technology 1990" makes several significant comments:
"Supported by scientific and technological development, Japan has matured into an economic giant that produces 14 per cent. of the world's GNP. In recent years, the people's consciousness has been transformed in the midst of this economic prosperity, and they now wish to live their lives in comfort and fulfilment … Rather than analysing the contribution which science and technology make to economic growth, the paper considers their roles from the standpoint of ordinary people, and attempts to show how science and technology contribute to the creation of a satisfying life based upon comfort and fulfilment".
That philosophy is increasingly reflected in so much that is coming not only from Japan but from elsewhere.
Right hon. and hon. Members who visited the extraordinary exhibition staged by Hitachi in London a couple of weeks ago found that philosophy clearly stated in the documentation available at that event. Hitachi alone spends £2·7 billion on research and development, and employs 16,000 people at 33 research and development establishments worldwide. That development certainly has taken place within my lifetime, and probably within the past 20 to 25 years.
We must give priority to a policy of defining the critical path and following it, backed by all the resources and political will that we can muster.
I shall make one more contribution towards perspective in this debate because from time to time it is helpful to discover that our situation is not unique to the present time. In 1855, Newton's biographer, Sir David Brewster, said:
"It is from the trenches of science alone that war can be successfully waged and it is in its patronage and liberal endowment that nations will find their best and cheapest defence."
That was 150 years ago, and it is certainly as true today as it was then. He dedicated the volume to His Royal Highness Prince Albert with these words:
"whose views, were they seconded, by statesmen willing to extend education and advance science, would raise our country to a higher rank than it now holds."
I do not know what a similar biographer would say today, but I have an idea that, if he viewed the spectrum of argument and information that have been put before us, he would reach a similar conclusion.
8.59 pm
Mr. Doug Hoyle: I shall be as brief as possible, because I realise that many other hon. Members wish to speak. The hon. Member for
368
Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) also wishes to make a contribution because, like me, he wants to bat not only for Warrington but for Britain and world science.
I must pay tribute to the contribution made by the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), who is an esteemed Member of the House, and is knowledgeable about his subject. I contrast his style and knowledge with the stance of the Secretary of State in the debate. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is new to his office, but we have often clashed when he has held other offices.
Naturally, I wish to mention the Daresbury laboratory, because it is important to Warrington and to world science. The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, in its report, called upon the Government to ensure that our scientific endeavours became international in character. The report pointed out that there was a need for Britain
"to develop and strengthen her international links in order to retain her place in world science."
The report also outlined some of the major weaknesses in British science, describing them as
"areas in which a concerted Government response is essential if Britain is to face the challenge of Europe."
Unfortunately, despite the Secretary of State's soothing words, we appear to be going in the opposite direction. That is why I welcome this debate, as did so many hon. Members before me. Although the Secretary of State pointed out that Daresbury has about two years to go, the sword of Damocles is hanging over it.
Daresbury is the only experimental nuclear physics facility in the United Kingdom, and there is no doubt that it conducts research of the highest international standard. It is a world leader in its field, and operates one of the most successful particle accelerators. In addition, the laboratory has contributed to many important collaborative ventures. By any standards, the nuclear structure facilities at Daresbury are of world class. Scientists abroad regard it as the "jewel in the crown" of the Science and Engineering Research Council, and have written to me on the subject.
The only way to give the facility a long-term future, and to save it, is to put in more funds. Yet all that I have described is to be sacrificed for the paltry sum of £8 million, which is unbelievable to people abroad and to the many people who have written to the centre. I have a large number of their letters here tonight. They do not come only from people in this country but from Japan, America, Germany and France. In all the letters that have poured in, they have said that they could not understand why the Government are doing this to a facility which is world-renowned—nor can I, and nor can the people who work at Daresbury.
There is not merely the question of the direct effect upon the 150 people who work there, many of whom live in my constituency. The indirect effects must be considered too. Even at this late stage, can we remove that sword of Damocles? Having listened to the Secretary of State tonight, I am not comforted. Indeed, leaving the present Government in charge of scientific research is like leaving Dracula in charge of a ward full of anaemics, and then wondering why they do not recover.
Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman had better persuade his union sponsors to employ a new script writer.
Mr. Hoyle: I take no notice of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), the Secretary of State's Parliamentary Private Secretary. He is trivial at all times; triviality is second nature to him.
Let me tell the Secretary of State that, instead of leaving a fertile plain on which plants can grow high, he is creating a desert on which little now grows and on which, if he continues with his present course, nothing will grow in the future.
9.5 pm
Mr. Chris Butler: Next week, the more romantic of us will be tempted to say it with flowers. If the beloved lives abroad, Interflora may oblige; the problem is that, given what the pound sterling can buy when translated, a fabulous spray can become a rather disappointing pot plant. The trouble is that the pound sterling is first translated into an international currency, the fleurin, which is based on the Swiss franc. What the pound sterling can buy here often loses in purchasing power abroad because of the relationship with the Swiss franc.
We are now confronting exactly the same problem with regard to nuclear physics. The £60 million-a-year contribution that we make to CERN is related to the Swiss franc and to Swiss inflation; that means an unexpected contribution to CERN of an extra £10 million this year. Two thirds of the £90 million SERC budget for nuclear physics already goes to CERN, while an extra £20 million goes to support individual CERN scientists, leaving only £9 million or £10 million for the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury, which, as we have already heard, is under threat.
I make a direct connection between the threat to the nuclear structure facility and the overbudget on CERN. It appears that the nuclear structure facility may be sacrificed because of that extra contribution, to which I gather that the press release mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) also referred. The Daresbury structure is being nibbled away for the sake of big science abroad, with big budgets being spent to achieve limited results—in contrast to the excellent results being achieved at Daresbury.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), the former Prime Minister, visited Daresbury only last July; I was with her. She said that she was most impressed and later wrote:
"It was clear that the Laboratory is at the frontiers of research in several fundamental areas, and I do hope that this will receive the international recognition it deserves."
Dr. Akito Arima, president of the university of Tokyo, wrote that Daresbury was
"the most important center for nuclear physics in the world".
The United Kingdom is the world leader at present, but it will not be able to maintain that status if the facility is destroyed and if we no longer produce philosophy doctorates in the subject. If the facility closes, a number of postgraduates will lose their PhDs as it is—at least nine from Birmingham university alone. Deleting nuclear physics is not the act of a Government who are committed to the future of science in this country.
The Conservative-dominated Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts has said:
"The UK is undoubtedly disadvantaged by the amount of funding devoted to scientific research. On the basis of
370
Government funded civil R and D as a percentage of GDP, the UK is not as well funded as Italy, France, Sweden, or Germany".
That may seem pretty damn silly to the Secretary of State, but it strikes me as pretty damn telling.
The Advisory Board for the Research Councils wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend on 18 December. I seem to have come across the letter; perhaps it fell off the back of a lorry. The letter says:
"The proportion of the nation's wealth deployed through the science budget will have declined by 15 per cent. between 1981 and 1994.… This will make it difficult to sustain scientific excellence.… These cutbacks … widen the disparity with research budgets in other advanced countries."
I am not necessarily suggesting that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to produce millions of pounds out of a hat in order to re-establish our credentials in the science world or to save the nuclear structure facility. However, it is unfair that SERC should have to bear the whole cost of undoing problems that are not of its own making. It is unfair that the nuclear structure facility should be given the chop on the basis of rising costs when its own costs have been declining.
CERN appears to be sacrosanct and ring-fenced, whereas the rest of the science budget needs to be ring-fenced from CERN. There is a precedent for this. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) knows well, the British Library, because of its voracious nature, was ring-fenced from the rest of the arts budget. It kept eating into the arts budget. That ring-fencing was probably done against Treasury resistance, and I am sure that the Treasury would not be keen on ring-fencing CERN. Nevertheless, I have three possible lifelines for my right hon. and learned Friend, and I hope that he will accept one of them.
First, the CERN budget could be renegotiated. The Foreign Office is understandably reluctant to do that. After all, it might offend our European partners—though I cannot imagine why such sensitivity should be shown so recently after such disunity on the European political front. I could understand a modicum of embarrassment on the part of the officials having to renegotiate. After all, it would imply an element of carelessness in failure to solve the root problem at the previous stage of renegotiation. Thus, to save the face of officials, the NSF is about to be sacrificed. There are snags in this course. First, it will undermine our reputation as a reliable scientific collaborator. Secondly, CERN's problems will only re-emerge. I understand that it is planning to spend an extra £0·5 billion on a big new facility in Switzerland. What will next be sacrificed on the altar of the massive "Z" bosom of CERN? Will it be the rest of Daresbury? Will it be the astronomy budget? In my view, procrastination is not a viable option.
Secondly, the Government could renegotiate the host contribution to CERN. I understand that the hosts make a profit six times greater than their contribution to CERN. Of course, the savings from such a renegotiation would be uncertain, and they might come only in the medium term, but the savings from closing the NSF would also only come in the medium term because of the massive redundancy costs involved. I should like to hear from the Secretary of State a pledge that he is prepared to renegotiate the host country's contribution.
Thirdly—and perhaps most important—my right hon. and learned Friend could draw down on the aptly named flexibility margin, the ABRC's back pocket. In 1992–93

371
and in 1993–94 the ABRC has put 2 per cent. more than usual in its back pocket. If it were to bring that back to its normal 2 per cent. flexibility margin it would have vast amounts of money—enough money to save the NSF and probably to remove the other areas of pressure in the science budget at the moment. The back pocket amount for 1992–93 is £39 million, and the amount for 1993–94 is £60 million.
It is odd to quote the arm's-length principle in response to this argument. After all, the demise of the NSF, if it comes about, will be the result of Government policy. There will be precious little use in quoting the arm's-length policy to a drowning man.
I have mentioned three lifelines for the NSF and the science budget. I trust that my right hon. and learned Friend will pick up one of them and throw it to them rather than remain aloof.
9.14 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: There is more to this important subject than an argument about taxpayers' money. We must recognise that the Government cannot give the scientific community a blank cheque and that the public spending implications must be realistically borne in mind. It is entirely reasonable to expect industry and commerce to fund a considerable proportion of research, and not necessarily only in the sphere of applied science, upon which industrial money tends to be concentrated in the universities at present.
There are some companies in the United Kingdom with a notable record on carrying out even blue-sky research. They have often benefited from it, as we see from the register of patents worldwide. Remarkable in that is the pharmaceutical industry. The statistics reveal that it invests about £1 billion per annum on research and development. That is a significant and productive sum. It is an example to the rest of British industry, and it is right to say in a debate such as this that the part which does not invest to any significant extent in research and development should consider sponsoring scientific study to a much greater degree. The industrial sponsoring and support of research falls far short of what is now a well-established tradition in the United States of America. There, corporate involvement, particularly in the work of advanced science and engineering laboratories, is well established.
However, there is an important, perhaps dominant place for Government funding. The support given by the Government to science and technology should be proportional to the need perceived and the potential advantage that can be obtained. The raw fact that Italy, France, Sweden and Germany—countries with a way of life and an infrastructure strikingly similar to our own—support scientific research at a level in real terms up to 50 per cent. more than the United Kingdom does not tell the story fully without considering need and achievement.
Fortunately, in terms of need, the Government have had the wisdom to perceive that there is a serious deficit in science education and training. Unfortunately, with an equal and opposite lack of perception, they have failed to take the steps required to meet that need and to fill the deficit. Many examples can be given. There is not time to list them all in the debate, but one striking example can be found in the considerable, continuing and miserable shortage of good quality science teachers. In the interests
372
of brevity, I shall make but one point which shows that to be the case and demonstrates the failure of Government policy towards science education.
The Government's bursary scheme, which attempts to lure people into teaching as a second career, has failed already. Taking physics, chemistry and biology together, one would have expected the bursary scheme to be showing an increase in the number of applicants for places on courses in those subjects for the postgraduate certificate in education, but that has not happened. In 1989 there were 898 applicants for those places; in 1990 it was down to 840 and in 1991 it was down to 822. So, despite the bursary scheme, we are producing fewer science teachers. We may be producing many science graduates, but the Secretary of State should visit Lloyd's, the stock exchange, accountancy firms or the non-scientific parts of the Civil Service, the tax inspectorate or the factory inspectorate. He will find plenty of people with science degrees there because those jobs pay better than teaching science in schools.[Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) thinks that this is a funny subject. Perhaps she has not looked at the statistics.
As one looks at secondary schools, it is obvious that there is still a crying need for further measures to be taken to introduce into the education system for the first time—the problems are not just the fault of this Government—a quality and quantum of teaching that would meet the need. This is not a problem that one would see in anything like the same way in the colleges or lyceés of France or the gymnasiums of Germany, where we would find a much higher level of achievement in bringing people from business and the professions into science teaching than there is currently any sign of achieving here.
Before we can ask the Government to fund British scientific research, we must ask whether it is worth funding. On the basis of the evidence, the answer must be that of course it is, and it is worth funding on the evidence of achievement and potential achievement more extensively than is so at present.
We have heard much about Daresbury. I emphasise that the hon. Members for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) were right about the potential damage to the United Kingdom's reputation as a country of scientific excellence if the effect of changes in the funding of the Science and Engineering Research Council means that Daresbury has to close.
Professor Detraz was mentioned earlier. In his comments to Sir Mark Richmond, he said:
"All members of NuPECC were amazed and horrified to learn of a proposal by SERC to remove much of its funding for Nuclear Physics. This would close the world-class SERC facility at Daresbury, and renege on its formal agreement".
That is quite an accusation to make against the Government and the British scientific community, but it is justified and true.
The hon. Member for Warrington, South spoke of the effect that that will have on young PhD postgraduate students, not only at Birmingham university, which he mentioned, but at other United Kingdom universities. The effect is obvious. There are jobs elsewhere for them and the brightest and best will leave the United Kingdom. Brilliant young British scientists are working at universities in the United States, and some in universities of the European Community, not only because jobs are available for them but because the effect of decisions such as that taken in

373
relation to Daresbury is to undermine the confidence of young scientists in this country. It will undermine the confidence not only of those whose PhD theses are based on what is happening at Daresbury but of PhD students in other scientific disciplines, particularly the expensive ones, who may have a great contribution to make but feel that it can be made more securely elsewhere.
In a spirit of realism, I recognise that SERC can be criticised for over-optimism in the past. Whether that is a fair criticism is another matter. There are three major influences other than overheating based on optimism. The first is international subscriptions. As we heard the effect of those from the hon. Member for Warrington, South, I shall not repeat him. The second is a factor which should be borne in mind but has not been mentioned—the gap between agreed university salary settlements and SERC's agreed public expenditure outcome. I understand that every 1 per cent. of university salaries costs SERC £1 million for the year. This has not been taken sufficiently into account. The third influence is the poor public expenditure outcome. Bearing in mind the other factors, it is impossible to plan international science with a see-sawing public expenditure outcome: £12 million this year, on a budget of £450 million, and £35 million last year —it speaks for itself.
Annuality is causing disease for SERC. Annuality means that it is inevitable that it will be less efficient than it could be and that science has a less than happy future. For SERC, some form of indexation is needed just to enable scientific research in this country to run hard to stand still.
The advice that the Secretary of State has received must have been along the lines of the Yugoslav proverb: situation desperate, not serious. It is high time that Ministers realised that for scientific research in this country the situation is now both desperate and serious, and that proper funding should be given to it.
9.24 pm
Mr. Spencer Batiste: I am grateful to you for calling me to speak in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and as time is short, I shall be brief.
First, I must declare an interest in the sense that for most of my working career as a lawyer I have represented a university. Although I no longer practise as such, my law firm represents a number of higher education institutions.
The debate arises on an Opposition motion which is absolutely typical of just about every Opposition motion we have ever heard on education in recent years. It starts with an attack on the Government for not spending enough money, follows up with an implication—I use the word advisedly—that the Labour party would spend more if it were in government and had a chance to do so, and rapidly avoids taking any line on any of the hard decisions which must be made, if one accepts that there is a limited overall budget for science and education, as for most other subjects.
Most people who have attended this debate will accept, as I accept readily, that there are a number of important areas of public expenditure that could usefully use more or less whatever sums of money are made available to them. The national health service is one, to which I would add science and research. As knowledge is infinite, so the sums
374
that one can spend on pursuing research are infinite. The reality is that we must judge priorities. A great deal of this debate has been about how to select priorities.
I would not want politicians to have to determine those priorities on a detailed basis. The only way to make the difficult judgments between one person's work and that of another and between one area of research and another is by peer group assessment. That may result in some hard decisions. It may well be that my right hon. and learned Friend will have to defend those decisions in the House, but he is absolutely right to say that, as a matter of principle, the advice that he receives should be kept confidential between him and those who advise him. It is for him to defend the judgments made based on the advice he receives.
We have some fundamental failings within the United Kingdom. It is not that the Government spends inadequately. We have had an interesting canter over the course on statistics. In reality, any objective look at the statistics between the developed countries over the past 10 years shows that the British Government spend tolerably well compared with most of their competitors. The real difference arises in the fact that the United Kingdom private sector pays significantly less than in Germany, the United States and Japan.
United States expenditure on research and development is heavily pump-primed by defence expenditure. It is not a realistic model for us to follow. The models of Japan and, to a lesser extent, Germany are relevant to us. In Japan, for every pound of Government spending on research and development there is about £6 from Japanese industry. The figure for Germany is nothing like as much, but it is still substantially more than pertains in the other developed countries.
In addressing that problem, we must consider what the Government could have done during the 1980s to redress the imbalance in the private sector and to what extent the Government have already succeeded. There are some outstanding exceptions in the private sector of British industry, some of which have been referred to, and I should not like in any way to diminish the contribution of many fine companies and many sectors of industry. But to take the figures overall, it seems that the private sector neither invests enough in research and development, nor gets enough from the publicly funded research and development in higher education institutes.
I disagree fundamentally with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). It does not matter to me whether a science graduate teaches science, researches into science, becomes an investment banker or goes into the law. What matters is that decision makers across the board should have a far higher level of scientific awareness than happens in the United Kingdom at present.
The difficulty is that change takes a long time to feed through. Our problems of the 1980s came about as a consequence of the education reforms in the 1960s. The remedial action that the Government have taken will not begin to be felt for many years to come.
The successful implementation of the science and technology part of the national curriculum and the extraordinary growth in the participation rate in higher education is the seed corn from which a fundamental change of attitudes in the United Kingdom will occur in the future. Correlli Barnett, in his book, "The Audit of War", highlighted the way in which the United Kingdom,

375
throughout the century, has become progressively committed to an anti-industrial culture. The education reforms of the past five years and the successful implementation of the national curriculum, with its emphasis on teaching science up to the age of 16, are important ingredients in changing that culture to one that is more consistent with a successful industrial and manufacturing country in the future.
The attack on the Government is misfounded. If one identifies lack of education in science and technology as one of the causes of our current problem, the efforts of the Government, in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party, to reform the curriculum so that more people learn science and technology are obviously the right steps to overcome it. Those efforts have achieved dramatic success in the 1980s.
It is equally important to realise that there is an enormous gold mine of technology and knowledge to be exploited in our institutes of higher education. Sadly, that knowledge is underutilised in comparison with Germany and Japan where the relationships between industries and universities are much closer than they are in the United Kingdom. In the 1980s the Government have addressed that problem—there has been an enormous growth in science parks. The British Technology Group's monopoly of publicly funded research has been abolished. Measures have been taken to encourage universities to develop their technology transfer and relationships with local industry.
I admit that the process of encouraging the utilisation of universities started from a low base in the 1980s, but, as the process continues, it will be of particular importance to the regions served by universities. In my region, Yorkshire, we are particularly well served by fine universities and polytechnics. An important part of the continuing development of local industry must be the ability of a region to regenerate its manufacturing base from the resources available to it from its higher education institutes.
I know that the debate is to conclude shortly, and so in summary I say that it is important to appreciate that the Government have maintained spending on science and technology throughout the 1980s in difficult circumstances and against competing priorities. They have done extraordinarily well in doing so even though many wish that more could be achieved—in time one hopes that it can. My right hon. and learned Friend has said that he will continue to set priorities and I hope that he ensures that they are established by the scientists themselves. I hope that he will defend vigorously the role of science in society and the importance of technology transfer because, throughout the next century, they must be the basis upon which our nation will prosper.
9.32 pm
Dr. Jeremy Bray: It would be nice if the eagerness of hon. Members on both sides of the House to speak encouraged the Government to find time, at least once every five years, for a full day's debate on science. I am afraid that that is whistling in the dark:.
Hon. Members have spoken with great knowledge, concern and in all seriousness about the plight that science is now in. I accept the points that have been made about balance between the interests of the private and public sectors and their relative roles. It is singularly perverse for Britain to be cutting its basic research and undermining
376
such advantages as it once had now that everyone, except the Government, accepts that basic research is the necessary foundation for up-to-date technology.
It is our most successful companies and industries which are most insistent that the underfunding of research councils is jeopardising the country's science base on which they depend. As that base broadens, so can the range of industries that it sustains.
On the measurement of research and development, let me try again. I am not bandying phoney price indices and I understand the problem to which the Secretary of State referred of every department creating its own price indices. I ask hon. Members to read the sources and methods of the national income accounts. It is expecting too much to ask the Secretary of State to do so, but perhaps his officials might do so.
Science is measured not in tonnes like steel but in terms of scientist hours times pay. I repeat that if scientists' pay increases by no more than the average—there is no question of special rates of pay—the so-called real measure of research and development expenditure increases proportionately to GDP. So-called level funding in real terms means an actual decline in research done in scientist man years at the rate at which real GDP grows.
It seems from what the Secretary of State said that he simply has not got his mind round the problem. Perhaps his officials will try to explain it to him. Civil research and development in the United Kingdom of 1·8 per cent. of GDP compares with 1·9 per cent. in France, 2 per cent. in the United States, 2·7 per cent. in Germany and 2·9 per cent. in Japan. We are some 50 per cent. behind Japan in civil research and development, including in the private sector.
Investment, growth, profits and the balance of payments have all suffered in both the shorter and longer terms, contributing in turn, along with the neglect of research and development, to the continued decline of Britain's industrial competitiveness. If we narrow the measures down to academic and academically related research, in an absolute quagmire of statistics the only decent estimates go back as far as 1982. They are in the studies carried out for the Advisory Board for the Research Councils by Irvine and Martin.
The most comparable countries are France and Germany. The United Kingdom spends 0·38 per cent. of GDP on academic and academically related research, compared with 0·44 per cent. in France and 0·49 per cent. in Germany. Substantial measures must be taken to raise expenditure on research in our society to the same level as that in Germany and France, not in cash terms or even cash terms per head but in research intensity.
In his approach to the science budget, the Secretary of State has turned into a blip what scientists hoped was a trend established by the real increase in the science budget in 1989. We now have a sharp cut in real terms. I am not inventing any price indices; if the Secretary of State reads the record he will find that an amendment which I tabled to an industry Bill was the origin of the autumn statement. I would not cook figures. At 1990–91 prices, as given in the autumn statement, there was a welcome if overdue and inadequate increase in the science budget of £90 million in 1989–90. I fully admit that the Government made that increase. In the Government's definition of real terms, the budget was slightly improved in 1990–91. But there is a cut in real terms in 1991–92 of £29 million.

377
The Secretary of State was disingenuous when he argued that, after cutting out capital and extraordinary items in the current year, the 1991–92 provision will preserve the real value of other items. The Secretary of State cannot suppose that there will be no capital and extraordinary items next year or in future years. He mentioned one such item in his announcement of the allocations to the research councils on 24 January. It is the construction of the clinical research laboratories for the Medical Research Council at Hammersmith. The Secretary of State cannot assume that with capital expenditure one takes it out last year but piles it in this year. That is cheating with the statistics. As we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Science and Engineering Research Council faces an immediate crisis. To keep out of the Tower of London, the council at its meeting today made sweeping cuts across all boards. It is not only the nuclear physics board that will suffer; some of the cuts will be aimed at new projects that depend on increased resources—but they go far beyond that.
When the Secretary of State and his officials have had time carefully to read the statement of the SERC they will find that, contrary to his suggestion, there is no commitment by the SERC to run the nuclear structure facility through 1992–93 or even to honour the first stage of the UK-French agreement on the Eurogam detector. The SERC has decided to look urgently for ways to do so. There are three possible ways: diverting funding from other boards that have been severely cut; diverting flexibility allowance from other research councils that have been equally severely cut; or the Government doing as they did in a similar situation a few years ago and finding additional funds to avert a crisis that they had not anticipated when they decided the size of the science budget.
I urge the Government to make an additional £5 million available this year. When the Secretary of State sees the detailed case submitted by the SERC he will have to admit that there is no other way in which nuclear research can be sustained in this country without gravely damaging other equally important areas of research. I stress that all SERC boards are suffering in the same way as the nuclear physics board.
As a well managed funding body, the Medical Research Council reviews all its research units on a five-year cycle, ending some and starting others. But this year the MRC has to make a 15 per cent. net cut in the units reviewed —all of them doing research that is vital to human health. That is not just a short-term blip. The number of actual laboratory bench research workers in the MRC has fallen from 3,974 on 1 January 1980 to 3,533 on 1 January 1991 —an 11 per cent. cut in the lifetime of the Government. The number of research grants to universities fell from 524 in 1980 to 320 in 1990, and is planned to fall further, to 250 this year—less than half the 1980 number—and to 235 next year.
The neuro-regeneration interdisciplinary research centre at Cambridge, working on Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, will not go ahead, or it will do so without a building. The diabetes centre in Newcastle will receive only a token grant. Are these the Government's
378
priorities? Agricultural research has been cut by the Government because it too successfully increased productivity.
Faced with the justified concerns of the public and the Government about global climate change and its effects, the Natural Environment Research Council is having to use its scant resources to fill the most yawning gaps in our knowledge. British scientists—I concede the importance of recognising the continuing quality of British research—are making an outstanding contribution to the international research effort on the global environment, but on foreseen resources it will not be possible to make climate forecasts before the year 2010, in 20 years' time.
We can argue with the Government about whether we should stabilise carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000 or 2005, as the Government want, but can they seriously argue that we should wait until 2010 to forecast the effect of these emissions on the global climate? Should we make such massive resource shifts as are required to cut carbon dioxide emissions in unnecessary ignorance of their likely effects? Britain must give a lead in telescoping the necessary international efforts. We need not pay more than our share. In international science programmes generally, we pick up in work far more than we pay out. But the observation, analytical and modelling systems needed to produce global climate forecasts can and should be operational by 2000 in half the planned time.
lso on the global environment, in the most difficult area of all, the Economic and Social Research Council had put forward a major programme on social and economic aspects of climate change. The interagency committee, gathering together all the research councils and the relevant Government Departments, is urging the importance of this field. However, the Economic and Social Research Council is able to make only a very modest start. To do that, it is having to cut drastically the quasi-executive servicing that it provides to Government Departments. That demonstrates perhaps the greatest weakness in the Government's science policy, but it is divorced from Government policy generally.
The independence and integrity of scientific research are the foundation stones on which the progress of science depends. It is a grotesque distortion to use that as an excuse for ignoring scientific advice, refusing to publish it, abusing scientists for the supposed irrelevance of their work and depriving them of the resources that they need to do their job.
The European Community research programmes and the co-ordination of our science policies with those of our European partners are of increasing importance. I wish that the House could have found time today to debate the policies that we have put forward. Those are the boost to industrial research and development; the increased incentives to the private sector to increase its effort; the diversity of sources of funding needed for basic research; the wider access by polytechnics as well as universities to research funds; the co-ordination of science policy across Departments; and the organisation of wholly independent advice to Government and to Parliament, which the Government cannot suborn, on scientific issues of major public importance.
The straits to which the Government have reduced Britain's scientific endeavour mean that the debate has had to concentrate on the immediate plight of scientific

379
research. I hope that the Government will think again, and think more clearly, about just what they are doing to British science and to the future of the country.
9.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): Like other hon. Members, I welcome the opportunity to debate such extremely important issues as the place of scientific research in our national life, the relative responsibilities that fall to Government arid the private sector, and the distribution of responsibilities in our society.
We have heard a great deal of special pleading, a certain amount of sloganising, and much discussion about. the percentage of GDP which might appropriately be devoted to expenditure on science. The percentage of GDP is the latest current slogan, because it is occasionally found convenient to select statistics which seem to be helpful in supporting the case that the scientific community and those who seek to champion it naturally wish to make in support of more support for science. We all want to see such support.
It is a remarkably arbitrary measure and there is no logic or merit in selecting a particular percentage of GDP. When one looks at what takes place in different societies, one finds that widely varying percentages of GDP are applied to scientific research. The German Government spend a rather larger proportion of public money on civil research and development as a percentage of GDP, but in recent years they have been reducing that percentage. The French have been increasing it. By way of public expenditure, those countries deploy a rather larger proportion of GDP on scientific research than the United Kingdom. The USA and Japan deploy a smaller percentage, but are the most powerful economies in the world. The United States is indisputably the world's leading centre for creative research and the capacity of the Japanese for applied research and technology transfer is, as we all know, formidable.
The Government strategy has been to reduce public expenditure as a proportion of GDP for the justified reason that that way provides the opportunity to liberate resources into creative activity in the private sector, not least in support of science. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was right to draw attention to the importance of the private sector pulling its weight and making the contribution that it ought to our science effort.
Had the Government not had that policy of redefining the respective roles of the various parties and the Government's responsibility, we should be heading towards a much smaller overall sum for creative and worthwhile scientific endeavour than otherwise would be the case. In particular, the strategic withdrawal from near-market research was self-evidently a sensible move. It cannot make sense for the Government to devote public funding to research with a foreseeable potential for commercial application at the price of supporting the basic research projects of which the Government will be the major supporter.
The strategies that we have initiated, and the policies from the DTI to promote investment and encourage industry to invest in applied research and take up its responsibility in near-market research are all the right things to have done. We created a tax regime that gives
380
industry incentives such as the scientific research allowance, which gives 100 per cent. in the first year and makes it attractive and sensible for industry to invest in research. All that is pointing us in the right direction.
Our strategies have enabled the Government to increase their support for basic research, which is inescapably our responsibility and where we have to be the major supporter and champion. As Opposition Members know, the Government have made important real terms increases in funding for basic research of some 23 per cent. over the lifetime of the Government. As the strength of the economy developed, we saw the priority to enhance support of basic research as extremely important. Two years ago, in one year we were able to increase by 8 per cent. in real terms our support for basic research. We are now holding steady at that level and the prospect is that we shall continue to do so. I look forward to a time when the continuing development and improvement of the economy will enable us to improve that position.
I take the point made by some hon. Members about discontinuity of funding. I appreciate that planning is not easy against the background of inflation and against the imperative need to contain expenditure and to match expenditure against resources. That has not proved easy for the research councils. Some have been more successful in that task than others. However, they must accept the responsibility to live within their budgets. As has been acknowledged, part of the difficulty for the SERC in particular derives from the fact that it took a somewhat optimistic view of what might be available to it.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: The Minister knows that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the SERC. There must have been some breakdown or inadequacy in the financial control and planning to have allowed this crisis, which is none of the chairman's making, to develop so suddenly. The crisis involves more than Daresbury, although I stand second to none in my appreciation of that fine institution. It involves institutes closer to my heart in the west midlands, such as the ACME Directorate and the information technology programme. Funding for all of these will be cut so badly that they will not be able to recover because planning will be impossible. Is there not a case for a set of measures to see us through this unfortunate development so that it can be sorted out and will not happen again?
Mr. Howarth: Once again, the Labour party is reacting to difficulties by simply saying that we should somehow conjure up more public expenditure. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) invited us to find £5 million and another hon. Member asked for £8 million. We wish to make available the best resources that we can and that is what we have done, but it would not be in the interests of British science if we were simply to make concessions and start handing out additional funding across the board. If we were to do that, we would rapidly find that our control of public finances had collapsed. The prospects then for real terms funding for science would be grave. It is indispensable to live within budgets.
Dr. Bray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: No, I do not have much time.

381
Amid all the gloom and doom and the apocalyptic visions of Labour Members, let us keep the matter in perspective. Sir Mark Richmond, in his announcement this evening, says:
"it is important to remember that the great majority of our programme remains in place. It is all of excellent quality."
I missed hearing from Opposition Members any generous appreciation of the real and major achievements of British science on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State expounded in the earlier part of his speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) and the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) have made eloquent, lucid and strongly felt representations on behalf of their constituents and on behalf of the science that takes place near Warrington at Daresbury.
I recognise the difficulties that are faced at Daresbury. I recognise the anxieties of the scientists there not only in respect of the future of their scientific work but in terms of their job prospects and their families. That underlines the fact that it is difficult and painful to make choices, and we should pay tribute to the courage of those who are making the decisions. It is not easy to reorient a programme.
Two processes are taking place in the consideration being undertaken by the chairman and members of the Science and Engineering Research Council. They are, rightly and properly, balancing their books, and if we do not live within our means the future for science is grim. They are also, and this is at least as difficult, reconsidering priorities within their overall programme, and that must be right. Science is changing rapidly and if we are to innovate and to make room for new developments, if, very importantly, we are to create headroom for more responsive-mode grants, for more funding of new science, new creative individual scientists and small teams, from time to time changes in the existing pattern and balance of priorities have to be made. That is not easy and I recognise that the SERC has special difficulties because it has long-established considerations—a commitment to major facilities, long-term programmes and international subscriptions.
To respond again to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South about the very large proportion of SERC funding taken by CERN, we have in a determined fashion renegotiated that subscription. If my hon. Friend studies the facts he will see that the real cost of our contribution to CERN has fallen by 23 per cent. in three years. He will see that the cost of CERN is—
Mr. Derek Foster rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 254.

Division No. 60]

[10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

Armstrong, Hilary

Allen, Graham

Ashby, David

Alton, David

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Anderson, Donald

Ashton, Joe

382

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Henderson, Doug

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Hinchliffe, David

Barron, Kevin

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Battle, John

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Beckett, Margaret

Home Robertson, John

Beith, A. J.

Hood, Jimmy

Bell, Stuart

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Howells, Geraint

Bennett, A. F. (D'ntn & R'dish)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Benton, Joseph

Hoyle, Doug

Bermingham, Gerald

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Bidwell, Sydney

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Blair, Tony

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Blunkett, David

Hughes, Simon (South wark)

Boateng, Paul

Illsley, Eric

Boyes, Roland

Ingram, Adam

Bradley, Keith

Johnston, Sir Russell

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Kirkwood, Archy

Buckley, George J.

Lambie, David

Caborn, Richard

Lamond, James

Callaghan, Jim

Leadbitter, Ted

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Leighton, Ron

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Lewis, Terry

Canavan, Dennis

Litherland, Robert

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Livsey, Richard

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Clelland, David

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Loyden, Eddie

Cohen, Harry

McAllion, John

Cousins, Jim

McCartney, Ian

Cox, Tom

Macdonald, Calum A

Crowther, Stan

McFall, John

Cryer, Bob

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Cummings, John

McKelvey, William

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McLeish, Henry

Dalyell, Tam

McMaster, Gordon

Darling, Alistair

McNamara, Kevin

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

McWilliam, John

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Madden, Max

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

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Dewar, Donald

Marek, Dr John

Dixon, Don

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dobson, Frank

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Doran, Frank

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Martlew, Eric

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Maxton, John

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Meacher, Michael

Eadie, Alexander

Meale, Alan

Eastham, Ken

Michael, Alun

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Fatchett, Derek

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Faulds, Andrew

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Morgan, Rhodri

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Morley, Elliot

Fisher, Mark

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Flynn, Paul

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Mullin, Chris

Foster, Derek

Murphy, Paul

Foulkes, George

Nellist, Dave

Fraser, John

O'Brien, William

Fyfe, Maria

O'Hara, Edward

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Parry, Robert

George, Bruce

Patchett, Terry

Golding, Mrs Llin

Pike, Peter L.

Gordon, Mildred

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Gould, Bryan

Prescott, John

Graham, Thomas

Primarolo, Dawn

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Radice, Giles

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Randall, Stuart

Grocott, Bruce

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Reid, Dr John

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Richardson, Jo

383

Robertson, George

Straw, Jack

Robinson, Geoffrey

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Rogers, Allan

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Rooker, Jeff

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Rooney, Terence

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Turner, Dennis

Rowlands, Ted

Vaz, Keith

Ruddock, Joan

Wallace, James

Sedgemore, Brian

Walley, Joan

Sheerman, Barry

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wareing, Robert N.

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Short, Clare

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Skinner, Dennis

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Wilson, Brian

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

Winnick, David

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

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Worthington, Tony

Snape, Peter

Wray, Jimmy

Soley, Clive

Spearing, Nigel

Tellers for the Ayes:

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

Steinberg, Gerry

Stott, Roger

NOES

Adley, Robert

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Aitken, Jonathan

Cope, Rt Hon John

Alexander, Richard

Cormack, Patrick

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Couchman, James

Allason, Rupert

Cran, James

Amos, Alan

Critchley, Julian

Arbuthnot, James

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Arnold, Sir Thomas

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

Ashby, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Aspinwall, Jack

Day, Stephen

Atkins, Robert

Devlin, Tim

Atkinson, David

Dickens, Geoffrey

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Dorrell, Stephen

Baldry, Tony

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dover, Den

Batiste, Spencer

Durant, Sir Anthony

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Bellingham, Henry

Eggar, Tim

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Emery, Sir Peter

Benyon, W.

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Evennett, David

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Fallon, Michael

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Favell, Tony

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Body, Sir Richard

Fishburn, John Dudley

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fookes, Dame Janet

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Forman, Nigel

Boswell, Tim

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bottomley, Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Franks, Cecil

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Freeman, Roger

Bowis, John

French, Douglas

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Fry, Peter

Brazier, Julian

Gale, Roger

Bright, Graham

Gardiner, Sir George

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gill, Christopher

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

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Browne, John (Winchester)

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Buck, Sir Antony

Goodlad, Alastair

Burns, Simon

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Butterfill, John

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Carrington, Matthew

Gregory, Conal

Carttiss, Michael

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Cash, William

Grist, Ian

Chapman, Sydney

Ground, Patrick

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Grylls, Michael

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Hague, William

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Conway, Derek

Hampson, Dr Keith

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

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

384

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Redwood, John

Harris, David

Riddick, Graham

Hind, Kenneth

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Rost, Peter

Irvine, Michael

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Janman, Tim

Sackville, Hon Tom

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Kilfedder, James

Shaw, David (Dover)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knapman, Roger

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Shelton, Sir William

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Knox, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shersby, Michael

Lawrence, Ivan

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lee, John (Pendle)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Speed, Keith

Lilley, Peter

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Squire, Robin

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lord, Michael

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Steen, Anthony

McCrindle, Sir Robert

Stern, Michael

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Stevens, Lewis

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Sumberg, David

Malins, Humfrey

Summerson, Hugo

Mans, Keith

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Maples, John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Marland, Paul

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mates, Michael

Thorne, Neil

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Thurnham, Peter

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Tracey, Richard

Miller, Sir Hal

Tredinnick, David

Miscampbell, Norman

Trippier, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Trotter, Neville

Moate, Roger

Twinn, Dr Ian

Monro, Sir Hector

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Morrison, Sir Charles

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Moss, Malcolm

Walden, George

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Nelson, Anthony

Waller, Gary

Neubert, Sir Michael

Ward, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Warren, Kenneth

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Watts, John

Norris, Steve

Wells, Bowen

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Wheeler, Sir John

Oppenheim, Phillip

Whitney, Ray

Page, Richard

Widdecombe, Ann

Paice, James

Wilkinson, John

Patnick, Irvine

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Winterton, Nicholas

Pawsey, James

Wolfson, Mark

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Yeo, Tim

Porter, David (Waveney)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Powell, William (Corby)

Price, Sir David

Tellers for the Noes:

Raffan, Keith

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House applauds the steps being taken by the Government to sustain and improve still further the strengths and quality of science and science education in the United Kingdom; and notes in particular the successful implementation of the science, mathematics and technology components of the National Curriculum, efforts being made to increase the number of qualified science teachers, the increase in the age participation rate in higher education over the last decade from one in eight to one in five, the significant increase in the science budget since 1979, and the allocation of funds to improve our understanding of the global environment, which provide a sound base for British scientists to play a full role with their European partners, to improve the quality of life, and to underpin the technological competitiveness of British industry.
10.15 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just finished a debate on a very important subject, which started at 7.16 pm and ended at 10 pm. That is a total of two and three quarter hours, less a minute.
I make no complaint about the time that I was able to take, although I should have liked to speak for longer. The Front-Bench spokesmen, however, took 73 minutes to open the debate and 28 to wind it up—a total of 101 minutes in a 164-minute debate.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that you protect Back Benchers' interests ferociously. In that role, you may feel that their interests are not being served when the Front-Bench spokesmen feel it necessary to take up such an extraordinary amount of time. Will you consider persuading Front Benchers to be a little more considerate about the time they consume, especially in short debates?
Mr. Speaker: Unhappily, I have no control over the length of any speeches, except on days when I am able to ask hon. Members to speak for only 10 minutes between either 6 pm and 8 pm or 7 pm and 9 pm. Nevertheless, I agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about today's debate. A number of Back Benchers who would have liked to speak were unable to do so. If they will write to me, I shall send them the extract from Hansard reporting the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
Ordered,
That Ann Widdecombe and Mr. David Martin be discharged from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and that Mr. Humfrey Malins and Sir Gerrard Neale be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

  OBSTACLES TO TAKEOVERS AND COMPANY LAW
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents),
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6459/90, on obstacles to takeovers and other general bids and of the proposals described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 8th March 1990 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 4th June 1990 for a Fifth Directive on public limited companies; and, while endorsing the Commission's decision to bring forward proposals to eliminate barriers to takeovers as an important step in the completion of the internal market, regrets that the overall effect of the Fifth Directive in its present form would be to create significant and undesirable burdens for business.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
  Question agreed to.

Hospice at Home Movement
Motion made, and Question proposed, That his House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
10.17 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): This is a welcome opportunity for me to do two things. First, I pay tribute to the men and women throughout Wales who, through their voluntary efforts, provide comfort and solace for the terminally ill: I applaud them all. Secondly, I urge the Government to recognise that more than they do now.
Facing death is the greatest trauma that we all experience. It takes great courage and strength of character, and the human spirit has tremendous reserves of both. The trauma affects not only the patient, but members of the family, arid none of us responds in the same way; but the psychological effects of terminal illness are often as great as the illness itself. The level of support that is required, in both the medical and the general sense, is enormous.
The commitment shown by so many people to the terminally ill is ample testimony to the way in which society embraces those who need the service that I am describing. I am sure that every hon. Member will have seen the remarkable way in which families are enveloped by a genuine outpouring of love and affection from their friends and relatives. Without such support, many people simply would not survive the trauma.
I have witnessed at first hand the way families seek to cope with terminal illness—indeed, not only the illness itself, but impending death—and it has had a profound effect upon me. But only those who have had the experience themselves are fully qualified to speak of its effect. My own mother cared for my father for four years. He had suffered a debilitating stroke that left him paralysed on one side and caused the loss of speech. My mother saw him gradually deteriorate in health until his passing away was only a matter of time. Although he was my father, I know that the effect on my mother was considerably greater. A fairly close family friend died 12 months ago. I know the effect that the illness and death in that case had on his young wife and young family.
It is for all these reasons that, tonight, I applaud all those who work in a voluntary capacity in the hospice movement in Wales. I am associated in a very small way with the Hospice at Home movement in Gwynedd. It was set up in 1989, and to date about £140,000 has been collected. The movement hopes to be able to appoint its first nurse in the coming spring. The public response in the county has been quite magnificent, and I take this opportunity to congratulate the organisers of the appeal and those who have made contributions.
In preparation for this debate, I was in touch with a number of other hospice movements in Wales. They have all called for Government funding and support. They include the Terminal Care Fund for the Provision of Hospice Care, in South Clwyd; the George Thomas Centre for Hospice Care, in Cardiff; the St. David Foundation, in Newport; and the Ty Olwen Continuing Care Unit, in Swansea.
The need for such facilities is obvious. In 1987, 815 out of the 3,082 deaths recorded in Gwynedd were due to cancer. Regrettably, the health service is not in a position to provide full care for the terminally ill in the county. The aim of the Hospice at Home movement is to provide
388
adequate care and support for every progressive cancer patient in Gwynedd and, therefore, for every family that has to cope with this problem. The movement tries to ensure that patients may end their days in peace and comfort, free from pain so far as possible, and usually—and, in many cases, preferably—at home.
The service hopes, when operational, to control distressing symptoms, to attempt to meet the personal arid emotional needs of patients, and to provide support arid help to relatives, both during the illness and into bereavement. Skilled care will be provided, in full co-operation with the health service, through the work of trained nurses and other specialised staff and volunteers.
The only national health service hospice in Wales is the Ty Olwen house in Swansea, which was built as a result of a combination of community fund raising, help from the National Society for Cancer Relief, and assistance from the West Glamorgan health authority. I am pleased to say that that hospice is about to open an extension costing £750,000, every penny of which was raised through voluntary contribution. Again I say to the members of the public in West Glamorgan what a wonderful achievement that was.
When I examined the level of Government support for the hospice movement in the United Kingdom, I found that, in previous years, money had been made available in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but not in Wales. According to Department of Health press releases, sums of £8 million and £17 million were allocated in 1990–91 and 1991–92 respectively—a total of £25 million over two years. I have also had an opportunity to read the exchanges that took place in the House yesterday during Health questions, confirming that those were the figures.
It is useful to quote from the Department's press release to show the level of support that the Department feels is necessary for the hospice movement in England:
"the funds were to help health authorities move towards `pound for pound' or 50 per cent. funding of voluntary hospice services. The commitment to move towards 'pound for pound' funding in England copies what already prevails in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is a commitment repeated by Mrs. Bottomley and by Government spokesmen in the House of Lords."
The press release goes on:
"A major reason for the £8 million allocation was surely to make hospices less dependent on charity funds, and not to maintain that charity dependency. Fund raising is an increasingly tough and competitive activity which draws greater and greater energy from senior hospice staff. The future of hospices and of hospice care cannot be secured by charity.
The Minister of State has made the critical and central point that the commitment to greater NHS funding is to allow voluntary hospices to plan with confidence and on a more stable basis. Indeed, in her written reply to Mr. Baldry of 15 December 1989, Mrs. Bottomley said that the objective of pound for pound funding for hospices would 'provide a clear basis on which to plan ahead.' This can only occur if the additional funds are used to shift the balance of hospice funding from charity and towards the NHS."
In Scotland the funding for the current year is given on the basis of 50 per cent. of the running costs of the hospice provision—in other words, pound-for-pound funding. That principle is likely to be followed in future years. So, as of tonight, we have pound-for-pound funding in Scotland and Northern Ireland and they are moving towards it in England. Thus, it was a matter of concern that we had to wait so long for an announcement in Wales. All other countries were ahead of us in funding. The

389
Under-Secretary will be aware that I and many other hon. Members have pressed the Government for action on a number of occasions.
Shortly after I became involved with the Hospice at Home movement in Gwynedd, I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), on 19 February 1990, asking him when an announcement would be made. He replied on 9 March that consideration was being given to making financial assistance available. Shortly afterwards, I asked a question in the House and was given a fairly similar reply. I wrote to the present Secretary of State for Wales on 20 September, and in reply he quoted the then Under-Secretary's letter to the Hospice at Home movement in Wales stating that an announcement would be made as soon as possible.
It was therefore some relief that an announcement was made by the Secretary of State on 24 January this year. Many hon. Members are entitled to claim just a little credit for that announcement. The £1 million that was made available is to be distributed among the health authority areas in Wales. Let me make it clear to the Under-Secretary that that allocation is welcome. However, I hope that he will understand when we say that we expect that sum to be increased.
When the Under-Secretary replies, I hope that he will address his attention to the fact that there is no mention in the press release of a commitment to pound-for-pound funding for Wales. I repeat that that already exists in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and it is on the cards in England. We are entitled to ask the Under-Secretary to tell us whether it is his intention to have a similar system in Wales. The present allocation will help, but much more is needed.
I ask the Under-Secretary to tell us that we can move towards pound-for-pound funding, which, more than anything, would encourage and recognise those who are providing such a valuable service in Wales and elsewhere.
10.29 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) on his success in securing an Adjournment debate on this important subject. I welcome the hon. Members for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) and for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who have taken a keen interest in the subject.
The remarks of the hon. Member for Ynys Mon were given added strength and power by the fact that he was able to speak from personal family experience of the problems faced by carers in looking after the terminally ill. I share his concern and support for all that is done by people who must look after people in the last days of their lives.
I particularly appreciate the opportunity that the debate gives me to highlight the work of the hospice movement in Wales and elsewhere. I assure the hon. Member for Ynys Mon that my right hon. Friend the
390
Secretary of State and I, and indeed the whole Government, share his perception of how seriously it should be taken.
I deeply appreciate the high standards of care which are provided and which continue to be developed by the independent hospice movement. I welcome its growing partnership with the national health service in caring for people with terminal illnesses and in supporting their families. I expect health authorities to take the lead in planning and co-ordinating a full range of facilities for those with terminal illnesses, covering home, day and in-patient care.
It is generally accepted that most people with terminal illnesses prefer, if possible, to be cared for in their own homes and communities. Home is the best place to provide that care and support. I am delighted that the voluntary hospice movement in Wales is focusing on the development of domiciliary care and on providing the support and counselling that those with terminal illnesses and their families need.
I pay tribute to the role of NHS hospitals and in-patient hospices such as the Marie Curie centre at Holme Towers in Penarth.
Just as there needs to be a close partnership between the statutory and voluntary sectors in the provision of care, there must be the fullest co-operation between everybody involved in helping those in their last days of illness. That enables people to have the full range of diagnostic and treatment facilities that are available in our hospitals. It will be of comfort because patients will not be separated from their homes, families or friends for any longer than is absolutely necessary.
The hospice movement is unique. The emphasis is on the quality of care which puts those with terminal illnesses and their families at the centre of all that is done. The hospice movement is based on a team approach in which specialist and generalist staff from a range of disciplines, often supported by volunteers, seek to give a dying person and his family the best quality of life. That is done by making available the highest possible standard of pain relief and symptom control. It ensures that people have the emotional, social and spiritual support that they need. This flexibility, time to listen and to share people's deepest needs and emotions, cannot, of necessity, always be provided in a hectic hospital ward, where the emphasis is on active treatment and cure.
One of the greatest benefits that improvements in active treatment has brought is that many cancers that used to be fatal can now be cured. Even in cases where a complete cure is not possible, patients can remain active and have fulfilling lives largely free from pain and excessive symptoms.
Advances in the treatments available have in turn made possible new patterns of care. They are based squarely on avoiding in-patient admissions, except where they are absolutely necessary.
I should like to deal with the issues that affect us in Wales and to set out how we intend to secure continued improvement in these vital services. The hospice movement aims to offer care to meet a wide range of needs. The most important area—the one for which it is justly renowned—is the care of those dying from cancer. Moreover, the hospice movement has an increasing role, for instance, in the care of people with AIDS and motor neurone disease.

391
Cancer alone causes about a quarter of all deaths in Wales, and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn referred to the problems that are faced in Gwynedd in that regard. In 1988 there were more than 8,500 deaths from this dreadful disease. I regret to have to tell the House that of the 30 European countries only 10 have a higher death rate from cancer for men and only three for women. I was, therefore, delighted to welcome the recent protocol for future investment which we produced on cancer services as a result of the work of the Welsh Health Planning Forum. The protocol sets out ways in which we can use the considerable resources that we devote to the treatment and support of those with cancer. The protocol emphasises the importance of hospice and domiciliary care.
We are fortunate in Wales to be able to build on the success that we have already seen in the past few years. Much of that is due to the pioneering work of Dame Cicely Saunders and her colleagues at the St. Christopher's hospice in Sydenham in London. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham can be here today because the hospice is in his constituency. Indeed, I am personally acquainted with the work of St. Christopher's, because the wife of a friend of mine was nursed there during her final days some three years ago. Dame Cicely trained at St. Josephs in Hackney where I was the Conservative candidate in 1979. I visited that hospice and saw the work done by what is the oldest of the 20th century hospices open in Britain.
By showing what can be done, this pioneering work has paved the way for important developments in Wales in the 1970s and 1980s. The Marie Curie centre in Penarth provides in-patient and out-patient care and services in the wider community. The work of the St. David's Foundation in Gwent is., rightly, well renowned. In Haverfordwest, in my constituency, the Paul Satori Foundation works ceaselessly for those approaching the end of their life through illness. The Ty Olwen unit in. west Glamorgan and the Nightingale Trust in Wrexham are fine examples of NHS facilities strongly supported by voluntary effort.
More recently, the George Thomas centre has been established in Cardiff. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there could be no better person than your predecessor, a Speaker of this House, after whom to name a hospice. George Thomas, or Lord Tonypandy as he is now known, through his valiant struggle against cancer and his overcoming of it through his Christian convictions and strength of personality, has given encouragement to others who face this dreadful illness. He has given them hope that they can fight it.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn rightly drew attention to the splendid initiative of the Gwynedd Hospice at Home movement. The organisation was born some 18 months ago by a group of lay persons and professional hospital staff. They started collecting funds one year ago and I am delighted that they have so far collected £150,000. I wish them every success in their fund-raising efforts to reach their target of £500,000. They intend to set up a service caring for patients in their own homes. Nurses will run the organisation. They are to be recruited, trained and paid for by the Hospice at Home movement. The organisation will shortly recruit nurses who will be trained in November 1991 and commence caring for patients on 1 January 1992. I am sure that the Gwynedd health authority, under the excellent chairmanship of Noreen Edwards, will want to
392
work closely with the movement to see how best to use the £65,000 which we have allocated to Gwynedd for voluntary hospice work in this coming year.
All those successful examples show the strong partnership between the voluntary agencies and statutory authorities. Among the professional staff who play such an important role in the hospice movement are the general practitioners, the social services and community health teams. That partnership has led our health authorities to provide some £250,000 annually for the voluntary hospice movement, over and above the services that they provide directly themselves.
Other important recent developments to which I should like to draw attention include the Government's decision in 1989 to end for those with terminal illnesses the six-month qualifying period before attendance allowance could be paid. That has been of significant help. In April 1990, palliative medicine had developed to such an extent that it was formally recognised as a distinctive medical specialty by Government health departments. Already in Wales, several senior house officer and registrar posts operate on a rotational basis between the Marie Curie centre at Holme Towers and the Velindre and Rookwood hospitals.
There is to be a second consultant post based at Holme Towers and funded by the Marie Curie Foundation. The second consultant will join Dr. Ilora Finlay, the consultant in palliative medicine and medical director of the Marie Curie centre. I pay special tribute to Dr. Finlay and her colleagues at the University of Wales college of medicine for their important work. They have established a postgraduate diploma course designed to share with senior and experienced GPs the best ways in which to help people with terminal illnesses. Once again the voluntary sector has played a leading role in making that possible with funding provided by the Cancer Relief MacMillan fund.
Finally, I should like to draw attention to the advice centre that the charity Tenovus has established in Cardiff to provide carers with information about available services. I should stress that the examples I have given are just a few of the considerable achievements in Wales, but I accept that much still needs to be done.
I do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that, perhaps in north Wales, the level and depth of service provision is not all that we would wish it to be. The Government therefore have a wide-ranging programme to secure improvements in care. The Welsh Office and the Department of Health have asked the Standing Medical Advisory Committee and the Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee to produce jointly comprehensive advice on the development of palliative care, including hospice care, in England and Wales. There will, of course, be a professional input to this from Wales. We have asked the committees to produce their advice by the end of the year.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are not waiting for the joint committee to report to ensure the continued development of services in Wales. That is why only last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that we would make available, for the first time, specific money for voluntary sector activity in the Principality. I am delighted to say that the £1 million allocated has been warmly welcomed. Although I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman does not think that that is enough, it is a good start and I am sure that he, too, is delighted at that allocation. We can always spend more,

393
but that allocation will mean a 40 per cent. increase in the amount of money available for voluntary hospices in Wales in the coming financial year. Health authorities will allocate those funds in the light of local circumstances to support existing organisations and to help foster the development of services where they are most needed.
The Welsh Office and the health authorities will review the development of those services so that, together, we can ensure the best possible care of people with a terminal illness.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about 50–50 funding and it is important that an effective working partnership is forged between district health authorities and the voluntary sector. The precise balance of funding may differ from project to project or even area to area. I do not believe that 50–50 funding of every project in the hospice movement would necessarily make the best use of available resources. Some projects may justify more support than 50 per cent. while others may need less because of their access to other sources of funding.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also decided recently to allocate £460,000 as a contribution to the continuing care unit in Pontypridd, which is also receiving funding from the Cancer Relief MacMillan fund.
394
Our firm intention is to provide money that can be used well throughout the health service. I am sure that the extra funding of £1 million to voluntary sector activity will be spent wisely. Therefore, in the light of progress in the coming year, future needs will be taken into account. I am delighted to offer the hon. Gentleman the assurance that that £1 million is not the only million pounds that we hope to give in future years.
We are building on success and, above all, on a practical tradition of the delivery of high-quality services. We are determined to see a humane, top-quality hospice movement that provides care and support based on a secure and dynamic partnership between health authorities and the voluntary sector.
The additional resources that we have announced represent the biggest boost ever given to the hospice movement in Wales. It will provide the basis to ensure that, at last, we can ensure that people who suffer from dreadful illnesses over a long period get the care and support they need as they approach the end of their lives. Once again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving the House the opportunity to talk about this important subject. I appreciate his concern and we shall ensure that his remarks are taken to heart.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENERGY

  Sellafield (Fire)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the fire at the non-operational plant at the Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing site in west Cumbria on Tuesday 29 January; and if he will set up an inquiry into its cause.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I understand that during remedial maintenance work on a non-operational building at British Nuclear Fuels plc's Sellafield site, sections of asbestos were in the process of being removed and replaced by plastic coated metal cladding. Tarpaulins had been erected in order to make the building weatherproof. A contractor was using oxy-acetylene equipment to remove a metal rail when sparks from the equipment caused part of the tarpaulin to catch fire.

  The Sellafield site fire brigade successfully dealt with the fire. The Cumbrian county fire service also attended.

  Although no radioactivity was involved monitoring checks were carried out purely as a precaution. They confirmed that no release of radioactivity had taken place.

  I understand that an inquiry has been convened by BNFL which will involve staff and trades union representatives. The regulatory authorities and local liaison committee were informed of the fire and a press release was issued in accordance with incident reporting procedures.

  Waste-derived Fuels
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has for further research into the development of waste-derived fuels.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department's plans for the development of renewable energy sources including waste derived fuel were laid out in energy paper 55 "Renewable Energy in the UK: The Way Forward", copies of which are in the Library of the House. I expect to review our strategy during the coming year.

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that every non-smoking employee in his Department has the right to work in a smoke-free area; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress in implementing a smoke-free policy throughout his Department.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Department's policy in all the premises it occupies is to ensure that non-smokers have the opportunity to work in a smoke-free area. The operation of the policy is regularly reviewed in consultation with staff.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list, by constituency, existing combined heat and power schemes; and if he will show whether they are(a) 0 to 500 kW, (b) 500 kW to 10 MW, (c) 10 MW to 100 MW, or (d) over 100 MW.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department's current estimate is that there are about 500 sites in the United Kingdom using CHP plant with a total capacity of some 2,000 MW. Of this total 1,800 MW is comprised of schemes of over 500 kW, located on 120 sites in industry. The remainder comprises smaller schemes in public arid commercial buildings.

  The Director General of Electricity Supply has a duty under the Electricity Act 1989 to gather information on generating plant. The Office of Electricity Regulation—OFFER—is, in conjunction with industry, in the process of compiling a database of CHP projects operating in Great Britain. The detailed information requested by the hon. Member should be available from OFFER when the database is operational.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Katyn Massacre
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will list the records available in the Public Record Office relating to the Katyn massacre; and whether any public papers on this subject have been withheld for more than 30 years.

  The Attorney-General
  The main records in the Public Record Office relating to the discovery of the Katyn massacre in 1943 appear on a very large Foreign Office file of that year on the more general subject of Polish-Soviet relations. This file spans items which have the Public Record Office references FO 371/34563–34590. Eight of the 762 entered papers on this file have been identified as withheld.

  Identification and listing of all other records in the Public Record Office relating to the Katyn massacre and its aftermath could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost. The staff at the Public Record Office are able to advise readers on likely sources among records there of information on this subject.

  Jurors
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Attorney-General what evidence was produced in the survey into the ethnicity of jurors on the distribution and percentage of black jurors being called for jury service.

  The Attorney-General
  The first stage of the survey into the ethnic composition of jurors has recently been completed and officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department are currently analysing the statistical data that have been collected. I will write to the hon. Member to inform him of the full results of the survey when the process of analysis and interpretation is complete.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Single Market
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the effect of the EEC changes in 1992 on matters within his Department's responsibilities.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office is taking part in discussions with our Community partners on a range of matters, mainly relating to free movement of people, which are relevant to the establishment of the internal market at the end of 1992.

  In some areas measures have been agreed and therefore the effects are known. Recent examples are the rights of residence directives which were adopted last year, and the draft convention determining the state responsibility for examining asylum applications which was signed by 11 of the 12 member states last year. Documents on these measures have been deposited in Parliament.

  In other areas measures are still under consideration. We shall continue to report progress following the six-monthly meetings of responsible Community Ministers.

  Gipsies
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the conclusions of the review of the Public Order Act 1986 with regard to gipsies.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We hope to announce shortly the conclusions of our evaluation of section 39 of the 1986 Act.

  Juvenile Remand Centres
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which juvenile remand centres are scheduled for inclusion in the privatisation programme.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  None.

  Immigration
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of applicants for immigration from non-EC Europe, north America, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh were refused entry into the United Kingdom since January 1990 under primary purpose rules; and what factors account for the differences in the percentages.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on applicants for entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom from spouses and fiancé(e)s in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh in the first three quarters of 1990 is given in the table. Corresponding information for other countries is not available centrally. The variation in refusal rates is thought to reflect differing patterns of applications and circumstances between the three countries.
  142

  Spouses and finance(e)s refused entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom, January to September 1990

  Proportion1 of spouses and financeé(e)s refused initially2

  Country

  Solely on primary purpose grounds (Per cent.)

  Partly on primary purpose grounds (Per cent.)

  Bangladesh

  12

  4

  India

  18

  2

  Pakistan

  13

  21

  1 Applications refused initially as a percentage of applications decided.

  2Some applications are subsequently granted after an appeal.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the expected time it takes for a sponsor interview for entry clearance applications to be completed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It remains our objective to carry out interviews within three months of receipt of papers in the United Kingdom.

  Community Relations
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Commission for Racial Equality and with leaders of the Muslim community in the United Kingdom regarding the best ways of avoiding a disruption of community relations as a result of the Gulf war.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I discussed these matters with Commissioners during a visit to the Commission for Racial Equality on 22 January. They were also discussed in the course of a meeting on the same day on other matters with the United Kingdom action committee on Islamic affairs. There are continuing and wide-ranging contacts with the Muslim community at official level.

  Visas
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the countries whose nationals require visas to enter the United Kingdom as visitors.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The list is set out in the "Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules" Cm. 1220 which took effect on 1 October 1990, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that every non-smoking employee in his Department has the right to work in a smoke-free area; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress in implementing a smoke-free policy throughout his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Under the Home Office's present no-smoking policy, smoking is banned in conference rooms, corridors, lifts and toilets. This policy is currently under review.

  Squatters
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his review of the law on squatters and to announce any changes he proposes to make with regard to privately owned domestic properties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government's review of the present law relating to the unlawful occupation of property is proceeding and particular attention is being paid to the problem of squatting in privately owned domestic properties. We shall announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

  Electoral Boundaries
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to lay orders which will arrange the movement of the polling district of the Longfield and New Barn ward of the Dartford borough council into the Dartford parliamentary constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The boundaries of the Longfield ward, which includes the New Barn residential area, were changed by the Kent (District Boundaries) Order 1987. A consequential change to parliamentary constituency boundaries can only be made following a review by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England. This and other such anomalies throughout England will be resolved as part of the fourth general review of all constituencies which is expected to commence this year.

  Braille
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria his Department uses in deciding what information should be published in(a) minority languages, (b) braille, (c) tape or (d) large print versions.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  [holding answer 31 January 1991]: Our criteria are to target publicity material in minority languages, tape or large print according to need, within available funding. We have not produced any of this publicity material in braille.

  Death Statistics
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 166, on causes of deaths in specified cities, if he will give such figures as are available for each year from 1984.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 4 February 1991]: The information available from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is given in the tables.

  Table 1 Number of deaths registered due to Malnutrition1

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Greater London

  9

  13

  9

  4

  4

  Greater Manchester

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Birmingham

  0

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  England and Wales

  70

  63

  68

  43

  59

  1 International classification 263.9.

  144

  Table 2 Number of deaths registered due to self-neglect2

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Greater London

  8

  1

  2

  1

  2

  Greater Manchester

  4

  1

  1

  0

  2

  Birmingham

  3

  1

  0

  1

  2

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  England and Wales

  42

  30

  19

  13

  23

  2 International classification 994.9/E904.0.

  Table 3 Number of registered deaths with mention of Hypothermia

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Greater London

  78

  134

  135

  79

  66

  Greater Manchester

  23

  33

  37

  19

  13

  Birmingham

  23

  31

  29

  17

  14

  Liverpool

  8

  10

  12

  4

  9

  England and Wales

  555

  827

  837

  559

  440

  Postal Vote Forms
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects his Department to be able to supply the new postal vote forms to Dacorum borough council.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 29 January 1991]: In order for the Representation of the People Act 1990 to take effect, it will be necessary to make some minor amendments to the Representation of the People Regulations 1986 and the European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 1986, and to make an Order in Council in respect of local elections in Northern Ireland. We shall do this as soon as possible. We intend to make the new absent voting application form RPF 8 available at the beginning of May.

  Adoption
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many children from countries other than Romania were granted entry clearance for adoption purposes during 1990;

  (2) how many children are currently awaiting adoption from Romania to families in the United Kingdom;

  (3) how many children have been adopted into families in the United Kingdom from Romania in each of the last three years;

  (4) what proportion of the children adopted into families in the United Kingdom from Romania have living birth parents.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is that, since December 1989, 144 Romanian children have been granted entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom with a view to adoption by British couples. Forty-two applications are outstanding, 39 of which have been made since 1 December 1990. Earlier information about Romanian children and information about children from other countries granted entry clearance with a view to adoption in the United Kingdom has not been collected centrally.

  No statistics are collected about the natural parents of children admitted for adoption. In all cases involving children where one or both parents are living parental consent to the proposed adoption is required.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that every non-smoking employee in his Department has the right to work in a smoke-free area; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress in implementing a smoke-free policy throughout his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department's policy generally is to encourage staff who wish to smoke to have regard to the convenience and comfort of non-smokers. Smoking is prohibited in lifts and toilets. It is customary not to smoke in conference rooms or in shared offices unless a majority of the staff sharing the office agree to allow it. This voluntary restraint works effectively in practice. The Department is not satisfied that a change of policy is required.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what deadline has been imposed for expenditure from access funds for institutions of higher and further education; and what evaluation he has made of the consequences for students of the deadline.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Any access funds grant not paid to students by the end of the academic year for which it was allocated must be returned by institutions. In the light of representations received, my right hon. and learned Friend has withdrawn an earlier condition requiring higher education institutions to return any grant held by them on 31 March in excess of 15 per cent. of their total allocation for the financial year.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the proportion of each institution's access fund which has been spent to date.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The limited information available suggests that the pattern is mixed. All institutions have been asked to provide an account of their expenditure of access funds at the end of the academic year.

  Architecture Courses
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he intends to take on the designation of architecture courses for mandatory student awards, following the recent judicial review.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have now had an opportunity to consider the judgment in this case. The High Court has ruled that "a first degree course" can include a prescribed programme of study leading to a professional objective, even though a first degree itself is awarded part way through and is followed by further studies. It was not, therefore, correct to conclude that "part 2" architecture courses taken after a first degree could not, as a matter of law, be designated under the Education Act 1962 for the purpose of mandatory awards. The courts, however, made no finding as to whether, on the facts, the architecture 146
  courses are first degree or comparable courses; and it reaffirmed that the holder of my office has discretion whether or not to designate a course even though he concludes that it is a first degree or comparable course.

  The judgment has clarified the scope of designation without disturbing my existing discretionary powers, and I do not propose to appeal against it. I have accordingly re-examined the "part 2" architecture courses in the light of the judgment. On the evidence before me, I have concluded that they are first degree or comparable courses, and that it would be appropriate to designate them for the time being, with effect from the coming into force of amending regulations. This decision is without prejudice to any action that I may wish to take following the separate consultations in progress about the length and structure of architecture courses.

  Under the special bursary scheme established for the current academic year, architecture students on "part 2" courses should already have received bursaries of equivalent value to the mandatory awards for which they would otherwise have been eligible if designation had not been withdrawn. I am asking higher education institutions to ensure this. In addition, I intend shortly to lay before the House amendments to the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1990 to provide an award in the current academic year to any eligible student who has nevertheless not received a bursary. The bursary scheme will be wound up at the end of the current academic year, and mandatory awards will be made available to all eligible "part 2" students from the beginning of academic year 1991–92.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Uganda (HIV)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the seroprevalence of HIV in Rakai, Uganda, among(a) men and (b) women in the age groups (i) 20 to 24 years and (ii) 25 to 29 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Her Majesty's Government have not undertaken research of its own into this specific question, although I understand that the centre for international research of the United States Bureau of the Census published in May 1990 a review of certain studies into the seroprevalence of HIV in Uganda. The ODA and the Medical Research Council are jointly funding a five-year research project into the epidemiology of AIDS in Uganda; results are not yet available from this work.

  The situation regarding HIV infection globally remains one of considerable concern. The United Kingdom is continuing to provide substantial levels of support from the overseas aid programme to the WHO global programme on AIDS—the GPA—and to a number of national AIDS control programmes developed within the framework of the GPA.

  Emergencies and Reserve Funds
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the emergencies budget and the unallocated ODA reserve for the financial year 1990–91, and the percentage of each of these that has not yet been committed.
  147
  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 29 January 1991]: Humanitarian assistance provided from the aid programme takes three forms: relief for unpredictable disasters such as earthquakes and cyclones, emergency food aid, and other non-food relief. Initial provision for this assistance is made at the beginning of each financial year. For 1990–91 the provision taken in the main estimates totalled £66·7 million, including £19 million for food aid, the first call on which is emergency needs.

  The aid programme is managed in a way that allows it to respond quickly to developing country needs, including humanitarian assistance. During the course of each financial year provision for humanitarian assistance is enhanced as required, drawing on the aid programme's contingency reserve and any unplanned savings arising during the year. The provision so far this financial year totals £73·5 million, of which 1·5 per cent. remains uncommitted.

  The aid programme contingency reserve for 1990–91 was £40 million, including an initial earmarking of £9 million for unpredictable disasters. The contingency reserve is now fully allocated.

  Developing Countries
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total amount of cash aid given bilaterally and through the European Community to developing countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1989 the United Kingdom gave £1,113 million in bilateral aid to developing countries. A further £674 million was given by the United Kingdom through multilateral agencies of which £305 million was channelled through the European Community.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Community Documents
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to ensure that the advice of the Treasury Solicitor on the appropriate legal base for European Community documents is published in the reports attached to these documents.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Ministers who sign explanatory memoranda take full responsibility for the contents including any comments on legal base on which they take appropriate legal advice.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions representatives of the United Kingdom Government have questioned the basing of documents on article 100A by the Commission at meetings of the Council of Ministers; and if he will list the titles of such documents and the appropriate ministerial Councils involved.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We provide explanatory memoranda to the House on all Commission proposals for Community legislation. These may include reference to the Government position on whether article 100A is the correct legal base. But exchanges during Council meetings are subject to the normal rules of confidentiality.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise at the 148
  next meeting of the Council of Ministers the manner in which the Commission is basing draft documents on article 100A; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  When the United Kingdom has difficulties with the basing of a Commission proposal on article 100A, we will raise these during discussion of that proposal. We do not intend to raise the question at the next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has anything to add to the evidence given by the Treasury Solicitor to the European Legislation Committee on treaty base HC178(iv) and (v) of Session 1987–88.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  No. The memorandum in evidence given by the Treasury Solicitor's Department set out clearly and in detail the issues relating to choice of treaty base after the Single European Act. The criteria identified in the memorandum for use of article 100A remain valid.

  Polly Peck International
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to seek to ensure that courts in northern Cyprus do not block the administrator of Polly Peck International from investigating or obtaining funds held there; and whether he will make it his policy to consider sanctions against northern Cyprus if such inquiries are disrupted.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The joint administrators of Polly Peck International plc were appointed by the British courts to manage the affairs of the company subject to the overall supervision of the court and the creditors. We continue to follow closely the progress of their investigation. Her Majesty's Government have no locus to intervene in the conduct of their work, especially with the courts in northern Cyprus.

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to ensure that every non-smoking employee in his Department has the right to work in a smoke-free area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is already the policy within this Department to ensure that every non-smoking employee has the right to work in a smoke-free area.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress in implementing a smoke-free policy throughout his Department.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 29 January 1990 at column 15.

  Immigration
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the expected time it takes for(a) an explanatory statement to be prepared and dispatched in cases of appeal against refusal

  149
  of entry clearance and (b) for information concerning refused visitors' visas to be sent to Britain from overseas posts.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Overseas posts are under instruction to prepare and despatch explanatory statements for appeals against refusal of entry clearance to the independent appellate authority within one month for visit applications and three months for settlement applications.

  The correspondence unit of the migration and visa department in the FCO tries to reply to inquiries from Members about refused visitors' visas within three weeks of the inquiry being registered with the unit. However, in some cases it may take longer to obtain the full case details.

  Papua New Guinea
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent developments concerning Bougainville, Papua New Guinea.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Following talks between the two parties in Honiara, representatives of the Papua New Guinea Government and from Bougainville signed an agreement in Honiara on 23 January known as the Honiara declaration. In the declaration the two sides agreed on a regime and timetable for the restoration of services and rehabilitation of Bougainville within the existing constitutional framework of Papua New Guinea. The main features of the agreement are:deferral of discussion of the future political status of Bougainville;
  the lifting of the blockade;
  restoration of all Government services on Bougainville;
  creation of an interim legal authority and a task force, respectively to organise and carry out the restoration of services;
  commitment by both parties to refrain from the use of weapons and arms to resolve the crisis;
  provision for the establishment in Bougainville of a multinational supervisory team consisting of foreign military and policy personnel to monitor implementation of the Declaration;
  agreement by the Bougainville side to disarm its forces; and the granting by the Papua New Guinea Government of an amnesty to the members of the Bougainville forces.

  We welcome the Honiara agreement as a step towards the peaceful resolution of the Bougainville problem and hope it leads to the restoration of normality. The commitment of both sides will be essential if the agreement is to succeed.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his review of poll tax will consider privacy issues arising from the tax; whether he has consulted the data protection registrar about the review of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The review will cover all aspects of local taxation, including any privacy issues which arise.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on collection costs for the community charge per person on the register for each district in Hertfordshire.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is as follows:

  Community charge collection costs per head of relevant population

  Budget Estimates 1990–91 £

  Broxbourne

  8·90

  Dacorum

  7·40

  East Hertfordshire

  9·72

  Hertsmere

  17·81

  North Hertfordshire

  13·69

  St. Albans

  10·14

  Stevenage

  17·79

  Three Rivers

  17·32

  Watford

  14·17

  Welwyn Hatfield

  12·16

  Merseyside Docklands
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many jobs have been created in the Merseyside docklands area since 1981; and how much each job has cost his Department through its allocation of money to the Merseyside docklands.

  Mr. Portillo
  A total of 4,200 permanent jobs had been created or attracted in the Merseyside development corporation area up to March 1990. It is not practicable to distinguish between expenditure leading directly to job creation and that leading to other regneration benefits.

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress in implementing a smoke-free policy throughout his Department.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department has made further progress in the last year towards creating a smoke-free working environment. Following consultation with staff and trade unions, agreement was reached to prohibit or restrict smoking in certain areas within office buildings, and to allow staff to designate their own individual offices as no-smoking areas.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure that every non-smoking employee in his Department has the right to work in a smoke-free area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  It is my Department's policy to ensure as far as possible that every non-smoker who wishes to do so is able to work in a smoke-free office. Under the terms of a new policy statement agreed with staff and issued last October, staff are able to decide by majority voting whether to designate their own offices non-smoking areas. It is not possible, within existing resources, to guarantee an absolute right to all non-smoking staff to work in a smoke-free area, but we aim to meet the wishes of any non-smokers who are not in a designated non-smoking office, by re-arranging accommodation where practicable.

  London Brick Planning Appeal
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the results will be available of the public inquiry held in April and the beginning of May 1990 into the appeal by London Brick Property Ltd. against the refusal of outline planning permission for redevelopment at Marston Moretaine, Bedfordshire, (APP/J0215/A/89/ 130835); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The inspector's report on the public inquiry is being considered. We expect to be in a position to issue the decision on this appeal within the next month. A statement on the issues involved would not be appropriate in advance of that decision.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of houses and flats sold under the right to buy legislation in each of the local authorities in the county of Essex since the introduction of the legislation; and if he will show the percentage of houses and flats sold.

  Mr. Yeo
  A table showing the available information on right-to-buy sales for each English local authority for each financial year since 1986–87 and with a cumulative total to September 1990 was recently placed in the Library.Official Report column 542 refers. A late return from Chelmsford revises the totals shown in the table as follows:

  Sales 1 April 1979 to 30 September 1990

  Sales as percentage of stock

  Chelmsford

  Right-to-buy sales

  3,044

  24·0

  All sales

  3,784

  29·9

  Of which flats

  309

  —

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the number of houses and flats sold under right to buy legislation in each of the local authorities in the county of Kent, since the introduction of the legislation; if he will show the percentage of houses and flats sold; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  A table showing the available information on right to buy sales for each English local authority for each financial year since 1986–87 and with a cumulative total to September 1990 was recently placed in the Library—Official Report column 542 refers. Late returns from Canterbury, Maidstone and Shepway revise the totals shown in the table as follows:

  1 April 1979 to 30 September 1990

  Sales as percentage of stock

  Canterbury

  Right-to-buy sales

  2,152

  24·2

  All sales

  2,600

  29·2

  Of which flats

  156

  —

  Maidstone

  Right-to-buy sales

  1,861

  16·9

  All sales

  2,741

  24·9

  Of which flats

  142

  —

  Shepway

  152

  1 April 1979 to 30 September 1990

  sales as percentage of stock

  Right-to-buy sales

  1,428

  24·7

  All sales

  1,669

  28·8

  Of which flats

  127

  —

  Of the 14 authorities in Kent three have transferred their remaining stock to a housing association—Sevenoaks (March 1989), Swale (March 1990), Tonbridge and Mailing (January 1991)—while Rochester upon Medway transferred all its remaining stock to a private company in July 1990.

  National Flag
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the legislative provisions under which local authorities can ban the display of the national flag; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  There are no such legislative provisions. Councillors are answerable to their electors for such decisions.

  Refuse-derived Fuel
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 21 January 1991 at column 87, on refuse-derived fuel, what specific considerations he has given, to date, on any derogation to be sought under this power; what considerations and consolidations he will be giving to specific derogation once the power to derogate has been sought; and how long after the power to derogate has been sought, he expects specific derogations to be in force;

  (2) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 21 January 1991 at column 87, if the power to derogate for plant burning refuse-derived fuel will be exercised.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 29 January,Official Report, column 474, if he will (a) publish a table indicating the administrative costs of implementing the urban programme, for both local government arid national Government, for 1989–90 and (b) indicate what resources were made available for the urban programme in 1989–90.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 4 February 1991]: Resources available for the urban programme in 1989–90 from central Government totalled £242 million. Local authorities contribute 25 per cent. of revenue expenditure which, together with the central Government funding of £242 million, produced a total provision of £260 million. The Department of the Environment's administrative costs were £2 million. I regret that the Government do not hold information on the administrative costs for local government.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many poll tax payers there are; how many have a rebate; and what is the average rebate.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  In 1990–91 there are around 42 million people in Great Britain liable to pay the community charge and the average community charge benefit per individual is £4·30 per week. At August 1990 the estimated number of individuals receiving community charge benefit was 8·9 million. This figure probably underestimates the current position because, at that time, local authorities still had a number of unprocessed claims; it is also slightly higher than that given in my reply on 24 January 1991 to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) at columns 307–8 because updated information from local authorities has just become available.

HEALTH

  Perinatal Mortality
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the perinatal mortality rate in(a) England and Wales, (b) each region in England and (c) the United Kingdom; and what information he has on the comparable rates in the countries of the EEC.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is shown in the table. In each case the latest available data year has been given.

  Perinatal mortality in the United Kingdom, England and Wales, Regional Health Authorities and EC countries

  Area

  Year

  Rate1

  United Kingdom

  1989

  8·3

  England and Wales

  1989

  8·3

  England

  1989

  8·3

  Regional Health Authorities

  Northern

  1989

  9·2

  Yorkshire

  1989

  8·5

  Trent

  1989

  8·5

  East Anglian

  1989

  6·7

  North West Thames

  1989

  8·3

  North East Thames

  1989

  8·3

  South East Thames

  1989

  8·4

  South West Thames

  1989

  7·0

  Wessex

  1989

  8·3

  Oxford

  1989

  7·2

  South Western

  1989

  6·7

  West Midlands

  1989

  9·7

  Mersey

  1989

  8·2

  North Western

  1989

  9·2

  Wales

  1989

  8·3

  EC countries

  Belgium

  1986

  10·4

  Denmark

  1988

  8·7

  France

  1988

  9·2

  German Federal Republic

  1988

  6·5

  Greece

  1988

  12·9

  Irish Republic

  1987

  10·4

  Italy

  1988

  212·3

  Luxembourg

  1988

  7·1

  Netherlands

  1988

  9·1

  Portugal

  1988

  16·6

  Spain

  1985

  10·9

  1 Deaths 0–6 days + Stillbirths per 1,000 total births.

  2 Provisional.

  Maternal Mortality
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the most recent maternal mortality rate in the United Kingdom; and what information he has on the comparable rates in(a) the countries of the EEC and (b) the World Health Organisation European region.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is shown in the table. In each case the latest available data year have been given. No data are readily available for the WHO European region as a whole; selected countries, other than those within the EC, are shown.

  Maternal mortality in the United Kingdom, EC countries and selected countries from the WHO European Region

  Area

  Year

  Rate1

  United Kingdom

  1989

  7·7

  Other EEC countries

  Belgium

  1986

  3·4

  Denmark

  1988

  3·4

  France

  1988

  9·3

  German Federal Republic

  1988

  8·9

  Greece

  1987

  4·7

  Irish Republic

  1987

  3·4

  Italy

  1986

  5·5

  Luxembourg

  1988

  0·0

  Netherlands

  1988

  9·6

  Portugal

  1988

  6·6

  Spain

  1985

  4·4

  Others in WHO European Region

  Austria

  1988

  5·7

  Bulgaria

  1987

  19·7

  Czechoslovakia

  1988

  13·0

  Finland

  1987

  5·0

  German Democratic Republic

  1988

  14·8

  Hungary

  1988

  16·9

  Iceland

  1988

  0·0

  Israel

  1987

  3·0

  Malta

  1988

  0·0

  Norway

  1987

  5·6

  Poland

  1988

  11·6

  Rumania

  1984

  148·8

  Sweden

  1987

  4·8

  Switzerland

  1988

  10·0

  Yugoslavia

  1987

  10·6

  1 Deaths attributed to complications of pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium per 100,000 live births.

  Data, except for United Kingdom, from WHO European Regional Office 'Indicator Presentation System'.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the most recent infant mortality rate in(a) England and Wales, (b) each region in England and (c) the United Kingdom; and what information he has on the comparable rates in (i) the countries of the EEC and (ii) the World Health Organisation European region.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is shown in the table. In each case the latest available data year has been given. No data are readily available for the World Health Organisation European region as a whole; selected countries, other than those within the EC, are shown.

  Infant mortality in the United Kingdom, England and Wales, Regional Health Authorities, EC countries and selected countries from the World Health Organisation European Region.

  Area

  Year

  Rate1

  United Kingdom

  1989

  8·4

  England and Wales

  1989

  8·4

  England

  1989

  8·4

  155

  Area

  Year

  Rate1

  Regional Health Authorities

  Northern

  1989

  8·4

  Yorkshire

  1989

  9·1

  Trent

  1989

  8·1

  East Anglian

  1989

  6·4

  North West Thames

  1989

  8·2

  North East Thames

  1989

  8·4

  South East Thames

  1989

  8·4

  South West Thames

  1989

  7·7

  Wessex

  1989

  8·8

  Oxford

  1989

  7·9

  South Western

  1989

  7·3

  West Midlands

  1989

  9·9

  Mersey

  1989

  7·6

  North Western

  1989

  9·1

  Wales

  1989

  8·0

  Other EC countries

  Belgium

  1988

  29·1

  Denmark

  1988

  7·6

  France

  1988

  7·8

  German Federal Republic

  1988

  7·5

  Greece

  1988

  11·0

  Irish Republic

  1988

  29·2

  Italy

  1988

  29·5

  Luxembourg

  1988

  8·7

  Netherlands

  1988

  6·8

  Portugal

  1988

  13·1

  Spain

  1988

  28·1

  Others in World Health Organisation European Region

  Austria

  1988

  8·1

  Bulgaria

  1987

  14·7

  Czechoslovakia

  1988

  211·9

  Finland

  1987

  6·1

  German Democratic Republic

  1988

  8·1

  Hungary

  1988

  15·8

  Iceland

  1988

  6·2

  Israel

  1987

  11·1

  Malta

  1988

  9·2

  Norway

  1987

  8·4

  Poland

  1988

  16·2

  Rumania

  1984

  23·4

  Sweden

  1987

  6·1

  Switzerland

  1988

  6·8

  Yugoslavia

  1987

  25·1

  1 Deaths under 1 year per 1,000 live births.

  2 Provisional.

  Braille
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much was spent by his Department on producing information in(a) braille, (b) tape and (c) large print for each of the last five years for which figures are available;

  (2) if he will list those publications produced by his Department over the last five years which were also produced in (a) braille, (b) tape and (c) large print, and the cost of each publication.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Precise information in the form and for the period requested is not available. The table lists a number of recent documents which have been produced in braille, tape or large print, together with the approximate cost, where known.

  Document

  Type

  Approx. £ cost

  1988–89

  "A Wider Vision

  Braille

  unknown

  "Keep Warm Keep Well"

  Audio tape

  4,660

  1989–90

  156

  Document

  Type

  Approx. £ cost

  "Sign Posts"

  Braille

  1,072

  "Sign Posts"

  Audio tape

  110

  "Sign Posts"

  Large print

  unknown

  "Coordinating Services for Visually

  Braille

  309

  Handicapped People"

  "Coordinating Services for Visually

  Audio tape

  28

  Handicapped People"

  "Keep Warm Keep Well"

  Audio tape

  6,452

  1990–91

  "Keep Warm Keep Well"

  Audio tape

  7,587

  "NHS Reforms and You"

  Audio tape

  25,300

  "NHS Reforms and You"

  Braille/Moon

  4,800

  Overseas Adoptions
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consideration he has given to expediting the work of local council social services departments when considering the adoption of children from overseas; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his policy on the acceptability for domestic adoption procedures by social services departments of home study reports prepared for overseas authorities by independent reputable social workers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Detailed guidance on intercountry adoption issued to directors of social services last autumn includes guidance on the assessment of prospective adopters by local authorities and on home study reports which have been commissioned privately. Reports by social workers are acceptable only if prepared by or on behalf of the prospective adopters' social services department. Copies of CI(90)17 to directors of social services in England, DSW 3/90 for Scotland and equivalent guidance for Wales are available in the Library.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by location, his Department's 12 pilot projects aimed at reducing waiting times for hearing aid services; what is the cost of each project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table lists the projects by location and shows the funding allocated to each project in 1990–91, based on the project manager's estimate of expenditure in each case. We shall shortly be inviting project managers to let us have their estimate of project costs for 1991–92. In addition to funding individual projects, the Department is funding the Hester Adrian research centre at the university of Manchester to carry out an evaluation of all 12 projects. The total estimated cost of the evaluation is £80,000.

  Project/location

  Funding £

  Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading

  4,000

  Manor Hospital, Walsall

  26,000

  Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield

  10,000

  Royal United Hospital, Bath

  8,000

  Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds

  21,000

  Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester

  28,000

  Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne

  9,000

  Mayday University Hospital, Thornton Heath

  12,000

  Walton Hospital, Liverpool

  15,000

  Royal East Sussex Hospital, Hastings

  12,000

  Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter

  30,000

  Queen Victoria Hospital, Morecambe

  8,000

  Drug Prices
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on examples of competitive pricing for the sale of drugs from major pharmaceutical suppliers for the main categories of prescribed drugs within the national health service, and those purchased in France and Germany; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The United Kingdom system controls profits of pharmaceutical manufacturers from their sales to the national health service not directly the prices of individual products. Accordingly we do not maintain detailed records of prices in other countries.

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the progress in implementing a smoke-free policy throughout his Department;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that every non-smoking employee in his Department has the right to work in a smoke-free area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is the Department's policy to move as quickly as possible, after local discussions and agreement, to provide a smoke-free environment for those of its employees who wish it. Implementation of this policy has been piloted in selected buildings and a programme leading to full introduction of a smoke-free working environment now forms part of the Department's accommodation strategy. It will not be possible to guarantee every non-smoking employee a smoke-free area until the Department's current accommodation strategy is implemented fully by summer 1993.

  New Treatments
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the types of operation and forms of treatment that are currently available on the National Health Service but were not so available before 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As a result of medical advances, the skill and flexibility of national health service staff and the Government's continued commitment and support, a wide range of new operations and treatments have become available through the National Health Service since 1979. Some examples of these are:

  Bone implanted hearing aids

  Types of facial prostheses using titanium screws

  Minimally invasive therapy

  Some forms of laser treatment

  Cochlear implants

  Intravenous thrombolytic therapy

  Lithotripsy

  Heart, heart/lung, lung, liver transplants

  Stereotactic radiosurgery

  Drug treatment of peptic ulcer

  Drug treatment for anaemia in renal patients

  Progress in paediatric heart surgery

  Progress in treatment of certain children's cancers

  Progress in treatment of vulnerable or sick new born and older children

  Trust Members
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the membership of the Freeman hospital trust, and the Newcastle mental health unit trust in each case indicating the emoluments they are able to receive and the date from which any such emoluments may be paid.
  158
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Trust boards are made up of equal numbers of executive and non-executive directors plus a chairman. Each non-executive director will receive a remuneration of £5,000 per annum payable from the date of establishment. Remuneration for executive directors will be determined by the Trust Management Board and will be payable from the date of appointment. The chairman of the Freeman group of hospitals and Newcastle mental health national health service trusts will both receive a remuneration of £15,503 from the date of establishment increasing to £15,659 per annum from 1 January 1991.

  Following is a list of the chairmen and non-executive membership for the Freeman group of hospitals and Newcastle mental health national health service trusts;

  The Freeman Group of Hospitals National Health Service Trust

  Mr. F. Hoult

  Dr. R. Freeman

  Mrs. M. Border

  Mr. R. Middleton

  Mr. J. Teasdale Ward

  Miss H. M. Goodworth

  Newcastle Mental Health National Health Service Trust

  Reverend B. Vernon

  Mrs. I Cheyne

  Mr. D. K. Wilson

  Professor I. Ferrier

  Mr. B. Roycroft

  Mr. N. Price

  Agency Nurses
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the amount of spending in each regional health authority on agency nurses in 1989–90.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information derived from the annual accounts of regional and district health authorities in England together with those of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals is shown in the table.

  Revenue expenditure on non-national health service (agency, etc.) nursing staff—1989–90

  Region

  £'000 (cash)

  Northern

  52

  Yorkshire

  2,527

  Trent

  1,872

  East Anglian

  3,073

  North West Thames

  27,681

  North East Thames

  32,911

  South East Thames

  20,336

  South West Thames

  17,255

  Wessex

  4,595

  Oxford

  2,624

  South Western

  2,820

  West Midlands

  6,668

  Mersey

  1,541

  North Western

  1,678

  Regions total

  125,633

  Special health authorities

  9,344

  England

  134,977

WALES

  Dams
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the capacity of each dam in Wales which falls within the scope of the Reservoirs Act 1975; and if he will give, in each case, the name of the undertaker.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not held centrally. However, most of it is available on public registers maintained by the enforcement authorities and available for inspection at their principal offices during normal working hours.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dams in each county in Wales fall within the scope of the Reservoirs Act 1975.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information, which is drawn from the latest bi-annual reports submitted to the Secretary of State by enforcement authorities—county councils—in April 1989, is as follows:

  Reservoirs falling within the scope of the Reservoirs Act 1975

  County

  Number

  Clwyd

  28

  Gwynedd

  51

  Powys

  39

  Dyfed

  52

  West Glamorgan

  13

  Mid Glamorgan

  19

  South Glamorgan

  5

  Gwent

  22

  Total

  229

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what remedial works have been carried out to dams in Wales under the terms of the Reservoirs Act 1975; and what was the expenditure involved in each case.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information in not held centrally.

  Local Authority Land
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if his proposals outlined in his consultation paper on the use of vacant local authority land are intended to dispose of public assets at below market values;

  (2) what compensation procedures will be followed by vending authorities when a potential purchaser will not pay full market value for unused local authority land under his proposals in the consultation paper on the use of vacant local authority land;

  (3) what level of human resources is to be committed to the operation of the machinery and regulations necessary to fulfil the aims of his consultation paper on the use of vacant local authority land, in particular in respect of clawback for any future enhancement of values;

  (4) if he will publish the criteria he intends to use to identify unused and under-used public sector land in his proposals in the consultation paper on use of local authority vacant land for the purpose of bringing it back into use;

  (5) if it is his intention to privatise local authority unused land.
  160
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  In the light of the responses received to our consultation paper my right hon. Friend will be considering with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures might be appropriate to encourage the bringing into use of vacant public sector land.

  Reservoirs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many prosecutions have been made under the provisions of the Reservoirs Act 1975; what were the alleged offences; and in how many cases such prosecutions were successful.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  No prosecutions under the provisions of the Reservoirs Act 1975, have been reported by the enforcement authorities. The reports due on 1 April this year will disclose whether any prosecutions have taken place since 1989.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps have been taken to implement the provisions of the Reservoirs Act 1975 in Wales; and if he proposes to introduce any additional measures.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The provisions of the Reservoirs Act 1975 were implemented in England, Wales and Scotland in stages through subordinate legislation between 8 November 1983 and 1 April 1986. No additional measures are proposed.

  Factories, Fishguard
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans the Welsh Development Agency has to build factories at Scleddau, near Fishguard during the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No plans at the present time.

  A-Levels
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children in(a) Dyfed and (b) Wales took their A-level examinations through the medium of Welsh during 1990; and what were the corresponding figures for the last five years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of entries for Welsh Joint Education Committee A-level subjects examined through the medium of Welsh is shown in the table. Information on the number of children sitting examinations is not available, also information for Dyfed is only available from 1989 onwards.

  Wales1

  Dyfed1

  1985

  519

  —

  1986

  623

  —

  1987

  583

  —

  1988

  691

  —

  1989

  747

  152

  1990

  903

  169

  1 Summer examinations.

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that every non-smoking employee in his Department has the right to work in a smoke-free area; and if he will make a statement;
  161
  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress in implementing a smoke-free policy throughout his Department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Department has operated a no-smoking policy since 1989, with the aim of providing a smoke-free environment for the health and comfort of all staff. Smoking is restricted to designated areas and is prohibited in open-plan and other communal work areas. The policy is working well.

  Women Employees
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of employees in Wales are women; what the corresponding figures were for each year from 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures are estimates from the Employment Department's quarterly series for June each year.

  Female employees in employment as a percentage of total1

  Year

  Per cent·

  1980

  40·5

  1981

  41·4

  1982

  41·8

  1983

  42·5

  1984

  43·2

  1985

  43·7

  1986

  44·3

  1987

  45·1

  1988

  46·0

  1989

  47·2

  1990

  47·8

  1 Full-time and part-time·

  Wool Prices
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to extend the guaranteed price system for wool for a further period of five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government's intention remains, as announced in October 1988, to end the wool guarantee as soon as possible.

  Educational Institutions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the education committees of the relevant Welsh counties regarding the tapering provisions of top-up funding from local education authority budgets to the institutions listed in his answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 30 January 1991 at columns 514–15.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Top-up funding has been discussed by the Wales Advisory Body, which I chair and which includes members from each of the local education authorities. The WAB is the body responsible for advising my right hon. Friend on matters concerning local authority higher education.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the principals and directors of the institutions listed in his answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 30 January 1991 at columns 514–15, regarding future staffing levels and redundancy policies for academic and non-academic staff.
  162
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The staffing of these institutions is a matter for the institutions themselves and their maintaining LEAs.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the principals and directors of the institutions listed in his answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 30 January 1991 at columns 514–15, regarding the future of further education courses currently provided at those institutions.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  After 1 April 1992 the provision of further education courses will remain the responsibility of LEAs. They will be able to contract with the independent higher education institutions for the provision of further education courses in those institutions.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the principals and directors of the institutions listed in his answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 30 January 1991 at columns 514–15, regarding the restoration of vocational higher education courses closed in the present and last financial year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Since July 1990 the approval of my right hon. Friend for the provision of higher education courses, other than courses of initial teacher training, has not been required.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) academic and (b) non-academic staff are employed at the institutions listed in his answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 30 January 1991 at columns 514–15; and if he will make a statement on future staffing levels at the institutions after 1 April 1992.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In 1988–89 the number of full-time equivalent teaching staff at each of the five institutions which are to be incorporated was as follows:

  Number

  Polytechnic of Wales

  372·5

  Cardiff Institute of Higher Education

  404·3

  Gwent College of Higher Education

  233·6

  Normal College, Bangor

  42·2

  West Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education

  223·1

  Details of non-teaching are not held centrally.

  Future staffing levels will be entirely the responsibility of the governing bodies of the incorporated institutions.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will give the reasons behind the decision to provide a transitional relief level of £5 to poll tax payers in Butetown, Cardiff, for 1991–92 and all the figures involved in the calculation;

  (2) if he will give the reasons behind the decision to provide a transitional relief level of £18 to poll tax payers in Llanthavadr ym Mochnant, Montgomeryshire, for 1991–92 and all the figures involved in the calculation;

  (3) if he will give the reasons behind the decision to provide a transitional relief level of £23 to poll tax payers in Llanrumney, Cardiff, for 1991–92 and all the figures involved in the calculation;
  163
  (4) if he will give the reasons behind the decision to provide a transitional relief level of £3 to poll tax payers in Colwyn bay for 1991–92 and all the figures involved in the calculation;

  (5) if he will give the reasons behind the decision to provide a transitional relief level of £107 to poll tax payers in Llanrhaeadr ym Mochnant, Glyndwr, for 1991–92 and all the figures involved in the calculation;

  Relief 1991–92

  Local authority and community council

  Domestic rateable value £

  1Relevant population number

  Domestic poundage poundage

  Notional average domestic rates per adult £

  1990–91 community charge £

  Difference between community charge and rates £

  Amount above £37 threshold £

  Cardiff

  Butetown

  222,891

  2,342

  222·11

  211

  253

  42

  5

  Llanrumney

  811,731

  9,330

  222·11

  193

  253

  60

  23

  Colwyn

  Colwyn Bay

  597,024

  7,604

  281·60

  221

  261

  40

  3

  Glyndwr

  Llanrhaeadr ym Mochnant

  26,230

  528

  276·10

  137

  281

  144

  107

  Llansantffraid Glyn Ceiriog

  49,626

  828

  276·10

  165

  281

  116

  79

  Montgomeryshire

  Llanrhaeadr ym Mochnant

  14,244

  285

  229·85

  115

  170

  55

  18

  1 As specified in Appendix 2 of the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report

  Welsh College of Music and Drama
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the chairman of South Glamorgan education committee to discuss the future of the Welsh College of Music and Drama.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  As indicated in my right hon. Friend's reply of 30 January officials are discussing the future status of the Welsh College of Music and Drama with South Glamorgan county council.

  House Building
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council houses were(a) started and (b) completed in 1990 for each of the local authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is given in the following table.

  Local Authority starts and completions 19901

  Welsh districts

  Starts

  Completions

  Aberconwy

  0

  0

  Alyn and Deeside

  67

  52

  Arfon

  0

  0

  Blaenau Gwent2

  0

  0

  Brecknock

  0

  19

  Cardiff

  47

  0

  Carmarthen

  0

  0

  Ceredigion

  0

  6

  Colwyn

  0

  0

  Cynon Valley

  0

  0

  Delyn

  0

  0

  Dinefwr

  0

  0

  Dwyfor

  8

  0

  Glyndwr

  0

  0

  Islwyn

  0

  9

  Llanelli

  106

  28

  Lliw Valley

  0

  69

  Meirionnydd

  0

  0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  0

  0

  Monmouth2

  0

  68

  164
  (6) if he will give the reasons behind the decision to provide a transitional relief level of £79 to poll tax payers in Llansantffraid Glyn Cevriog, for 1991–92 and all the figures involved in the calculation.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to him on 4 February. The table gives the specific information requested.

  Welsh districts

  Starts

  Completions

  Montgomeryshire

  24

  8

  Neath

  0

  0

  Newport

  0

  64

  Ogwr

  0

  6

  Port Talbot

  0

  0

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  18

  6

  Radnorshire

  0

  22

  Rhondda

  0

  0

  Rhuddlan

  8

  31

  Rhymney Valley

  0

  6

  South Pembrokeshire

  0

  0

  Swansea

  0

  75

  Taff-Ely

  0

  0

  Torfaen

  0

  0

  Vale of Glamorgan

  29

  41

  Wrexham Maelor

  31

  41

  Ynys Mon

  0

  0

  Wales total

  338

  551

  1 Provisional.

  2 The information for Blaenau Gwent and Monmouth is for the period January to November 1990.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses were(a) started and (b) completed by each of the housing associations in Wales in 1990.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Data for 1990 are not yet available. Housing for Wales plan to provide 3,000 additional units during the financial year 1990–91.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council houses were sold by each of the local authorities in Wales for the last four years estimating the amount realised by each local authority on the sales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is given in the table:
  165

  Sales of local authority dwellings and associated amounts realized 1986–1989

  Sales 1986–89

  Local authority

  Number

  Amount realized(£000's)

  Aberconwy

  624

  6,463

  Alyn and Deeside

  709

  7,023

  Arfon

  497

  5,280

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,118

  10,544

  Brecknock

  509

  5,862

  Cardiff

  3,460

  42,246

  Carmarthen

  381

  4,513

  Ceredigion

  534

  6,655

  Colwyn

  384

  3,899

  Cynon Valley

  526

  4,312

  Delyn

  456

  4,489

  Dinefwr

  364

  3,555

  Dwyfor

  94

  1,087

  GlyndŴr

  435

  4,477

  Islwyn

  1,154

  11,866

  Llanelli

  1,052

  8,290

  Lliw Valley

  634

  5,496

  Meirionnydd

  287

  2,915

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1,021

  8,995

  Monmouth

  818

  11,958

  Montgomeryshire

  410

  5,188

  Neath

  920

  8,516

  Newport

  1,633

  21,052

  Ogwr

  1,761

  18,123

  Port Talbot

  1,405

  13,218

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  859

  9,354

  Radnorshire

  161

  2,134

  Rhondda

  342

  2,473

  Rhuddlan

  369

  3,788

  Rhymney Valley

  1,237

  11,749

  South Pembrokeshire

  358

  4,560

  Swansea

  2,189

  21,841

  Taff-Ely

  1,702

  15,964

  Torfaen

  1,518

  18,072

  Vale of Glamorgan

  1,209

  16,179

  Wrexham Maelor

  1,572

  15,646

  Ynys Môn

  702

  8,407

  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share my pleasure that so many tenants have been able to buy their houses.

  Health Service
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the cost to date of refining and extending an analysis database to test the implications of alternative patterns of provision and to identify performance targets for the NHS in Wales as part of the Welsh Office's corporate management programme.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  About £5,600 a year, at 1990–91 prices.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the budget of the Mid-Glamorgan family practitioner committee in 1988, 1989 and 1990; and what is the budget of the Mid-Glamorgan family health services authority for 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The administration revenue net allocations to Mid-Glamorgan family practitioner committee—from 17 September 1990, Mid-Glamorgan family health services Authority—for the relevant financial years are as follows:
  166

  £

  1988–89

  11599,652

  1989–90

  1709,502

  1990–91

  21,031,730

  1 Final cash limit.

  2 Provisional cash limit.

  The 1991–92 administration revenue allocations for FHSAs in Wales will be notified shortly.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the cost, by authority, during 1990–91, of setting up teams within district health authorities in Wales whose function is to perform the purchaser role described in section 3.23 of the Welsh Office publication, "NHS Wales: Agenda for Action, 1991–93."

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The internal management and organisation of an authority's purchase role is for the individual districts to determine. In recognition of the increased responsibilities for the introduction of the contractual framework, and consideration of NHS trusts, DHAs have received additional resources totalling £2·4 million and £2·7 million in 1990–91 and 1991–92 respectively and which covers both the purchase and provider functions.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cost of the implementation of the measures contained in the Welsh Office national health service directorate proposals in "NHS Wales: Agenda for Action, 1991–93."

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The main purpose of the agenda for action is to help the NHS refocus its activities and existing resources to achieve a better return in terms of both the health of the people of Wales and the services available to them.

  As such, the actions identified are central to the NHS management effort, with related costs being woven into and covered principally by the mainstream budgets of the various organisations involved.

TRANSPORT

  New Road, Cheshire
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the route of the toll road planned to pass through Cheshire and its estimated time of construction; what environmental studies have been carried out before the route was finalised; and what public consultations he has had in Cheshire.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has received four responses from the private sector to its invitation for broad outline proposals for additional longer term road capacity between Birmingham and Manchester. These proposals are still under evaluation, and no decision has been taken on a preferred scheme, or its route and timing. As and when a favoured proposal is selected, consultation will take place with all interested parties in the normal way. Any privately-financed road scheme must comply with the same environmental standards as a public scheme.

  Air Transport (VAT)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the effect of introducing value added tax on air transport within Europe.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Until the European Commission comes forward with detailed proposals for the post-1992 VAT regime, I can make no such assessment.

  A1(M)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of(a) accidents, (b) fatalities and (c) injuries on the A1(M) between Scotch corner and Newcastle for each year since 1980, and the number of commercial and private vehicles involved.

  Mr. Chope
  The information for the A1(M), in the detail requested, is available from the Durham county boundary, north of Scotch corner, to its northern end near Newcastle upon Tyne, as follows:

  Year

  Injury accidents

  Fatalities

  Injuries

  Commer cial vehicles

  Private vehicles

  1980

  45

  1

  79

  19

  62

  1981

  33

  1

  49

  5

  43

  1982

  37

  3

  56

  17

  42

  1983

  28

  1

  55

  24

  30

  1984

  36

  2

  58

  13

  35

  1985

  43

  4

  107

  24

  40

  1986

  42

  3

  73

  23

  50

  1987

  53

  5

  80

  23

  71

  1988

  40

  3

  72

  20

  52

  1989

  81

  1

  141

  30

  132

  '1990

  54

  4

  96

  2

  2

  1 Up to 31 October 1990.

  2 Not yet known.

  Car Accidents
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many primary school children have been knocked down by cars in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chope
  In 1989 there were 10,749 pedestrians aged five to 11 who sustained injury after being struck by cars. Of these, 107 were killed, 2,656 were seriously injured and 7,986 were slightly injured.

  A69
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of(a) accidents, (b) fatalities and (c) injuries on the A69 for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Chope
  The number of personal injury accidents for the A69 from its junction with the M6 to Newcastle upon Tyne are as follows:

  Year

  Accidents(a)

  Fatalities(b)

  Injuries(c)

  1980

  87

  5

  142

  1981

  97

  8

  166

  1982

  90

  11

  178

  1983

  78

  4

  133

  168

  Year

  Accidents(a)

  Fatalities(b)

  Injuries(c)

  1984

  83

  3

  123

  1985

  86

  6

  181

  1986

  101

  5

  163

  1987

  91

  3

  194

  1988

  106

  10

  172

  1989

  99

  8

  156

  11990

  114

  9

  170

  1 January to November only.

  Fareham-Badenham Line
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail on the future of the railway line between Fareham and RNAD Badenham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None. This line is used only by freight traffic, and its future is a matter for British Rail.

  M27
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether he has any plans to improve junction 10 of the M27 with the A32 at Fareham;

  (2) whether he has any plans for improvements to junction 11 of the M27 at Fareham, including traffic signals;

  (3) whether he has any plans to improve junction 9 of the M27 at Segensworth.

  Mr. Chope
  Yes. We intend to provide peak period traffic signals at both junctions 9 and 11 of the M27. Tenders for these have been invited with a view to completing installation of the signals this summer.

  A report of a study, announced in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity", into the possible need for further improvements to the M27, the M271 link and their junctions is being considered at present.

  A32
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he recognises the Gosport/Fareham section of the A32 road as a road of more than local significance for the purpose of transport supplementary grant.

  Mr. Chope
  Not at the moment. However, it is open to the local highway authority to make a case by explaining the extent to which considers its proposals relate to the Secretary of State's objectives in respect of grant support for local roads, as described in the Department's annual circular about bids for transport supplementary grant.

  School Buses
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statistics he has on the number of accidents involving school buses and the number of persons injured.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department collects information only on accidents which involve personal injury. No information is available on the use to which vehicles are put at the time of the accident, but information is available on bus or minibus accidents involving at least one school pupil who was injured whilst travelling as a passenger.
  169

  Bus or minibus accidents involving at least one school pupil injured while travelling as a passenger: GB 1985–1989

  Year

  Number of accidents

  School pupil passengers:

  Killed

  Injured

  1989

  712

  6

  1,416

  1988

  663

  8

  1,214

  1987

  658

  4

  1,254

  1986

  734

  1

  1,168

  1985

  776

  4

  1,379

  Aircraft Safety
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the main recommendations and conclusions of the first report of the Transport Committee on aircraft cabin safety.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I shall be giving the Committee the Government's full response in due course.

  Buses
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take concerning bus priority measures in response to the Bus and Coach Council's document "Buses Mean Business".

  Mr. Freeman
  I welcome the Bus and Coach Council's initiative "Buses Mean Business". A working group under my chairmanship will be established immediately to consider ways in which buses and coaches can contribute towards easing congestion and improving the environment. We shall shortly be inviting representatives from the Bus and Coach Council and from local authority associations to participate in this group.

  We shall also invite local authorities to consider what bus priority measures might be appropriate in their areas and, if suitable schemes are put forward, we would hope to allocate appropriate resources for that purpose in 1992–93. Examples of such schemes could include green routes, which comprise a series of bus priority features such as dedicated bus lanes and priority at junctions for buses; park and ride schemes; and schemes to improve passenger facilities and the provision of information technology. The working group will also look at the potential for both the trolleybus and the guided bus.

  We are also considering how best to promote environmentally friendly buses. As a first step we are undertaking a preliminary survey of the relative merits and long term potential of alternative fuels.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent meetings he has had with the chairman of British Rail to discuss east coast main line services to London and to Europe.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the chairman of the British Railways Board on 17 January to discuss various railway matters, including the east coast main line and channel tunnel services.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether agreement has yet been reached on the provision of a weighbridge at Coquelles in France, in connection with weight controls on lorries arriving in the United Kingdom via the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Chope
  Eurotunnel propose to install a weigh-bridge in the freight terminal at Coquelles. Discussions are continuing with Eurotunnel about United Kingdom enforcement staff using the weighing facility for checking lorry weights prior to vehicles being loaded on to the rail cars and travelling to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of British Rail's preferred geographical route for the channel tunnel high speed rail link, indicating on it where the route deviates from his preferred route; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail is still studying the options for a route for the rail link, and do not expect to reach their conclusions until the spring. My right hon. and learned Friend has not expressed any preference as to route. But he has issued initial safeguarding directions for the section between Cheriton and Upper Hailing in Kent of the route announced by BR in 1989.

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the progress in implementing a smoke-free policy throughout his Department;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that every non-smoking employee in his Department has the right to work in a smoke-free area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department's policy is to create a non-smoking environment with facilities for those who wish to smoke. Arrangements may be made for smokers and non-smokers to occupy separate offices where other management considerations permit and, where all occupants of an office agree, staff may display "no-smoking" signs in that office. Local management may also agree further measures to apply locally, on a voluntary basis.

  Further restrictions on smoking in lifts, corridors, conference rooms and other common areas were introduced in September 1990.

  Dartford Bridge
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date the Dartford bridge will be open for motor traffic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  No date has been fixed for the opening of the new bridge between Dartford and Thurrock. Completion is on target for late summer.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the name of the new bridge currently being constructed over the River Thames at Dartford.

  Mr. Chope
  No decision has been taken on a name for this new bridge.

  Thames River Services
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial support he gives to riverbus operations on the Thames.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 5 February 1991]: The Government have made a grant of £500,000 to the consortium responsible for the riverbus service.

  North Devon Link Road
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the safety record of the north Devon link road and take any steps necessary to realign, redesign and light junctions with local roads.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 5 February 1991]: As indicated during my right hon. and learned Friend's meeting with the hon. Member on 4 February, the safety of the north Devon link road and its junctions is kept under continuing review and, as part of this process, lighting is to be installed at Landkey junction near Barnstaple.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Income Tax
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) working families with children and (b) childless people in work had incomes below the tax threshold at the latest date for which information is available.

  Mr. Maude
  There are an estimated 0·5 million working families with children and 1 million childless people in

  Date of first appointment

  Expiry date of current appointment

  The Rt. Hon. Robin Leigh-Pemberton, Governor

  1 July 1983

  30 June 1993

  Edward Alan John George, Esq.

  1 March 1990

  28 February 1995

  Sir George Adrian Hayhurst Cadbury

  1 March 1970

  28 February 1994

  Sir Hector Laing

  1 March 1973

  28 February 1991

  Sir David Gerald Scholey, CBE

  1 March 1981

  28 February 1994

  Sir David Alan Walker

  1 March 1982

  28 February 1993

  The Hon. Sir John Francis Harcourt Baring, KCVO

  1 March 1983

  28 February 1991

  Dr. Donald Valentine Atterton, CBE

  1 March 1984

  29 February 1992

  Sir Frederick Brian Corby

  1 March 1985

  28 February 1993

  Lord Haslam of Bolton

  1 March 1985

  28 February 1993

  Gavin Harry Laird, Esq. CBE

  1 March 1986

  28 February 1994

  Sir Martin Wakefield Jacomb

  19 May 1986

  28 February 1991

  Sir Colin Ross Corness

  1 March 1987

  28 February 1991

  Brian Quinn, Esq.

  1 April 1988

  29 February 1992

  John Stanton Flemming, Esq.

  1 October 1988

  29 February 1992

  Andrew Duncan Crockett, Esq

  1 March 1989

  28 February 1993

  Anthony Laurie Coleby, Esq.

  1 March 1990

  28 February 1994

  Professor Mervyn Allister King

  1 March 1990

  29 February 1992

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that every non-smoking employee in his Department has the right to work in a smoke-free area; and if he will make a statement.;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress in implementing a smoke-free policy throughout his Department.
  172
  work not liable to income tax in 1990–91. These estimates are based on information projected from the 1988 and 1989 family expenditure surveys and are, therefore, provisional.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 15 January,Official Report, column 461, on the reserves, if he will indicate how exchange rate mechanism intervention arrangements and swaps affect the published total inflows and outflows in the months since Britain joined the exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Maples
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to disclose details of official intervention in the foreign exchange markets: the information is market sensitive, and disclosure of details would risk undermining the effectiveness of intervention.

  The European monetary co-operation Fund—EMCF—swap involves the issue of ECUs to European monetary system central banks in exchange for deposits by them of 20 per cent. of their gold and dollar reserves. Any valuation change arising from the quarterly rollover of the United Kingdom's EMCF swap is included in the published total of reserves.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the present members of the court of the Bank of England and the dates of their appointment.

  Mr. Maples
  The current members of the court of the Bank of England are as follows:—

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Codes of practice on smoking have recently been introduced in the Treasury's main Parliament street building and in the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency at all locations. The codes provide for no smoking in most communal areas, with decisions about whether or not there should be smoking in offices to be taken by the occupants. A no-smoking policy is in operation throughout the computer suite of the Chessington computer centre. Elsewhere in the centre a policy similar to that in the rest of the department is in force.

  Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate, on the same basis as the ready reckoner published in the autumn statement, the effect on a one-earner, two-child family of spending in 1991–92 the sum on(a) a 1p cut in the basic rate of income tax, (b) raising income tax thresholds above their indexed levels, (c) raising child benefit assuming; (i) no change in income support and family credit rates and (ii) corresponding changes in income support and family credit rates.

  Mr. Maude
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 January 1991, c. 390]: I regret that two figures at (c) (i) in the table were erroneous; rather than £6·30 and £12·60 these should have been £4·30 and £8·60 respectively.

  Oil Prices
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the impact on revenues of a $1 increase on the price of a barrel of oil in(a) a full year and (b) a month.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 5 February 1991]: The extra North sea tax accruals—royalty, petroleum revenue tax and corporation tax—from a sustained increase in the crude oil price of 1 dollar per barrel would yield about £0·2 billion in a full year assuming no change in the exchange rate or in company activity in the North sea. Additional tax receipts in 1990–91 arising from an increase of 1 dollar per barrel in the 1990 calendar year would be about £0·15 billion. The monthly average is £12·5 million but the effect in individual months is very variable depending upon due dates for corporate tax and the six-monthly structure of payments of PRT and royalties.

  Paris Club Debt
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present total stock of Paris Club debt; and how much of it is debt owed to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 5 February 1991]: The Paris club mainly restructures debts outstanding to the export credit agencies of OECD countries. At end 1987 OECD export credit agencies total outstanding stock of debt was about $375 billion. Of this total, about $48 billion was debt outstanding to the United Kingdom.

  Respondents by ethnic origin and by grade level as a percentage of all respondents (1 April 1990)

  Grade level

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other ethnic

  Total ethnic

  Total respondents

  1

  100·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  100·0

  2

  100·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  100·0

  3

  100·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  100·0

  4

  99·4

  0·0

  0·3

  0·3

  0·6

  100·0

  5

  98·2

  0·2

  1·2

  0·4

  1·8

  100·0

  6

  97·6

  0·2

  1·9

  0·3

  2·4

  100·0

  7

  98·5

  0·2

  0·9

  0·3

  1·5

  100·0

  SEO

  98·6

  0·2

  0·9

  0·3

  1·4

  100·0

  HEO

  98·2

  0·4

  1·1

  0·3

  1·8

  100·0

  EO

  96·9

  0·9

  1·9

  0·4

  3·1

  100·0

  AO

  93·9

  2·3

  3·4

  0·4

  6·1

  100·0

  AA

  93·2

  3·1

  3·4

  0·3

  6·8

  100·0

  Others

  98·5

  0·9

  0·6

  0·0

  1·5

  100·0

  Total

  95·5

  1·7

  2·5

  0·4

  4·5

  100·0

THE ARTS

  National Museums
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he expects the survey by Ove Arup into the future of the national museums to be completed.

  Mr. Renton
  I expect that the current review by Arup Research and Development of the building renovation needs of the national museums and galleries which I sponsor will be completed by summer 1991.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the estimated cost of the survey by Ove Arup into the future of the national museums.

  Mr. Renton
  The total cost of the review of the renovation needs of the national museums and galleries which I sponsor is estimated at £120,000 including the consultancy fees to be paid to Arup Research and Development.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he intends to publish the survey by Ove Arup into the future of the national museums.

  Mr. Renton
  I shall be considering in due course what would be the most appropriate action to take in respect of the advice offered to me by Arup Research and Development when it reports to me on the building renovation needs of the national museums and galleries which I sponsor.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what is the percentage representation of members of ethnic minorities at each grade level in the civil service.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is as follows, these are provisional figures as at 1 April 1990 and are based on the 80 per cent. of staff who have responded to the ethnic origin survey. The programme for action on race, which was introduced in May 1990, will build on existing measures to ensure equality of opportunity for all staff.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many statutory instruments were placed before the House in the 1989–90 Session; and how many were the subject of the affirmative procedure and of the negative procedure.

  Mr. MacGregor
  In Session 1989–90, a total of 164 instruments requiring affirmative approval, 916 instruments subject to annulment, 49 statutory rules of Northern Ireland—subject to negative procedure—and eight special procedure orders were considered by the Joint or Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. These figures do not include Orders in Council and draft Orders in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Subject to the decision of the House, the Sessional Return relating to delegated legislation will include figures for the total number of statutory instruments laid before the House during this and in future Sessions.

  Select Committee on Trade and Industry
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the airline used and the desination of each of the overseas visits undertaken by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry for the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Since January 1990 the Committee has undertaken three visits overseas. The arrangements made in respect of each visit were as follows. The first, in February 1990, was to Brussels using Air Europe and British Airways, except for one Member who travelled between Newcastle and Brussels by Sabena. The second, in May 1990, was to Oslo, Helsinki, Stockholm and Reykjavik; the flights to Oslo and from Stockholm were by British Airways; between Oslo, Helsinki, and Stockholm by Finnair; between Stockholm, Reykjavik and Glasgow by Icelandair; between Glasgow and London by British Airways. The third in June 1990 was to Zurich, Berne and Vienna; the flights to Zurich and from Vienna were by British Airways; and by Swissair between Zurich and Vienna.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Privy Council
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will state in table form which of the powers of the Privy Council listed in his reply of 25 January,Official Report, column 369 (a) can and (b) cannot be scrutinised by the House.

  Mr. John MacGregor
  The only category of Privy Council functions subject to parliamentary scrutiny, is those powers conferred on Her Majesty in Council, or on the Privy Council, by Act of Parliament. The exercise of some of these functions is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and of others to the negative resolution procedure; some orders made in exercise of such powers are required to be laid before Parliament but are not subject to annulment; the remainder are not subject to 176
  any form of parliamentary scrutiny. It would not be practical to tabulate the individual powers falling into these groups without disproportionate cost.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many times the royal prerogative has been used through the Privy Council to establish orders in the last 10 years.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It would not be possible to provide a precise answer except at disproportionate cost. Approximately 7,000 Orders in Council have been made in the last 10 years of which, it is estimated, some 20 per cent. have been prerogative orders, dealing with such matters as the prorogation and dissolution of Parliament, the grant and amendment of royal charters, the government of dependent territories and the approval of reports of the judicial committee of the Privy Council.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Walter Somers (Iraq)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement upon the contents of the press release of April 1990 by the firm Walter Somers referring to the clearing by his Department of exports of components to Iraq.

  Mr. Lilley
  The press release of 17 April 1990 from Eagle Trust plc, of which Walter Somers was at that time a subsidiary, refers to Walter Somers' dealings with the Department of Trade and Industry. These references correspond with my Department's records of its dealings with Walter Somers.

  Foreign Currency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the countries for the last two years that have their currency printed in the United Kingdom; how many are covered by the export guarantee scheme; and if he will show in his answer those countries that were having their currency manufactured in the United Kingdom at the end of 1990.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, we do not disclose information on printing of foreign currencies.

  Footwear Labelling
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the numbers of organisations that have made representations concerning the draft directive on footwear labelling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  Following a request for comments on the draft directive on footwear labelling which officials in my Department sent to a wide range of bodies representing the interests of manufacturers, retailers and consumers, representations were received from 31 organisations.

  There is general agreement on the need for Community rules on footwear labelling. The comments on the detail of the draft directive were communicated to the EC Commission and the first draft has now been revised. My

  177
  officials are continuing to consult all the interested parties and will seek to ensure in future discussions with the Commission that the common labelling rules ultimately agreed will be acceptable to all concerned.

  Garston Amhurst
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to appoint inspectors to investigate the affairs of Garston Amhurst under the Companies Act.

  Mr. Redwood
  On 7 March 1990 compulsory winding-up orders were made against GAA Group Holdings Limited, Garston Amhurst Associates (London) Limited, Garston Amhurst Associates (Bristol) Limited, Garston Amhurst Associates (Financial Services) Limited and Garston Amhurst Associates (Financial

  Company name

  Current position

  Garston Amhurst Associates (Bristol) Limited

  Compulsory Liquidation 18 May 1990

  Garston Amhurst Associates (Financial Management) Limited

  Compulsory Liquidation 14 June 1990

  Garston Amhurst Associates (Financial Services) Limited

  Compulsory Liquidation 18 May 1990

  Garston Amhurst Associates (General) Limited

  Directors convicted 14 August 1990

  Garston Amhurst Associates (London) Limited

  Compulsory Liquidation 15 June 1990

  Garston Amhurst Mortgages Limited

  Compulsory Liquidation 13 August 1990

  It is not the Department's policy to pursue for outstanding accounts and annual returns once a company has been placed in compulsory liquidation. In the case of Garston Amhurst Associates (General) Limited, the directors were convicted for failing to submit accounts and annual returns and fined accordingly.

  The registrar has confirmed that action is continuing to secure compliance.

  Sound Diffusion plc
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish the inspectors' report on Sound Diffusion plc.

  Mr. Redwood
  I cannot say. The inspectors' report has not yet been submitted.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will take the necessary measures to reduce the time limits for filing annual company accounts with the registrar of companies.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will propose legislation under which the public limited companies would be required to file their accounts at Companies House within 90 days of the reporting year end.

  Mr. Redwood
  We have no immediate plans to reduce the time allowed for companies to deliver their accounts to the Registrar of Companies. While some reduction in the time periods allowed is a desirable longer-term objective, our present priority is to secure fuller compliance with the existing statutory requirements. The Government's efforts have resulted in a considerable improvement, but I am looking for a yet higher rate of compliance.
  178
  Management) Limited. On 2 May 1990, Garston Amhurst (Mortgages) Ltd. was compulsorily wound up. As a result of inquiries by the Serious Fraud Office criminal charges have been preferred and three of the four directors charged have pleaded guilty. The trial of the fourth is expected to begin shortly. In the circumstances, I have no plans to appoint inspectors.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he plans to take any action against Garston Amhurst for its failure to file any accounts since 1985.

  Mr. Redwood
  There is no company currently registered under the name Garston Amhurst. There are, however, six similarly named companies on the register which are listed in the table, together with their current position.

  Auditing Practices Board
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his representative on the Auditing Practices Committee recommended the issue of a consultative document on the formation of the auditing practices board.

  Mr. Redwood
  The decision to issue a consultative document on the proposed Auditing Practices Board was a matter for the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies, not the Auditing Practices Committee. However, I welcome the consultative committee's decision to give everyone with an interest in auditing an opportunity to comment on and contribute constructively to the proposed new arrangements for setting auditing standards and issuing guidance to auditors.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a list of the investigations carried out under the Insolvency Act 1986 and its predecessors; and how many reports have been published on these investigations.

  Mr. Redwood
  Investigations under the Insolvency Act 1986 are carried out by official receivers in all cases where winding-up orders against companies or partnerships or bankruptcy orders against individuals have been made by a court.

  Where official receivers' investigations reveal prima facie evidence of criminality they make reports which are considered by departmental solicitors who decide whether prosecution is appropriate. Such reports are not published.

  Details of the reports submitted by official receivers alleging possible criminal offences are published in the

  179
  insolvency general annual report. For 1987, 1988 and 1989 the number of reports submitted was 499, 567 and 627 respectively.

  Non-life Insurance Business
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the recommendations of the review of non-life insurance business conducted by Mr. Geoffrey Hunt and announced in a written answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) of 23 June 1988,Official Report, columns 641–42, showing those upon which action has been taken and indicating that further action is proposed.

  Mr. Redwood
  It became apparent during the study that there was no widespread pressure for change to returns made to the Department by insurance companies. Mr. Hunt did not therefore make any recommendations for change.

  ECGD
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will state the cumulative exposure of long-term project assistance under the Export Credits Guarantee Department(a) in total and (b) on a country by country basis as at 31 march 1983, 1988 and 1990.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Total amounts at risk in respect of project business are included in ECGD's annual trading accounts, copies of which are in the Library. As a matter of general policy, ECGD's exposure on individual countries is not made public.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what was the number of applications for ECGD cover in each of the years since 1980 distinguishing between short-term cover and long-term cover; and what was the number of applications accepted in each case;

  (2) what was the number of applications for EGCD cover in countries now part of the European Community in each year since 1980, distinguishing between short-term cover and long-term project cover.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 5 February 1991]: The information which the hon. Member has requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Accountancy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what date has been set for the commencement of the statutory audit regulation system provided for by the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  No date has been set. However, we hope that the relevant provisions of the Act will be commenced by 1 July 1991.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has approved(a) the staffing, (b) the salary structure and (c) the fees to support the joint monitoring unit set up to supervise the statutory audit regulation system provided for by the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Secretary of State has not yet determined the applications for recognition he has 180
  received from supervisory bodies for auditors under the Companies Act 1989. He will only approve the applications if he is satisfied that the applicants have among other things adequate arrangements and resources for the effective monitoring and enforcement of compliance with their rules.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will provide additional funding to enable the Accounting Standards Board to have full-time independent members.

  Mr. Redwood
  The composition of the Accounting Standards Board is a matter for the Financial Reporting Council. Both the chairman and technical director of the board are full-time, and the seven other members are drawn from a wide variety of backgrounds, including users, preparers and auditors of accounts.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will hold a public hearing prior to making a decision on the award of supervisory status to any accountancy body under the powers created under the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. But we are very willing to consider any relevant representations we receive.

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress in implementing a smoke-free policy throughout his Department.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department is working towards a non-smoking working environment. At present, smoking is prohibited in most common areas including conference rooms, most meeting rooms, libraries, waiting rooms, reception areas, lifts and toilets. Smoking is banned in any office where a majority of staff vote for such a ban. Copies of the Department's policy statement on smoking and an example of a notice to visitors to the Department have been placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to ensure that every non-smoking employee in his Department has the right to work in a smoke-free area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department's policy has been jointly agreed between management and the departmental trade union side.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the aim group, and what percentage of the guarantee group are currently on employment training.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is not available in the form requested. We estimate that: 20 per cent. of those unemployed people who joined the guarantee group in the year April 1989 to March 1990 started on employment training; and 35 per cent. of those unemployed people in the aim group at April 1989, or who joined it in the following 12 months, started on employment training.

  Sheltered Employment
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on provision for sheltered workshops and the sheltered placement scheme in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Howard
  As last year's consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities" made clear, we are committed to providing sheltered employment for people with severe disabilities. In the current financial year we are providing funds for an average of 5,550 people in sheltered workshops and 6,700 people under the sheltered placement scheme. In this financial year, in order to help meet the costs incurred by sponsors we have already increased the annual grant ceiling per place for voluntary bodies by £200 to £3,480 and that for local authorities by £130 to £2,730. I am now further increasing these grant ceilings for this financial year by £40 to £3,520 and by £30 to £2,760 respectively.

  In 1991–92 I am providing £4·3 million more than this year's provision for sheltered workshops and the sheltered placement scheme. These additional funds will again be used to help meet the costs of voluntary bodies and local authorities by increasing the grant ceilings by a further £280 and £240 respectively to bring them to £3,800 for voluntary bodies and £3,000 for local authorities.

  In addition, I shall be making available just under £6 million in 1991–92 for capital expenditure which represents an increase of just over £2 million on expenditure this year. This money will be available to help meet the cost of essential refurbishment and development where that is clearly consistent with our long-term objectives for sheltered employment. I expect that some money will also be available in 1991–92 for innovative or experimental activities aimed at exploring the scope for improving the way in which the provision is made.

  Pressure on resources both within the sheltered employment programme and elsewhere has meant that I have had to decide that the average number of places nationally in both these forms of sheltered provision will remain the same in 1991–92. However, previous patterns of turnover on the sheltered placement scheme indicate that some 1,000 existing places are likely to become vacant to allow new entrants to join the programme.

  I will be considering future sheltered employment provision, including the balance between the sheltered placement scheme and other forms of sheltered employment, in the light of comments received on the consultative document. However, research reported by Social and Community Planning Research in "Employment and Handicap" and discussed in the consultative document revealed that a substantial number of severely disabled people are in open employment or self employment but not under the sheltered placement scheme. It is clearly important that we know more about how such severely disabled people manage without the support offered by the sheltered employment programme and the Employment Service has therefore commissioned research to explore this matter further.

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that every non-smoking employee in his Department has the right to work in a smoke-free area; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress in implementing a smoke-free policy throughout his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  The policy of the Employment Department group is to discourage non-smokers from taking up smoking, positively to encourage smokers to give it up or to cut down and to create a smoke-free environment, with facilities for those who wish to smoke, rather than the other way round. In offices where it is the wish of the staff no-smoking agreements have either been implemented or are in the process of negotiation.

  David Holt Plastics, Haslingden
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the occasions on which factory inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive visited the premises of David Holt Plastics, Haslingden, Rossendale; and what action resulted from each visit.

  Mr. Forth
  The table shows the occasions on which Factory Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive have visited David Holt Plastics, Haslingden, Rossendale and the action taken by HSE as a result of each visit:

  Date of Visit

  Action taken

  25 May 1988

  Immediate Prohibition Notice Issued

  26 May 1988

  Advice given as a result of continuing investigation into fatal accident

  31 May 1988

  2 June 1988

  Advice given

  10 June 1988

  Advice given as a result of continuing investigation into fatal accident

  30 August 1988

  31 January 1988

  Advice given

  11 July 1989

  Advice given

  20 August 1989

  Advice given

  31 August 1989

  Advice given

  26 January 1990

  Advice given

  25 April 1990

  Letter sent

  30 April 1990

  Advice given

NORTHERN IRELAND

  District Councils
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what categories of district council community centres, if any, are liable to be rated by his Department.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Commissioner of Valuation must assess rateable values for all premises and there are no categories of property which are automatically granted exemption.

  Applications for exemption for district council community centres, or whatever property, are determined on the facts in each case.

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will make a statement on the progress in implementing a smoke-free policy throughout his Department;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that every non-smoking employee in his Department has the right to work in a smoke-free area; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since the introduction in October 1987 of a formal policy on smoking in the Northern Ireland civil service, smoking has been specifically prohibited in:

  (a) conference rooms when used for meetings of civil servants;

  (b) training rooms;

  (c) lifts;

  (d) official cars;

  (e) kitchens, other cooking facilities and mess rooms, and food stores;

  (f) public counters and security/reception points.

  The introduction of further prohibitions is a matter for local management, the staff and the local trade union side, usually after an attitude survey has been conducted. To date over 300 attitude surveys have been undertaken, resulting in partial or total restrictions. Where total restrictions are in force smoking rooms have been provided for those who choose to continue to smoke.

  Management in the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) also endorse the ideal of non-smoking as a safeguard to health. The introduction of a non-smoking policy is being actively pursued in the Northern Ireland Office in Belfast and is under review for the London office.

  Areas of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he proposes to take to complete the early designations of areas of special scientific interest; and whether he has set a target date for completion.

  Mr. Needham
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Environment Committee, in its recent report on environmental issues in Northern Ireland, recommended that sufficient resources be allocated to ensure that the process of ASSI designation can be completed within eight years. I am at present examining the recommendations in this report. The Government's response to the report will take the form of a Command Paper and I would not wish to pre-empt that response at this stage.

  Peat Bogs
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he has taken to ensure the conservation of peat bogs in the Province.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has taken action to ensure the conservation of peat bogs in a number of ways. Five peat bogs are managed as national nature reserves and to date a total of eight lowland raised bogs and one upland raised bog have been declared as areas of special scientific interest. In addition the Department has opened a visitor centre at the Peatlands park, County Tyrone, the main 184
  emphasis of which is the interpretation of the history, exploitation, uses and future of peat. Extensive surveys of peatland areas have been and are being carried out.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will list those areas of peat bog which meet the criteria for designation as areas of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Needham
  The following lowland raised peat bogs meet the criteria for declaration as areas of special scientific interest (ASSI) and have been declared:

  Black Bog, County Tyrone

  Dunloy Bog, County Antrim

  Fairy Water Bogs, County Tyrone (a complex of 3 bogs)

  Garry Bog, County Antrim

  Moneygal Bog, County Tyrone

  Moninea Bog, County Fermanagh

  On the basis of surveys carried out eight of the nine lowland raised bogs of highest nature conservation interest have been declared as ASSIs. The other lowland raised bog was not declared as an ASSI as the result of the decision to permit the commercial extraction of peat which was made after taking account of the report of the Planning Appeals Commission which had conducted a public inquiry. One upland raised bog area at Teal Lough and Slaghtfreeden, Counties Tyrone and Londonderry has been declared an ASSI. Further bogs which are identified as meeting the criteria will be declared as ASSIs.

  EC Directives
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he proposes to take to ensure that EC directives are implemented in the Province at the same pace as in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is the responsibility of individual Departments in Northern Ireland to ensure that EC directives within their area of responsibility are complied with by the due date required by the EC. In doing so they follow the same procedures used in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Breathalyser Tests
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of breathalyser tests carried out in Northern Ireland between 19 December 1990 and 1 January 1991; how many of these proved positive; and what was the number of tests for the same period in 1989.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 5 February 1991]: A total of 187 breathalyser tests were carried out in Northern Ireland during the period 19 December 1990 to 1 January 1991 and 61 of these proved positive. Corresponding figures for 1989–90 are 128 and 53.

SCOTLAND

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss unemployment in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I intend to meet the General Council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on Friday of this week to discuss matters affecting the Scottish economy.

  Inverclyde Economy
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Inverclyde district council; and if they discussed inter alia, the local economy and its industrial base.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  On 18 January 1991, and on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I discussed industrial development in the area, and the Inverclyde enterprise zone in particular, with a delegation from the council and the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham).

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to abolish the poll tax.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Government are at present conducting a careful and fundamental review of the community charge arrangements. At this stage we are not ruling particular options in or out.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish university students and student nurses to discuss the poll tax and its effects on their activities.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about the community charge from and on behalf of students and student nurses.

  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current levels of poll tax payments in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information requested is not held centrally. I understand however that most levying authorities have already collected or expect to collect at least 95 per cent. of the budgeted revenue due to them from community charges in respect of 1989–90 and that their collection rates for 1990–91 are at present broadly in line with last year's pattern.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's consideration of alternative systems of local government finance.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Government are at present conducting a careful and fundamental review of the community charge arrangements. We have not ruled particular options out or in.

  Health Board Allocations
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconsider his financial allocation to Scottish health boards for 1991–92.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No, Sir.

  Ambulance Service
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from general practitioners in Grampian region about the centralisation of ambulance service call-out procedures.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The only recent representations which I have received have been from the hon. Member on behalf of the general practitioners at Keith.

  Health Services, Grampian
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of Grampian health board to discuss the provision of health services in the region.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I hold regular meetings with all health board chairmen to discuss issues affecting the national health service in Scotland.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had this year with the National Farmers Union of Scotland about the total livestock compensatory allowance.

  Mr. Lang
  The annual meeting between Agriculture Ministers and the four national farming unions to discuss the economic situation in the hills and uplands took place on 23 October 1990 and my predecessor attended. There have been no further meetings since then.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy on the sale of council houses and its effect on the housing problem in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government's policy on council house sales is to extend freedom of choice to many who otherwise would have no option but to continue renting. Of the 210,000 public sector houses which have been sold, over 203,000 have been bought by the sitting tenants.

  Since April 1979 public sector sales have released some£1·4 billion in extra resources for local authorities through capital receipts, which can be used for new public sector provision, for modernising or improving existing stock, or for reducing outstanding capital debt. This benefits remaining council tenants, either through increased capital investment on council housing or through loan charges and rent rises being less than they would otherwise have been.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received advocating the imposition of restrictions on Sunday trading in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the previous 12 months one representation has been received advocating the imposition of restrictions on Sunday trading in Scotland.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to changes in the Scottish Sunday trading laws.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  With one small exception relating to hairdressers and barbers, the restrictions on Sunday trading in the Shops Act 1950 do not apply in Scotland. My right hon. Friend has no present proposals for changes in the existing law.

  Manufacturing Productivity
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Scotland what was the level of manufacturing productivity in Scotland in(a) 1979, (b) 1987 and (c) the latest date for which he has figures.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The latest available figures relate to 1989. Information on Scottish manufacturing productivity in 1979, 1987 and 1989 are set out in the following table:

  1985 = 100

  1979

  1987

  1989

  Manufacturing output

  103·3

  100·8

  113·5

  Manufacturing employment

  139·5

  94·2

  97·4

  Manufacturing productivity

  74·1

  107·0

  116·5

  Source: Index of Production and Construction for Scotland ED quarterly employment surveys.

  Between 1979 and 1989 Scottish manufacturing productivity increased by 4·6 per cent. per annum, a rate of growth greater than that of the United Kingdom, Canada, United States of America, west Germany, France, Japan or Italy.

  Rail Services
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to have discussions with ScotRail regarding the adequacy of rail services in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend and I meet senior management of ScotRail from time to time. Contacts at official level also take place frequently. Discussions at such meetings cover a wide range of topics concerning rail services in Scotland.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what he is doing to assist local councils to finance services for the elderly.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend provides resources through the aggregate external finance settlement. This is not hypothecated to services to particular client groups: it is for individual regional, islands and district councils to allocate their resources in accordance with local needs and priorities.

  Primary School Pupils
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the testing of primary school pupils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given earlier today to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).

  Opencast Mining, Douglas Valley
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish region of the British Coal opencast executive to discuss LAW Mining Companies' application to opencast coal in the Douglas valley.
  188
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has not met the opencast executive to discuss this matter.

  Government Structure
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration has been given by his Department in the last year to possible changes in the structure of government in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  As my right hon. Friend considers that the creation of a separate Scottish legislative body would be harmful to Scotland's interests, no such consideration has been given. Questions about the functions and structure of local government will be looked at in the course of the review of the community charge. Any constructive suggestions received in the context of that review will be welcome.

  Scottish Industry
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received recently from Scottish industrialists about the prospects for Scottish industry.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I am in constant informal contact with Scottish industrialists through meetings and visits to companies as part of my normal business. This provides regular opportunities to discuss matters of concern.

  More specifically I met representatives of the Scottish CBI on 23 January. A wide-ranging discussion was held covering issues of importance to the Scottish economy.

  Scottish Constitutional Convention
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet representatives of the Scottish Constitutional Convention to discuss its report.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest assessment of the contribution of the steel industry to the Scottish economy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  In 1989 the steel industry's output amounted to about three quarters of a per cent. of total Scottish output.

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress in implementing a smoke-free policy throughout his Department.

  Mr. Lang
  In April 1990 smoking restrictions were applied, permitting smoking in working rooms during specified periods only. Since October 1990 smoking has not been permitted in working rooms at any time. Areas in each main building have been set aside for use by smokers. Special counselling services were arranged for 262 smokers who requested them.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to ensure that every non-smoking employee in his Department has the right to work in a smoke-free area; and if he will make a statement.
  189
  Mr. Lang
  All staff in the Scottish Office work in smoke-free conditions. Since 1 October 1990 smoking has not been permitted except in areas set aside for this purpose.

  Housing Associations
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for the monitoring of the activities of housing associations; and on what date they will become effective.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Section 4 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 gives Scottish Homes statutory responsibility for registering and monitoring housing associations in Scotland. Scottish Homes inherited comprehensive monitoring powers from the Housing Corporation in Scotland and in addition has issued performance standards for housing associations which it, and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations expect associations to work towards.

  Community Charge
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his most recent estimate of the percentage of community charge payers yet to pay the 1990 poll tax(a) in Scotland, (b) in Strathclyde and (c) in Inverclyde; and what is his estimate of the additional cost per poll tax payer required to make good the deficit.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information is not available centrally.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of sites of special scientific interest which have been opposed under schedule 11.4.1(a) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; how many local hearings have been held and in relation to which sites; how many proposed sites of special scientific interest designations have been withdrawn as a result; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is a right of objection to notification of a site of special scientific interest, but there is no provision for hearings to be held. However, after notification, where there is dispute about the operations that may be carried out on such a site, my right hon. Friend may make a nature conservation order under section 29 of the Act and schedule 11 of the Act describes the procedures to be followed which include provision for a local inquiry or hearing.

  To date five such cases have resulted in local inquiries. They are as follows:

  Loch of Strathbeg (Banff and Buchan)

  North Fetlar (Shetland)

  Culbin Foreshore (Nairn)

  Kinneil Kerse (Falkirk)

  Loch Obisary (Western Isles)

  In the first four cases the reporter recommended and my right hon. Friend agreed that the order be confirmed as each area meets the criteria of special scientific interest set out in section 29(1) and (2) of the 1981 Act. A determination in the last case will issue soon.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been raised from the sale of Forestry Commission land and woodlands during the past 10 years; and what is the anticipated income from sales to the year 2000.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 4 February 1991]: A total of £137 million was raised from the sale of Forestry Commission land and property between 1981, when the disposals programme started, and 31 March 1990, the latest date for which figures are available. It is anticipated that a similar sum will be raised from further sales to the year 2000.

  Health Education Board
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the subject of the new Health Education Board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health Education Board for Scotland, which will replace the Scottish health education group, will come into operation on 1 April 1991. It will be the national centre for health education, expertise and information and will undertake campaigns at a national level, with particular reference to the priority areas of coronary heart disease, cancer, smoking, AIDS, drug misuse, alcohol misuse and accidents set out in the consultation document "Health Education in Scotland: A National Policy Statement". The additional funds I am making available will give the new board a budget of £5·1 million in 1991–92.

  I am pleased to be able to announce that the following persons have accepted the Secretary of State's invitation to serve as members of the new board under the chairmanship of Mr. Ernie Walker, OBE:

  Mr. David Campbell, Chairman, West Independent Newspapers Ltd;

  Mr. John Christie, Assistant Director of Education, Tayside Regional Council;

  Miss Wilma Craigmile, MBE, formerly Director of Nursing Services, Tayside Health Board;

  Professor Charles Forbes, Professor of Medicine, University of Dundee;

  Dr. Nancy Loudon, Vice-President, Family Planning Association;

  Professor Doreen Parry, Professor of Dietetics and Nutrition, Queen Margaret College, Edinburgh;

  Mr. Jimmy Reid, journalist and broadcaster:

  Professor Rex Taylor, Professor of Social Administration and Social Work, University of Glasgow;

  Mr. Raymond Watkins, Chief Administrative Dental Officer, Forth Valley Health Board;

  Mr. David Woods, Managing Director, Scottish Provident Institution.

  In addition, the general manager of the board, when appointed, will become an executive member.

  The board will have a vital role in tackling Scotland's health problems. I am confident that its work will be greatly facilitated by the wide range of interests, expertise and skills which the chairman and members will bring to bear.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the main changes to national insurance benefits and the savings or expenditure which accrued from each change since 1979 in(a) cash prices and (b) 1990 prices.

  Mr. Jack
  Between 1978–79 and 1990–91, expenditure on national insurance benefits has grown by almost £20

  Changes to national insurance benefits: estimated expenditure effects

  Great Britain: £ million

  Financial year introduced

  1Cash effect

  Cash effect 1990–91 prices

  Uprating of long-term benefits by prices

  1981–82

  -280

  -470

  5 per cent. abatement in uprating of invalidity benefit, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and maternity allowance

  1981–82

  -160

  -270

  Abolition of earnings related supplements to short-term benefits

  1982–83

  -390

  -610

  Introduction of statutory sick pay2

  1983–84

  -10

  -10

  Restoration of 5 per cent. abatement of unemployment benefit

  1984–85

  80

  110

  Offsetting of invalidity benefit age addition by additional pension

  1986–87

  -140

  -180

  Restoration of 5 per cent. abatement of invalidity benefit

  1986–87

  120

  160

  Extension of statutory sick pay2

  1986–87

  -80

  -100

  Introduction of statutory maternity pay2

  1987–88

  40

  50

  Unemployment benefit abatement for occupational/personal pension reduced from age 60 to 55

  1988–89

  -63

  -70

  Weekly earnings rule introduced for unemployment benefit

  1989–90

  -49

  -50

  Unemployment benefit "full extent normal" rule—de minimis provision

  1989–90

  "Actively seeking work" test for unemployment benefit

  1989–90

  Aboltion of pensioners earnings rule

  1989–90

  375

  410

  Widows: revised entitlement conditions for women widowed before April 1988

  1989–90

  13

  14

  Statutory sick pay: amendment of rates and higher/lower rate threshold

  1990–91

  -72

  -72

  1 Figures shown represent the initial estimates of the effect on national insurance benefit expenditure only in the first full year following implementation. No account is taken of the impact of the changes on administration costs, income tax and national insurance contribution revenues or expenditure on income-related benefits, other than as shown in note 2.

  2 Amounts shown represent the net effect on national insurance benefit expenditure after employers' recoveries from contributions to the national insurance fund in respect of payments of statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay to their employees.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to receive recommendations from the Government Actuary on the level of contributions to the national insurance fund necessary to prevent it running into deficit after 1993.

  Mr. Jack
  The exact level of contributions needed in the 1993–94 year will be considered as a result of advice from the Government Actuary in the autumn of 1992. The fund is projected to keep its level above the minimum recommended by the Government Actuary.

  Benefits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time taken to process applications for each of the benefits administered by his Department.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The average length of time taken to process benefit claims over the period 1 April 1990 to 31 December 1990 for the major benefits administered by the Department is in the following table.

  Days

  Attendance allowance

  41·6

  Income support

  5·0

  Invalid care allowance

  38·5

  192
  billion in cash terms and by £3·7 billion in real terms. The cost and savings which have accrued from the main policy changes to national insurance benefits since 1979 are set out in the table.

  Days

  Mobility allowance

  34·3

  Retirement pension

  20·3

  Sickness/invalidity benefit

  9·2

  Social fund

  i. Budget loan

  5·1

  ii. Community care grant

  7·2

  iii. Crisis loan

  0·4

  X per cent.

  In Y days

  Child benefit (straightforward)

  96·0

  in 5

  Child benefit (not straightforward)

  88·2

  in 16

  Family credit

  63·3

  in 20

  One-parent benefit

  88·3

  in 12

  Retirement pension

  85·7

  in 30

  War disablement pension

  30·7

  in 125

  War widow's pension

  44·6

  in 50

  Annual Report
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish his Department's annual report.

  Mr. Jack
  Our departmental report was published on Friday 1 February 1991 and copies were placed in the Vote Office and the Library.

  Road Fund Licences
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his policy towards extending the road fund licence concession to those who are made immobile after their 66th birthday.

  Mr. Scott
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Operational Strategy
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on progress on implementing the operational strategy.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department's strategy for the computerisation of the social security payment system, which will be completed by July 1991, is proceeding as planned. The aims of the strategy are better service to the public through faster turnaround of claims, faster response to inquiries and less risk of payment errors; better value for the taxpayer by reducing the number of staff needed to administer social security; more satisfying jobs for staff by automating repetitive or tedious tasks thus enabling them to provide a better service to the public. By 21 January 1991, of a total of 451 offices, 411 had received the departmental central index, 402 the retirement pensions system, and 348 the income support system.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social fund loan applications were refused by each of his Department's offices in Nottingham in(a) 1989–90 and (b) 1990 to date due to perceived inability to repay; and what advice was given to those refused.

  Mr. Scott
  The table shows the number of applications recorded as refused on grounds of inability to repay. All decision letters advise applicants of their right to ask for a review and refer to the citizens advice bureau or a local law centre as a source of general advice. Money advice is normally offered to applicants discovered to be in financial difficulties, including such cases where an applicant is refused because of a perceived inability to repay.

  1989–90

  1990 to December 1990

  Castlegate

  62

  31

  David Lane

  100

  73

  Shakespeare Street

  15

  16

  Station Street

  41

  39

  Expenditure
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update to 1989–90 his answer of 26 January 1989 to the hon. Member for York (Mr.194
  Gregory), Official Report, columns 711–12, giving the proportion of the real growth in social security expenditure attributable to increases in the number of beneficiaries and to increases in the average amounts of benefit paid.

  Mr. Jack
  Between 1978–79 and 1989–90, social security programme expenditure has increased by 36 per cent. in real terms, from £38·5 billion to £52·2 billion at 1989–90 prices. The Government's commitment to meeting genuine needs has seen social security spending rise from 26 per cent. of public spending in 1978–79 to 32 per cent. in 1989–90.

  The main groups benefiting from the growth of the programme have been:
  Pensioners: expenditure on the elderly has increased by about £5·2 billion in real terms. This substantial rise in social security spending has taken place at the same time as the rapid growth of occupational and personal pensions and the higher income from savings which many pensioners now enjoy. The result is that pensioners' incomes from all sources have increased by 31 per cent. between 1979 and 1987.
  Long-term sick and disabled: expenditure has grown by 105 per cent.—almost £4·4 billion—in real terms. A total of 590,000 more people now receive invalidity benefit than in 1978–79 and the numbers receiving attendance allowance have increased by 530,000. The numbers receiving mobility allowance have increased sixfold from 95,000 to 585,000 over the period.
  The family: total benefit support for the family has increased by 28 per cent. in real terms over the period. Spending on family credit in 1989–90 was £425 million. This is more than double the spending on family income support which it replaced.

  It is not possible to produce a meaningful breakdown of expenditure changes, for the reasons detailed in the answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 26 February 1990 at column 64.

  Claimants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department will conduct a study into the correlation between reducing levels of unemployment benefit claims and increasing levels of invalidity benefit claims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Department is already planning further research into the reasons for increasing numbers of invalidity benefit recipients. Factors such as the relationship with unemployment will form part of this work.

  SERPS
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the percentage of costs in fees, commissions and administration of the state earnings related pension scheme; and what are the comparable costs for personal pensions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department does not keep separate accounts of the administrative costs of the state earnings-related pension scheme; neither does it keep information on the costs in fees, commissions or administration costs for personal pensions, as these are a matter for the individual providers.

  Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of vibration white finger have been acknowledged by, and what was the total sum paid out in each of, his Department's offices in Newcastle and Gateshead between September 1989 and December 1990.

  Mr. Scott
  Such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of financial difficulties facing private nursing homes for the elderly.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have taken account of representations of interested organisations and also the survey of costs conducted on behalf of the Department by

  Scotland

  Greenock

  Port Glasgow

  Strathclylde

  Year

  Number of Payments

  Amount

  Real value

  Number of Payments

  Amount

  Real value

  Number of Payments

  Amount

  Real value

  Number of Payments

  Amount

  Real value

  (000s)

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  (000s)

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  (000s)

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  (000s)

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  1979–80 No scheme

  1980–81 No figures available

  1981–82

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985–86

  1·9

  49·9

  67·1

  1·1

  25·7

  34·5

  53·3

  1,198·3

  1,610·8

  84·2

  1,928·0

  2,591·7

  1986·87

  7·9

  39·5

  51·3

  10·2

  50·8

  66·1

  216·4

  1,082·1

  1,406·6

  291·2

  1,455·9

  1,892·4

  1987·88

  2·3

  11·3

  13·9

  1·2

  6·1

  7·5

  47·9

  241·2

  297·3

  84·7

  426·6

  525·9

  1988–89

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·5

  2·5

  2·8

  1989–90

  1·8

  17·8

  20·5

  0·9

  9·0

  10·3

  47·0

  438·9

  504·2

  48·2

  444·7

  510·9

  1990–91

  Figures not yet available

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the temperatures used to trigger severe weather payments recorded in each of the weather stations used for Greenock, Port Glasgow and Gourock for each day during the last two weeks of 1990 and those weeks in January 1991, for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  A weather station will trigger if there has been a period of seven consecutive days, during which the average mean daily temperature is 0 deg. Centigrade or less. Glasgow airport weather station, which is the weather station relevant to Greenock, Port Glasgow and Gourock, did not trigger on any day during the last two weeks of 1990. The only time to date that the weather has been severe enough to trigger cold weather payments in Greenock, Port Glasgow and Gourock was on Wednesday 16 January when the seven day running mean temperature was recorded as — 0·2 deg. Centigrade.

  Full details of average mean daily temperatures recorded at all the weather stations can be found in the Library.

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement on the progress in implementing a smoke-free policy throughout his Department;
  196
  management consultants Price Waterhouse. On 24 October my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced a very substantial increase on the limit for the elderly in nursing homes of £45 a week—£55 in London —from April this year. The limit is now fairly set in relation to median costs in homes across the country.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole (i) the total number of recipients and (ii) the total values of the payments in (1) cash and (2) constant terms, under the exceptionally severe weather payments in each year from 1979–80 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the following table.

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that every non-smoking employee in his Department has the right to work in a smoke-free area; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department's current nonsmoking policy, aimed at introducing extensive smoke-free areas in all DSS offices, was introduced in July 1989. A review of progress in June last year revealed that nearly 80 per cent. of the offices had introduced smoke-free working areas. In the remaining offices local discussions towards introducing smoke-free working areas were continuing.

  DEFENCE Ammunition
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the position of ammunition with respect to the list of products agreed by the European Council on 15 April 1958, to be included within the provisions of paragraph 1(b) of article 223 of the treaty of Rome.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Artillery ammunition and ammunition for automatic and portable firearms is included in the EEC Council list of items defining the scope of paragraph 1(b) of article 223 of the treaty of Rome. Ammunition for sporting guns, pistols and other small arms of a calibre less than 7mm is excluded from this list.

  Gulf War (Journalists)
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure access if accredited Scottish journalists to Scottish units serving in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Opportunities have been provided for Scottish journalists to have access to Scottish units serving in the Gulf and I would expect further such opportunities to be provided.

  Tornado Aircraft
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the availability of spare parts for Tornado aircraft sold by Britain to Saudi Arabia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No. It has not been the practice of this or previous Administrations to comment on the details of specific sales.

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that every non-smoking employee in his Department has the right to work in a smoke-free area; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress of implementing a smoke-free policy throughout his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Further to my hon. Friend's reply of 29 January 1990, it remains the Department's policy to discourage smoking. New guidance is being prepared which brings to the attention of staff the latest research into the dangers of smoking. Non-smoking areas continue to be established in the Department's buildings in response to the wishes of staff. A number of new proposals for such areas are currently under consideration. We are also considering banning smoking in all conference rooms in the Department's buildings.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he will consider the immediate construction of a national network of incinerators to destroy proscribed cattle offal and the carcases of BSE-affected cattle;

  (2) what is his estimate of the proportion of slaughtered BSE-affected cattle that are (a) incinerated, (b) buried in licensed landfills and (c) buried by farmers under their own land.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information for BSE carcases is as follows:

  Per cent.

  Incinerated

  83·3

  Buried on licensed landfill sites

  16·4

  Used for research

  0·2

  Buried on farm

  0·1

  New incineration capacity is expected to become available later this year.
  198
  Specified bovine offal is banned from any use in human or animal food and must be disposed of within the framework of health and environmental restrictions.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will advise dairy farmers not to bury under their land slaughtered cattle suspected or confirmed as having contracted BSE;

  (2) if he will consider introducing a ban on the indiscriminate burial of BSE-affected cattle on farms.

  Mr. Maclean
  The disposal of animals slaughtered as suspect BSE cases is the responsibility of the state veterinary service (SVS). On farm burial is used only when other options are not available and is strictly supervised by the SVS to ensure there is no risk to human or animal health. In 1990 only 19 out of 16,432 carcases were buried on farm.

  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made to set up the review of the animal feed industry announced in the Government's reply to the fifth report of the Agriculture Committee, Session 1989–90, on bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government undertook to establish a small group of experts to review the regulation of the whole animal feed industry in its response to a recommendation of the fifth report of Agriculture Select Committee, 1989–90. I am now able to announce that the group of experts has been set up. It comprises:

  Professor Lamming—Chairman, Professor of Animal Physiology, Nottingham University

  Professor Thomas, Principal and Chief executive of the Scottish Agricultural College

  Mr. Colin Maclean, Technical Director, Meat and Livestock Commission

  Dr. Mary Cooke, Deputy Director Public Health Laboratory Service

  The terms of reference are:
  "To review the existing regulatory framework covering the animal feed industry in the United Kingdom. To advise on whether any improvements are required in the mechanisms by which the responsible Departments take account of food safety requirements in regulating the industry and to report to Ministers by the end of 1991".

  The first meeting of the group will be held very shortly.

  Food (Intervention Storage)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish(a) a table showing the tonnage and value of various foodstuffs in intervention storage (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) in the EEC and (b) give these quantities as a percentage of annual output.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Intervention stocks ('000 tonnes)

  Value£million1

  stocks as percentage of annual production (1989)

  United Kingdom

  Butter

  23

  14·98

  18

  SMP

  7

  4·13

  5

  Cereals

  631

  20·25

  3

  Beef

  74

  81·82

  8

  199

  Intervention stocks ('000 tonnes)

  Value£million1

  stocks as percentage of annual production (1989)

  EC

  Butter

  243

  188·03

  14

  SMP

  336

  218·33

  24

  Cereals

  12,417

  790·96

  8

  Beef

  2210

  166·63

  3

  Olive Oil

  71

  62·86

  5

  Dried Fruit

  37

  8·65

  30

  Tobacco

  87

  17·92

  21

  1 Values (except for dried fruit) from 1991 preliminary draft budget, representing end-year depreciated value of stock. Dried fruit value based on current disposal prices.

  2 Latest published figure. Informal Commission estimates are that stocks are currently around 700,000 tonnes.

  Quick Frozen Food
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's definition of quick frozen food.

  Mr. Maclean
  Quick frozen foodstuff is defined in the Quick Frozen Foodstuffs Regulations 1990 which came into force on 10 January this year.

  Decommissioning Schemes
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to implement proposals in line with EEC guidelines, following the decision by the Council of Ministers in December 1990, to increase the advance for decommissioning schemes.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government have no plans to introduce a decommissioning scheme.

  Irradiation
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for a licence to irradiate food have so far been received.

  Mr. Maclean
  No formal application has yet been made.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what environmental protection and nature conservation provisions will be required of recipients of specific support schemes for organic farming.

  Mr. Curry
  There are no specific support schemes for organic farming, but farmers are able to benefit from a number of general schemes. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) on 14 December 1990 (Official Report, c. 539). The standards established by the United Kingdom register of organic food standards and by other organic sector bodies already contain relevant provisions for the conservation of the environment. However, it is too early to say what additional requirements might form part of any specific support schemes for organic farming, the introduction of which is dependent on agreement in Brussels.

  Deer
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has conducted into the grazing of wild deer on spring grass in the west country.

  Mr. Curry
  None.

  Sugar
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what level he estimates the stockpile of sugar in the EC to be for the marketing year 1990–91; and what have been the actual levels in the last five years.

  Mr. Curry
  There has been no sugar in EC intervention stores during the 1990–91 marketing year. The following maximum quantities of sugar were held in intervention in each of the last five years for limited periods of time:

  Tonnes

  1985–86

  122,000

  1986–87

  835,700

  1987–88

  50,000

  1988–89

  Nil

  1989–90

  Nil

  Food Irradiation
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licences have been granted for the irradiation of food in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  No licences to irradiate food have yet been granted. All applications will require detailed consideration by experts—including a full physical inspection of premises by qualified personnel. Information on any licence issued will be published in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes.

  Food Research
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department will produce its programme for the research to be commissioned from the Institute of Food Research in 1991–92.

  Mr. Curry
  A programme of work for 1991–92 is currently under discussion with the Institute of Food Research and will be issued as soon as possible.

  Coastal Defence
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government have any plans to develop a national plan on coastal defence which would include clear regional strategic plans for local authorities.

  Mr. Curry
  In allocating grant to the National Rivers Authority and to local authorities empowered under the Land Drainage Act 1976 and the Coast Protection Act 1949 to undertake coastal defence work, this Department has full information on the forward capital coastal defence programmes of those authorities, and gives highest priority to schemes giving protection to people arid property. The Department also funds the national flood and coastal defence research and development programme
  201
  with the aim inter alia, of developing understanding of coastal processes and improving design of coastal defences. This strategy ensures that Government funding is provided at the appropriate level and is used to the best possible effect. We have no plans to change the nature of these arrangements but we do expect to develop even closer liaison between this Department and authorities in order to add to the effectiveness of our respective planning procedures.

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the progress in implementing a smoke-free policy throughout his Department;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that every non-smoking employee in his Department has the right to work in a smoke-free area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  This Department has continued to develop non-smoking regimes in our buildings taking account of local circumstances. Restrictions already apply at many locations and a formal departmental policy statement is to be issued shortly with the intention of further extending such regimes. The general approach is to discourage smoking on official premises while providing some separate facilities for smokers.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held on 4 and 5 February; and if he will make a statement.
  202
  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting together with my hon. Friend, the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the Parliamentary-Secretary in my Department.

  The Council had before it a Commission paper on the future of the common agricultural policy. This contained few figures and made no specific proposals, but suggested that a revised common agricultural policy should have as a principal aim keeping as many farmers as possible on the land. The revised policy could involve significantly lower prices and higher direct payments to producers, the latter being modulated in favour of small producers.

  I welcomed the Commission's willingness to contemplate radical reform of the common agricultural policy, but pointed out that the Commission's ideas seemed likely to involve a considerable increase in Community expenditure, probably to levels well above the agreed guideline; would place the more efficient and competitive Community producers at a disadvantage compared to their international competitors; and would involve unacceptable discrimination between member states. Several other Ministers expressed similar hesitations.

  It is not clear what action the Commission will now take. It must in any case shortly produce price proposals for 1991–92 but Ministers made it clear that these were a separate matter.

  The Council voted (with the United Kingdom voting against) to bring producers' direct sales of yogurt, ice cream and certain other milk products within the scope of Community rules on milk quotas for the first time. It was not possible, on this occasion, to complete parliamentary scrutiny of changes to the milk quota arrangements prior to adoption. This was due to the Commission's precipitate action in bringing the matter before the Council and the Presidency's putting the matter to the vote.

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

European Commission: Consumer Interests
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have yet received a communication to the Council of Consumer Ministers from the Consumer Policy Service of the European Commission on ways in which consumer interests might be taken into account in other common EC policies.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am disappointed to say that since the first report in 1987 no further communication has yet been received from the European Commission on the subject of the integration of consumer interests into other common EC policies. I understand that the Commission is now planning to submit a report in June this year.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Viscount is disappointed. I think that the Answer that he has had to give today is quite disgraceful. Ever since 1987 the European Commission has made no effort to give consumer interests their due place in the Community. I know that this is not his subject but following 1987 Commissioner Van Miert has said that he would produce a set of proposals by the end of 1990. Is the Minister in a position to say why there has been this delay? Is it the antagonism of other commissioners or has Mr. Van Miert lost interest?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I can only say again that we are very disappointed by the lack of progress made by the Commission since the first council resolution. We have taken every available opportunity to press the Commission to progress this issue and produce a report.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the pressure that they are putting on the European Commission. Nevertheless, does the noble Viscount agree that a wide range of consumer interests might well be advantaged if each member state nominated a consumer representative to the Economic and Social Committee? Can he tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government made such a nomination in 1990?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that point is certainly worth considering. I shall pass it on to the Secretary of State.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Viscount tell the House how much the consumers are suffering—though perhaps one has only to look at the
1156
Front Bench? My figures, produced by the OECD, clearly show that consumers need to work for far less time—in fact, many fewer minutes—to buy their food than they did 10 years ago.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that may be the case. It is difficult to establish.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Viscount be good enough to answer the second question put by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs? Did Her Majesty's Government make any nomination to that committee in 1990?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that question. I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the inability of Her Majesty's Government to produce movement in the Commission, or any part of it, have any lessons for Her Majesty's Government with regard to the answerability of members of the Commission or any part of it? Should such lessons be incorporated in any review of the way in which the Community is run?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point which we all take on board.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that it would be a good idea if the European Parliament were strengthened in order that those people could be made more responsible?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is a problem for the European Commission and the council rather than the European Parliament.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may we hope anyway that our Minister will make strong representations on this matter? We just go on and on. Does the noble Viscount feel that there is the slightest point in our asking what it is proposed to do in June when we have not been able to achieve anything over the past two years?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we shall go on and on and on pressurising the Commission.

Shetland Sand Eel Fishery
2.41 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Shetland sand eel fishery will be closed for a period sufficient to give the bird populations which are dependent on sand eels time to recover.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Shetland sand eel fishery has been closed since June 1990. It is proposed to keep it closed in the whole of 1991 and interested parties are currently being consulted about this. The lack of availability of sand eels as food for birds is a result not of fishing effort but of poor recruitment arising from natural factors outwith our control.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his encouraging reply. I believe that the lack of sand eels is mainly due to fishing. Will he consider keeping the ban for over two years in view of the fact that the life cycle of the sand eel is two years? If the ban continues for more than two years, there may be a chance for stocks to begin to recover.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I said, there is a government proposal, which is currently up for consultation, to decide whether or not to keep the sand eel fishery closed. My noble friend said that fishing has depleted the stocks. There does not seem to be any real evidence of that.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister consider that the interested parties would include the sand eels and the birds?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, part of the democratic process is not to consult those who do not have a vote.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that it is not intended to continue monitoring the Shetland sand eel stock using the same methods and at the same present level? If so, how will one know when the sand eel stock has recovered to a level sufficient for the fishery to be reopened?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, a considerable amount of research is being carried out by my department, the Department of the Environment and the Nature Conservancy Council in order to decide how to count the numbers using samples and, therefore, to reach a figure. Previous methods have been adequate but the situation is continually under review.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the Minister aware that between 1985 and 1989 there was a catastrophic reduction in the catch of more than 30 per cent., from 35,000 tonnes to 24,000 tonnes? It is difficult to say whether that was caused by lack of reproduction or by overfishing. However, has the Minister received representations from the Shetland fishermen—few boats are involved—about compensation as a result of the closure of the fishery this year and perhaps next year?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, last year only two fishing boats were directly involved in fishing for sand eels. However, they fish for other species and therefore at present there is no question of paying compensation.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, the Minister referred to the lack of evidence as regards the extent of the damage done by sand eel fisheries. He also said that research is still being carried out. Did any other factors come to light during the course of that research? Many of the birds that are affected are not entirely dependent on sand eels. There must be evidence of other factors, although the lack of sand eels must have had an effect.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. The problem does not lie with the sand eel or its eggs, but with the larval stage in between. That suffering could be caused by other predators; for instance, herrings, seals and other fish. Other birdlife
1158
and environmental factors such as the changing pattern of sea currents in the area may also be involved. All those issues are being investigated carefully. When we have decided what the problem is we can ascertain whether there is anything that we can do about it.

Iraq: Sanctions
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What approaches have been made to the United Nations Sanctions Committee to determine the effectiveness of sanctions against Iraq; and what evidence it supplied.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the remit of the UN Sanctions Committee was established by the Security Council. It has not been tasked with assessing the effectiveness of sanctions.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that, following the passing of Resolution 678 on 29th November and the setting of the deadline of 15th January, the decision to go to war was taken on the basis that sanctions were not working and would not work? If that is the case, from where did the evidence for that conclusion come? Why has it not been published so that Parliament and the people can judge the reasons for the United Kingdom and the United States taking such action?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a supplementary question which is not related to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, in view of the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is it not fatuous that the Question should exist? Having regard to the punishment being taken by the poor, wretched Iraqi people and the lack of feeling for that by their leadership, how could sanctions have worked given that strong leadership?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend has made a valid point which was covered extensively during our debates on the subject.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, are sanctions being violated by any country? Is the Minister aware of reports that German companies have been selling important material to Iraq and that the matter is being investigated by the German Government? Is that true? Have the Government received any reports from the German Government following their investigation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have seen the reports referred to by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. We are in touch with the German Government about the matter and are awaiting details. My noble friend the Leader of the House and I have both said in our debates that sanctions were almost universally applied. The point is that they were not going to succeed in getting Saddam Hussein to abide by Security Council resolutions.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is it not a fact that the occupation of Kuwait occurred in early August, and from that time sanctions were applied? The United Nations then gave notice to Saddam Hussein—which extended for weeks and weeks—that the deadline was 15th January. It was not until after that date that the first shot was fired by our side. Is it not about time that we stopped all this manoeuvring and messing about and made it perfectly clear where the trouble lies—that at no time has Saddam Hussein been prepared to consider the effects on Iraq of sanctions or military action?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. That is the almost unanimous view of this House.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not correct that there was strong evidence that sanctions were beginning to work and that given another few months they would have been effective in bringing down Saddam Hussein? Is it not the case that an outside attack on a country solidifies the people in favour of the government and, consequently, that the support now being enjoyed by Saddam Hussein is much greater than it was when his country was subject to sanctions?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to evidence. I have not seen that evidence.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it not a mistake for us to embark on yet another debate during Question Time on a subject which we have debated three or four times in your Lordships' House?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have already covered all of the points which have been raised today.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the sanctions came from the United Nations, as did Resolution No. 678. Should we not pay tribute to the gallantry and wonderful endeavours being made in the desert by the alliance troops? Will the Government be prepared to consider that point?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords wish to pay tribute to our men and women in the Gulf.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, if I heard the noble Earl correctly, he said that it is not the task of the UN Sanctions Committee to assess the effect of sanctions. If that is so, can he tell us what is the task of the committee, when it last reported and what it said?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the task of the committee was set up under Security Council Resolutions Nos. 661, 666 and 670. Those cover: the seeking of information from states and examining reports on national implementation—Resolution No. 661; determining on the basis of information from UN and other humanitarian agencies whether humanitarian circumstances have arisen to warrant the provision of foodstuffs to Iraq and Kuwait—Resolution No. 666; and authorisation of flights to or from Iraq and Kuwait carrying people, medicine or food in recognised humanitarian circumstances—Resolution No. 670.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, far from wishing to continue a debate in Question Time, I asked a specific Question on a specific issue. If it is the case, as the noble Earl said, that the UN Sanctions Committee does not have the responsibility for determining the effectiveness of sanctions, who does? Who supplied the information on which the decision was taken that sanctions were not working sufficiently and what was that evidence?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to repeat that I said that the UN Sanctions Committee does not have the task of assessing the effectiveness of sanctions. That was done by individual member states. Resolution No. 678, to which the noble Lord referred, was decided by the United Nations.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I know that Resolution No. 678 was decided by the United Nations, but I am asking Her Majesty's Government for the evidence on which they made their judgment. Will that be published and if not, why not?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord does not know by now that the proceedings of the UN Sanctions Committee are confidential.

Disability Living Allowance
2.52 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce a benefit to cover the whole range of extra costs incurred by people with disabilities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, our strategy is to build further on the existing system of benefits designed to help with the extra costs of disability. The Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, which will shortly be before this House, will give ample opportunity to discuss our proposals to build on our record in this area.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is it not a fact that the new disability living allowance is merely an amalgamation of the mobility and attendance allowances, and that people who qualify for the new allowance will not receive help towards the extra costs of disability; namely, special diet, heating, special laundry arrangements, telephone rental, and so on? In effect, the new allowance will do nothing to alleviate the hardships which have been caused since the abolition of the single payment system in 1988 under the 1986 Act. Would it not be more constructive at this stage to engage in further discussions with RADAR, the RNIB and other such organisations, to try to reach agreement on a single benefit which would cover all the costs incurred by people with disabilities?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord quite rightly says that the new disability allowance is an amalgamation of two existing benefits. It is also an

1161
extension of those two existing benefits. The two components of the new disability allowance—care and mobility—will provide access as gateways to claimants suffering from clusters of disabilities. Regarding consultation with RADAR and other such groups, as I have said on many occasions, I am always prepared to meet representatives from such groups.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that where severe disability results from an accident and a compensation claim is successfully pursued through the courts, very large awards are made which quantify the substantial extra costs resulting from the disability? That can be hundreds of pounds per week. On the other hand, a person born with the same or even worse disability than the accident victim has to manage on the totally inadequate level of social security benefits mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stallard. Does the Minister agree that our system for compensating the extra costs of disability is both arbitrary and unfair and should be replaced by a comprehensive and non-means tested disability cost allowance?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept the points made by the noble Lord. I point to our record. There has been a doubling in expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled—some £8.8 billion over the past 10 years. That is double what was spent on the long-term sick and disabled by the noble Lord's party when it was in government some 11 years ago.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is not the point which I am making. I am referring to the arbitrariness and unfairness of a system in which a person with a severe disability resulting from an accident receives a very substantial award through the courts which quantifies the extra costs of the disability, whereas a person born with the same disability must manage on social security benefits.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are living in the real world. I understand that the noble Lord's party has put forward proposals in its document As of Right and I understand that those proposals will cost some extra £4.4 billion per year. Judging by experience of earlier Labour Governments, it is extremely unlikely that any future Labour Government will be able to afford that.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, in reply to my original Question, the noble Lord said that he is always prepared to consult on the new allowance or any other aspects. Does he mean that if representatives of those organisations make a joint request to meet the Minister to discuss this new benefit, he will be prepared to meet them?
Lord Henley: My Lords, yes. I gave that assurance.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two short debates standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Stanley of Alderley. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the
1162
scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the Short Debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 10 minutes and, in that of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, eight minutes.

UN Charter: Collective Security
2.57 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to call attention to the terms and the application of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter on action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
My object is to raise for debate the subject of collective security made topical by the actions of Saddam Hussein but looking to the future after the Gulf war has ended.
Six months ago a flagrant and unprovoked act of aggression was committed against Kuwait. For the first time since the founding of the United Nations 45 years ago, the five permanent members of the Security Council and a large majority of members united to oppose and undo the misdeed. The principle of collective security has been upheld more widely than ever before in modern history. That is welcome and gratifying although it means that we are engaged in a war and on a scale which we would not have wished.
Since 2nd August, the structure of the United Nations and the Charter have been used correctly, quickly and decisively in the resolutions adopted by the Security Council, especially Resolution No. 660 on 2nd August, and Resolution No. 661 four days later calling for economic sanctions.
I can easily visualise those meetings in New York because I was part of the small United Kingdom permanent mission to the United Nations there 41 years ago. I was at the emergency meeting of the Security Council on a Sunday morning in June 1950, the day after North Korea attacked South Korea and at the subsequent meetings. Our chief, Sir Alexander Cadogan, was not with us at the Sunday meeting; he was on retirement leave. A few days later my noble kinsman Lord Gladwyn, who had already been designated his successor, took over. I am delighted to see that he is to speak in this debate because he was also the first acting Secretary-General of the United Nations before Mr. Trygve Lie was appointed.
Immediate action by the United Nations was possible in 1950 because the Soviet Union was absent—deliberately absent —for several weeks as a protest that the Chinese representative had not been replaced by a representative of the new communist government. The necessary resolutions were adopted without Soviet opposition or veto. That there would have been Soviet opposition became clear from the speeches of the Soviet representative, Mr. Malik, after the Soviet delegation returned to the council five weeks later when it was the Soviet turn to take the chair. In the cases of Korea and the Gulf the Security Council

1163
resolutions were put into effect with strength because the United States sent substantial armed forces with speed.
In 1950 American forces were nearby in Japan. Other countries sent small detachments, as soon as they could, under the UN flag. We contributed a Commonwealth brigade which eventually became a division. In both cases, Korea and the Gulf, Chapter VII was invoked in the resolutions. I do not intend to discuss current military operations in the Gulf, which are best left to the commanders in the field. I agree with what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, said in the debate on 21st January in that regard. However, I take the opportunity to say—and I am sure that I speak for the whole House—that we are acutely conscious of the key role of the British forces in the Gulf. We admire their dedication, professionalism and fortitude in a dangerous task of crucial importance for the future. Our thoughts and hopes are with them and their allies in the coalition forces.
My purpose today is to examine the structure of the United Nations and the terms of the Charter, virtually unchanged since 1946. They form the basis of international action to deter aggression and to deal with it if it happens. In the years 1948 to 1952, when I was a member of the United Kingdom mission in New York, we were involved in the application of the Charter for the first time. I found that I knew the wording of Chapter VII by heart. I do not suggest that noble Lords will need copies of the Charter with them today; my intention is to recall the essentials.
At that time the ideals of the United Nations received warm support from the public in the United States and the United Kingdom. We were trying to create a system which would prevent anything like Hitler's war, through which we had just passed, recurring. Chapter VII is the heart of the Charter. In dealing with aggression it prescribes progressive steps towards restoring peace and undoing the wrongs perpetrated. The first stage consists of provisional measures—Article 40. The second stage consists of measures not involving armed force—Article 41. Then comes Article 42 which provides that if previous measures are not adequate, action by armed forces may be taken.
That article has made clear over the years that the use of armed forces is the resort agreed upon for world security when necessary. I am sure that it has acted as a deterrent to potential aggressors with covetous eyes on their neighbours' territory. In that respect it has had a beneficial negative effect. However, although it is there', stark and clear in its terms, it has not been invoked directly. In the cases of Korea, and now the Gulf, it is the last article of Chapter VII—Article 51 —which has been directly quoted in the resolutions.
Article 51 provides for self-defence and has been regarded as a catch-all clause. One of the main reasons why Article 42 has not been referred to, despite the powerful influence which its existence exerts, is that it leads into Articles 43 to 47, which have not yet fully been put into effect. Those articles provide for a Military Staff Committee and for its role in directing
1164
specified armed forces allocated to the United Nations by member states in accordance with agreements to be negotiated.
The MSC was established when the United Nations was formed, consisting of military representatives of the five permanent members and co-option of other members as appropriate. However, nothing has been done in the intervening years in regard to earmarking forces or concluding agreements with members. That has not mattered. It has not reduced the effectiveness of the action of the United Nations authorised by the Security Council in Korea and the Gulf. We can feel relieved and reassured by that.
However, it has meant that Articles 43 to 47 contain references to pieces of the mechanism intended in 1945 which are missing. How did that happen? The Soviet Government agreed to the text of Chapter VII in 1945, but clearly changed their mind a few months later. They deliberately blocked any progress in the MSC. For years the MSC had its required regular meetings and did little more than adopt the agenda and arrange the date for the next meeting. It is significant that President Gorbachev stated a few months ago that he thought that progress might now be made on that point. That appears to me to be a change of heart.
The terms of the Charter were agreed by the nations which then existed as independent states and had won the war. Initial membership, around 50, was less than one-third of the present figure—159 at the latest count. Two of the largest and most influential countries in the world—Germany and Japan—did not join until some years later because they were ex-enemy states. In the same situation were Italy, Austria and some other European countries. Small changes only have been made to the Charter; in particular, increasing the size of the Security Council and the majority needed in voting there. The five permanent members of the Security Council remain the same regardless of size and influence in the world of today. The five can use the veto, which was always an essential part of the system. It was designed to avoid a situation where one of the great powers was at odds with most of the rest of the world; that might have produced the clash of arms which it was the intention of the United Nations to prevent.
It was hoped that Chapter VII would replace the functions of the pre-war League of Nations, the weakness and failure of which had been manifested in 1935 after Mussolini's attack on Abyssinia. When Saddam's folly is penalised and reversed by the armed forces of the United Nations—as I am sure it will be—collective security will be immensely strengthened in the world. We need be haunted no longer by the pale ghost of the League of Nations which will have been exorcised forever.
Before examining ways in which the community of nations can then consolidate, I should mention two additions to the mechanisms of the United Nations developed after the Charter was agreed. First, at the annual session of the General Assembly—that is, the plenary gathering of all members—in 1950 after the aggression in Korea, the United States introduced the "United for Peace" resolution, which was duly passed.

1165
The intention was to enable the General Assembly to agree upon action if the Security Council was blocked by the veto. The General Assembly can only make recommendations to members. This was, therefore, a second best and reserve arrangement designed to avoid inaction if the Security Council was paralysed. It has not detracted from the authority of the Security Council, enshrined in the Charter, to take the necessary decisions in times of world crisis.
The second innovation has been the introduction of peace-keeping forces, which again can be recommended by the General Assembly if necessary. That has been a valuable addition. These forces have served as a kind of military police, keeping antagonists apart or patrolling contested territory. They are of course very different from a punitive force, used under Chapter VII, with all necessary modern arms at sea, in the air as well as on the land.
We must also take into account two significant changes. Small and medium-sized countries can become possessors of nuclear weapons despite the non-proliferation treaty. A country's leader may be a fanatic or megalomaniac. We must not forget Idi Amin.
The other change, assisting in the opposite direction, is that troops and equipment can now be transported in large quantities by air, as was most effectively demonstrated by the United States in August. After this war, when Saddam has been subdued, the world should be safer but the UN should not relax. Conditions will be favourable for improvements in the UN's contingency planning. Flexibility should be paramount but member states should be more prepared and ready in future to contribute forces or financial and material help. The whole question of economic sanctions needs more consideration. It is clear that, even with the whole world united against an aggressor, a fanatic like Saddam could resist that pressure for months or years. It is all the more important to have armed forces clearly in immediate readiness as a deterrent in the hope that they will not have to be used.
The time factor must be taken into account in the early stages. The leader of the offending nation may have no respect for human life or care about the hardships of his people. As time passes he will be compounding his aggression by pillage, destruction and annexation, doing everything he can to make it irreversible. That has been foreseen in Chapter VII, which empowers the Security Council to decide when peaceful measures are or would be inadequate. That is in Article 42, which spells out the intention and procedure but which has not been directly invoked for reasons which we know.
The Security Council has that task and it is a very difficult judgment to make. If pressure from economic sanctions or other peaceful measures is likely to succeed within a reasonable period, the necessary time must be allowed. When such pressure is clearly not being effective and when the aggressor is strengthening
1166
his hold and the victim country is crying out for help from the rest of the world, the Security Council has to choose the moment to move to the use of armed force.
As regards forces at the disposal of the United Nations in the foreseeable future, the United States will be the only country which can field a large force speedily. Depending on the area of the world involved and other factors, it should be possible for other countries to provide support of various kinds without delay. That is the clear intention of the Charter.
On the question of the kind of help that can be given, I believe that in the cases of Germany and Japan, for example, which have made very large contributions, it need not have taken five or six months before they were forthcoming if such matters had been gone into beforehand.
In opening this debate, if I have seemed dissatisfied at times it is because I see opportunities for improving the United Nations' state of readiness and so more firmly maintaining peace after the Gulf war. I feel strongly that those opportunities should be pursued. I trust that the House realises that my remarks have been inspired and overshadowed by the momentous event that the Security Council has acted with almost complete agreement in a major case of aggression in the way originally intended by the founders of the United Nations. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sure that I am expressing the views of the whole House when I say that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for introducing this subject, particularly at this very topical moment. The present conflict is being characterised, at least by the press and the governments involved, as a United Nations' operation. I do not believe that it is. I believe that this scepticism is shared by the majority of people outside this country and the United States. As we see the effects of the conflict spreading from America across to the Maghreb, the Middle East, Pakistan, and the Philippines, we are surely witnessing a conflict which is affecting the vast majority of the world and which may affect many more nations outside this country and its media.
How is the present conflict and the decision to participate in military activity seen? It does not need me to outline the feeling of most of the population of the world that those who have pursued this military conflict are acting as hypocrites. One has only to recall Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Namibia, South Africa and many other countries to recognise that when this conflict is looked at from outside the participating countries, it appears that the permanent members of the Security Council, who are the larger powers in the world, pick and choose as to how they are going to use the powers that they have within the United Nations.
I refer in specific terms to the Question that I raised in this House yesterday afternoon concerning Indonesia and East Timor. Surely that is a clinching example of hypocrisy. After the cold war there is no excuse for saying that this or that cannot be done because of the cold war. Britain and America are

1167
supporting the Indonesian Government and providing arms for them. Yet as long ago as 1975 the Security Council unanimously passed a resolution declaring Indonesia to be an aggressor, condemning that aggression and the occupation of East Timor, and calling on Indonesia to vacate the territory of East Timor. What has been done by the Security Council since 1975? Why is the issue of Indonesia and East Timor different from that of Iraq and Kuwait?
During the ensuing years, according to the British Government's figures, between 60,000 and 100,000 East Timorese have lost their lives as a result of that aggression. What has been done by Her Majesty's Government and the Security Council? I will not argue, as some of my colleagues have done, that because we have not done anything in Indonesia, Namibia, Grenada or Afghanistan, we should not support the responsibility of the United Nations in Kuwait. That is a line which I have never taken and I do not take it now. I simply point out that to the rest of the world it appears that the permanent members of the Security Council discriminate as to when and in what circumstances they will apply the power of the United Nations, and also when it does not seem to be in their interests to do so. That attitude is contemporary; it is being applied in Indonesia now while military activity is taking place in the Gulf.
I am not arguing that United Nations' responsibility should not have been taken in the Gulf. I believe that it should. I also believe that the United Nations has been sabotaged in its efforts in the Gulf. It has been sabotaged because right from the start it was discovered that at long last the international organisation had a weapon which was non-military and which at least stood a good chance of reversing that aggression and persuading or compelling the Iraqis to leave Kuwait. I know that this cannot be proved —nor can it be proved that military means were needed—but that weapon was there. It was discovered and supported unanimously within the Security Council and by the United Nations. According to the testimony of James Schlesinger, when sanctions were first imposed last summer the United States Administration believed that it would take 12 months for those sanctions to work adequately. It was the director of the CIA, William Webster, who only a few weeks ago gave testimony to the effect that sanctions were already damaging the military machine of the Iraqis, that by April that military machine would be seriously damaged and that within 12 to 18 months there was a good chance that by the use of sanctions the United Nations could implement Resolution 660.
That effort, that great promise for the future of having found a means of peacefully solving international conflict, was thrown away in November when the United States President doubled the number of United States forces in the Gulf and put them on the offensive. Until then they had been on the defensive, it having been stated that they were there not to attack Iraq or Kuwait but to defend Saudi
1168
Arabia. When that decision was made it sabotaged the great promise that had come to the United Nations out of the use of sanctions.
If I go back half an hour, I recall that the noble Earl who is to reply to this debate was unable to give the House any details—nor has anyone else—as to the evidence on which that decision was taken. I have repeated that there was evidence—I have given him the evidence: the evidence of James Schlesinger and the evidence of the director of the CIA—that sanctions were working and should be given time.
As to the relevance of this picture to Chapter VII, I emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in his opening statement. Article 42, which provides for the use of military force, depends on Article 41 because Article 42 starts by saying:
"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 [that is non-military measures] would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate"—
we have had no proof—then it may take action. But that depends on Article 41 having been put into effect first and given a chance to work. If one goes on from Article 42 to the succeeding articles, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, pointed out, there is then provision for the setting up of a military staff committee.
I ask the noble Earl who is to reply whether the military staff committee of the United Nations has been consulted. Has it been given the authority to organise a United Nations peace keeping force in this instance? We know it has not. But I should like the noble Earl to address himself to that point. If he intends to rest his case on Article 51 then I would point out to him that Article 51, while giving the right of self-defence, also includes the following words:
"Until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to obtain international peace and security"—
self-defence until the security council has acted—
"measures taken by members in the exercise of the right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council"—
and this is the important point—
"and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present charter to take at any time such action that it deems necessary".
My contention is that the members of the United Nations have not gone through the exercise laid down in Articles 41 and 42 of Chapter VII, nor have they followed what is laid down in succeeding articles, leading to the setting up of a defence committee. They have not followed the articles preceding Article 51. They have not done so because they have been using the United Nations as an umbrella for their own decision, a decision taken by President Bush in November, which, I repeat, has sabotaged the most constructive and far seeing developments which came with the imposition of sanctions against Saddam Hussein. By sabotaging that effort they have very seriously damaged the ability of the United Nations to carry out its responsibilities after the war is over.
3.26 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for giving us an opportunity to discuss the role of the United Nations as it relates to Chapter VII, not only in this present tragic war, but in the years that lie ahead. It reminds us that the moral basis for present action in the Gulf conflict depends on the United Nations and its role. I wish I could share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the world will be a safer place at the end of this war than it was at the beginning. I am afraid that I rather doubt it. One reason for my doubt is that in the eyes of millions of people in the world today this does not look like a genuinely United Nations operation.
I have no doubt at all that there is overwhelming support in this country as expressed through your Lordships' House and the other place for the action which is now being taken. There is not the slightest doubt about that and public opinion polls will stress it. A minority of people in this country are doubtful about the moral basis for the present action as concerns military force. Where I think there is universal agreement is when we look back to the time of the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein, the rape of that small country and the terrible things that took place. There was then complete unanimity about the actions of the United Nations, the resolution of the Security Council and how this gave us a new hope for the world. There was hope in regard to that case in particular but also in regard to nations standing together in collective security. It was a real sign of hope. In particular, the adoption of sanctions and the way in which they were enforced as a peaceful yet powerful method of bringing pressure in order to achieve an evacuation of Kuwait was widely supported universally from some quite surprising places. For example, Jordan was prepared to go along with the sanctions resolution.
It is worth mentioning that many people have been doubtful —but doubtful unnecessarily—about the way in which sanctions through the United Nations have worked in years gone by. There is ample evidence of the effectiveness of sanctions in certain situations. We think especially of Southern Africa. It is very doubtful whether South Africa would have withdrawn from Angola and Namibia but for the steady cumulative effect of sanctions over those years. The remarkable changes we are seeing in South Africa at the present time surely owe something to the operation of international sanctions. It is a matter of shame that the British Government have been so lukewarm, and even opposed, to the imposition of effective sanctions on South Africa.
There is now a great sign of hope for our world. The United Nations, through the Security Council, representing nations of different cultures and colours both rich and poor, has been able to bring such countries together and condemn such an act of aggression. Much Arab public opinion was behind that move.
1170
In my view the Christian faith has within it a powerful basis for a vision of a world community. It seems to me to be natural that Christians should be deeply sympathetic to any measure which supports a world order and which helps to enforce such an order against aggression. The Christian faith is realistic about the evil and wickedness to be found in the world. I refer not simply to the evil in one man—that is, in one brutal dictator—but the wickedness which has deep ramifications and which has contributed to the present tensions in the Middle East.
When we look at the United Nations Charter and we see how in a case such as this nations have been able to come together through their representatives in order to support resistance to aggression, there is, as I said, hope for us all. However, Resolution 678 was issued on 29th November. It was undoubtedly based on the UN Charter and it authorised the use of force. The Security Council, should it consider that measures provided for in Article 41 (which governs sanctions) are inadequate, or have proved to be inadequate, may take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.
War is a different matter and it widens differences of opinion in our community. In this country we had a responsible, agonised debate about military action before it took place on 16th January. For example, in this House we heard the case for pacifism expounded as powerfully and movingly as it could be by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who is sitting on the Benches opposite. He takes an attitude which many of us cannot share. However, his stance was greatly respected in this Chamber. I, too, cannot share that pacifist stance. I welcome the fact that there is a provision within the charter for resort to force in certain circumstances through the United Nations.
However, what is deeply worrying is the way in which such action was taken. It is significant to note that many of those who care most deeply for the United Nations in this country and beyond are disturbed and agonised by what has taken place. I shall quote from a resolution of the United Nations Association Executive in this country dated 27th October. It reads:
"We urge adequate time to assess whether sanctions are working and rejection of pressures for premature military action".
The feeling expressed there was that if military action was resorted to, it may bring the United Nations into discredit and may prove to be counter-productive in all that it was supposed to do.
I have no more means of telling than the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, or anyone else, whether sanctions would finally have forced Saddam Hussein to leave Kuwait; indeed, the indications are to the contrary. However, having said that, the balance of military action had to be weighed against the possible consequences which would follow. Such consequences are not irrelevant now as we try to look to the future. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is right to urge us to consider the future and not concentrate solely on the Gulf situation. The way in which we view

1171
what is happening now affects the urgency of our search for peace and an early cessation of military operations. It also affects how we see the United Nations operating in the years ahead. It must not appear simply to be hijacked by major powers with enormous military might at their disposal. That is how the situation looks to many people in the world today.
I have no doubt that there is right and justice on the side of the coalition forces in the Gulf. But that does not make it a just war in the way that is being claimed at present; neither does it make it necessarily a wise or right decision to have resorted to military action under the terms of the charter which we are considering today. Some of us think that it was not. What I have said is not simply water under the bridge; it affects our attitude towards the future.
In my view it is a shame when people in this country are criticised for raising questions about the rightness of the present operations as if to do so means that they are somehow being disloyal to our Armed Forces in the field. I support everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about their courage and sense of duty. We pray for them, for their success and for their safety. We realise that they are doing their duty backed by an overwhelming parliamentary majority and a decision properly made in this country.
However, wars must be judged by other criteria, apart from the justice of the cause. It is important to consider under whose auspices the war is being fought. Part of the tragedy of today's situation is that the United Nations has not been more fully involved in the conduct of operations and the way in which things have been carried out. That is why what is taking place does not seem to many people to be a United Nations operation. Further, are the means being used proportionate? Is it possible to have faith in the United Nations if it authorises, for example, the bombing of water supplies of a great city such as Baghdad? One can argue that electricity supplies are part of the means of maintaining the military potential of such a country; but what questions are being raised about the importance of water for such cities in the Middle East when we know about the danger of disease? While I agree to some extent that military operations are best left to those in the field, I believe that it is incumbent upon the rest of us to raise such crucial questions.
So far as concerns other likely consequences of the present operations, it is distressing to hear some people say, "There you are, the consequences prophesied by people like Mr. Edward Heath have not in fact taken place". How do we know that that is true? Indeed, some have taken place and some have not. I should like to point out that in the famine situation in East Africa at present, relief agencies are reporting that thousands of people are dying as an indirect result of the operations in the Gulf. That is because the world's attention is being concentrated on that area. A fraction of the money being spent on the crisis could be used to save lives in East Africa at present.
1172
I return now to Chapter VII. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is right to draw our attention to other sections of the Charter in order to point out that we must consider them in respect of the kind of world which lies ahead. We must not assume complacently that this world will be a safer place at the end of the Gulf War.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for raising this subject today and for analysing so brilliantly Chapter VII of the Charter. It is a very remarkable and central chapter. As noble Lords will appreciate, it gives wide discretionary powers to the Security Council either to operate under Article 41 (without using any force) or, if it considers that such measures are likely to be inadequate, to invoke other articles including, but not limited to, Article 42. We know that the Security Council has acted under Article 41 by imposing sanctions in August and, under succeeding articles, by authorising the use of force in November.
In the time available to me I do not intend to discuss whether, while sanctions were operating under SCR 661, the Security Council was wise to pass Resolution 678 on 29th November or whether, in doing so, the United Nations has been sabotaged or something of that nature. Of course, I should like to do so, but time does not permit.
I shall confine myself to considering one point; namely, the operation of Article 41, the sanctions article, in a modern context. I believe that it is valuable to do so for three reasons. First, I do not believe that anyone would doubt that it is preferable, if possible, to use the weapon of sanctions under Article 41 than it is to use force.
Secondly, having been shown for the first time that the permanent members of the Security Council can agree, we may hope that that will not be the only time and that they will be able to do so again in future cases. Thirdly, I suggest that it is important for the future of peace-keeping to understand whether sanctions under Article 41 can work or whether they cannot. That question may still be relevant to the present situation. Those articles are still operating; and sanctions are still operating. The question whether they are, or have been, effective has not been addressed.
Let us look at Article 41 for a moment. In 1945, when it was framed in rather simple language, Lord Jowitt said of it that it did not bear the hallmarks of having emanated from Lincoln's Inn—something with which I think we all agree. It is drafted in simplistic language, and speaks in terms of the interruption of economic relations and of communications —simple and uncomplicated stuff. We may note with interest that even matters such as demonstrations and blockades are not dealt with under that article, but under Article 42. Since then, the picture has changed enormously. We now have over 150 independent states as members of the United Nations. Trade and commerce have become global in character. Financial relations have become global in character. Communications are not just a matter of sending a

1173
telegraph from one place to another. Communications, by which one means the transfer of information—the lifeblood of finance and commerce—have become vital to states' existence and depend upon internationally available technology of a most elaborate kind.
Because all those matters have become global in character, it must follow that international action, if achievable, must be effective against such organisations. Let us have in mind that we are not concerned in the case of the Gulf only with an invasion of a small state, or even only with the seizure of important oil fields—vital though those matters and issues are—but with the takeover of a vast financial empire—that of Kuwait—which is in the world league as such matters go, and which has ramifications in all sections of the world economy.
One has to ask how Article 41—that simple article—can be fitted into that picture. Putting it briefly, each member state is asked, at short notice, to introduce measures which will not just stop physical trade by sea, air or computer, but which will prevent the aggressor from receiving the benefit of all Kuwait's assets, whether tangible or intangible, wherever they may be; and to do that probably without any experience of the kind of action which it is practical and legal to take in such circumstances and without having any of the legal infrastructure necessary.
We are aware of course that the United States has available a powerful panoply of executive orders, well tried in other situations, which can be instantly issued. It has issued such orders in this case. The United Kingdom has available a machinery under emergency Acts, and under the United Nations Act 1946, which can be, and has been, used. That can even be extended to territories such as Hong Kong or the Caribbean tax havens. The French have quickly operated similar techniques. The European Community made an order in August, but one relating to physical trade only.
It is remarkable then to note that, without any of those procedures, over 100 states have done something to carry out the Security Council resolution. I have a list of the main ones that have done that and of the instruments that they have used. I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Jeremy Carver, an eminent City solicitor, who has researched and is researching into what has been done on his own account with the assistance of his firm.
However—and this is the only point that I want to make—all of that raises great problems. We can see that from our experience and that of the Americans. The Bank of England, which is charged with implementing the restrictions, and which has extraordinary skill and expertise in such matters, is flooded with inquiries and conundra which both in quantity and quality have put enormous pressures upon it. How then, one must ask, can other states—even those in Europe, not to mention those outside—unused to taking that kind of action, manage to be effective? Many will have no infrastructure. They will have to devise and pass primary legislation. How are they to translate United Nations requirements into
1174
national law—let us think of Islamic law and the elaborate constitutions of some countries which inhibit legislation—at short notice? Many will have no enforcement machinery, and many will not have the lawyers, accountants or experts without which restraints will not work. Most of them will not have the resources to monitor and see to what extent the controls are being effective.
Two things are necessary. The first is information. The United Nations is endeavouring to deal with it. I was disappointed that the noble Earl was defensive on the subject. It may be true that the United Nations Sanctions Committee is not responsible for ensuring that measures are effective. The United Nations sent out a questionnaire which was responded to by over 100 states. It asked for information as to what those states had done. Our lawyers —again Mr. Jeremy Carver—and a number of United States lawyers have their own data and are collecting them. I hope that those measures will be assisted. There is no need for secrecy. The United Nations Sanctions Committee may be confidential, but why be secret about it? Everyone should know what is being done and to what extent the measures taken are effective or ineffective?
I come to the second requirement. If the system is not to be a one-off one—I hope that it will not be—and not be the only case in which the permanent members agree, we and the United States, should make available to other countries, through the United Nations, the European Community or otherwise, in a systematic way, full knowledge of the measures and techniques required in those cases. They should be collected in a permanent form which can be brought out and used next time.
We must be optimistic. We must hope that this is not the last time, as it has been the first time, that the Security Council has been able to obtain agreement on sanctions. If any lesson is to be drawn from the present situation, it is not certain to be in favour of the use of force. The armoury of Article 41, which is a valuable one, must be kept alive and in usable form. I remain grateful to the noble Lord for initiating the debate.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I wish that I could find it possible to follow the command of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and be optimistic, because optimism was also the keynote of the speech of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy when introducing the debate. For once noble Lords may be surprised to hear that I find myself in some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby; not in his belief in a conspiracy theory of recent history but in calling attention to the fact that nations behave as they have always behaved, and probably always will behave—so long as there are independent nation states—in the light of their own interests as they perceive them to be at the time.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy gave a clue to the problem when he mentioned two facts about the United Nations: first, that the composition of the Security Council reflected the immediate situation in 1945.

1175
Anyone now debating who should be permanent members of the Security Council, for instance, would find it difficult to come up with the same five. More important and perhaps even more relevant is the fact that the last occasion on which the authority of the United Nations was powerfully exercised —the Korean war—was made possible only by the accidental absence of the Soviet Union. That country could not have been fully informed as to what was likely to happen in the absence of its representative.
I feel that again we now have or had in the Security Council a concatenation of accidental circumstances which have made these resolutions possible without a veto. That is because the wishes, intentions, and desires of the five permanent members are not identical; nor is their forward view always similar. In the case of the Soviet Union in particular there is no doubt that there has been considerable pressure on the Soviet Government to choose between their recent desire, for economic reasons, to stand well with the major Western powers and their own perception of what might happen if one of their client states in the Middle East were to be largely destroyed, perhaps as a result of economic action but, more particularly now, by military action.
I do not propose to enlarge upon the position of the Soviet Union because I wish to take advantage of the Unstarred Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, to explain later why I think it unlikely that we can look forward to a similar alignment of Soviet and American policy in other circumstances.
Perhaps even more surprising is the non-exercise of the veto by China. Undoubtedly China was trying to edge back into some kind of respectability after the massacre of its dissidents and thought that nothing much would be gained by again antagonising the United States over a matter to which the American Government attached such importance. There is no reason to believe that the view of the world held by the Chinese Government is identical to that likely to be held by any major Western government.
With regard to the non-permanent members of the Security Council, no doubt there are different reasons why each of them should have been willing to go along with the, others—some of them part of the way and most of them, hitherto, all the way; but only in some cases. I believe that the right reverend Prelate was perfectly correct in saying that it was only in some cases and that they risked internal political problems by taking up a cause about which their peoples had doubts.
Therefore, in considering, as we should, how the world is to be made more secure and stable after the war is over, I share the right reverend Prelate's doubts in that respect, although the war was inevitable, necessary and right. In considering that, we should not think of the United Nations Charter, as it now stands, as a possible foundation for action. It seems to me that we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that we live in a world divided into regional cultures and different sets of ideologies. It is important to find methods by
1176
which the regions can be reconciled and, where they are not reconciled, they can find regional answers to at least some of their problems.
The powers of the United Nations are enormous, as we have seen on this occasion. They are also vulnerable. Noble Lords have mentioned sanctions. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, that with sanctions we need to know how they are operating and we need to plan the technical side. However, sanctions are a weapon which cannot normally be relied upon for a simple reason with which I am afraid I have bored your Lordships on previous occasions, but I must do so again. Using sanctions as a peaceful method of settling disputes presupposes that both parties to the dispute have a similar wish to remain at peace. I found that difficult to believe in the case of Iraq. It always seemed to me that if the period were prolonged, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, wished, Saddam Hussein would have seized some appropriate moment when we were off our guard to initiate military conflict rather than to suffer the humiliation of seeing his army immobilised by a total lack of fuel.
The example to which the right reverend Prelate referred with approval—sanctions against South Africa—is quite different. The South African Government have shown that in the last resort they do not want their people to suffer economically. They have taken the view, rightly, that the only way of getting back into the world economy is to make major internal changes. If Saddam Hussein were like President de Klerk, the scenario would look different. However, we are likely to find more Saddam Husseins than President de Klerks and we must therefore look with hope, but not optimism, at what must be done to construct a safer world order when the war is over.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we must all be grateful to my noble kinsman, Lord Campbell of Croy, for raising the vexed question of the correct application of Chapter VII of the Charter. I am also grateful to him for his kind remarks about myself. Perhaps I may add that I was not only the Acting Secretary General of the United Nations in 1945 but also took part in the negotiations and the actual drafting of the Charter at Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco. Therefore, the terms of Chapter VII of the Charter are graven as much on my mind as on his!
On one point I think we can all agree: as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has just said, the situation is very different now from what it was in 1945 when the Charter was agreed and duly came into force. Then the United Kingdom and France, though much weakened by the war, were still world powers, along with the United States of America and the Soviet Union; China was at best the most populous state. India was not independent. No other state had the slightest claim to be a world power. It was clear therefore that these five powers should be given prime responsibility in the Security Council for the preservation of world peace. That was generally agreed in 1945.

1177
What was not generally agreed then was that each of these powers should have the power of veto. Yet I was myself convinced at that time, and remained convinced thereafter, that without the power of veto there would have been no United Nations at all. The Russians always insisted on that. At the beginning of the negotiations the Americans appeared to resist it, but they would certainly not, in the event, have accepted majority voting in the Security Council. If they had done so, the whole Charter would not have been ratified by the Senate and the United States might have gone into isolation, as it did in 1919.
The veto—slightly modified by the Yalta voting formula for which I can claim a certain responsibility—remained, and after 46 years has still remained a prominent feature of the landscape. It was never in itself of course the reason why the United Nations has, up until recently, failed to function as the authors of the Charter intended. That reason was the apparent belief of Stalin that the United States was solely intent on using the United Nations for its own purposes and, more certainly, that the United States alone stood in the way of his own efforts to promote pro-Soviet governments throughout the world.
Fortunately the cold war has now, for the time being at any rate, apparently ended. We have succeeded to a large extent in using the United Nations for the main purpose for which it was originally designed; namely, successful and general resistance to obvious and unprovoked aggression. Why then do we not leave it as it is, confident in its future ability to fulfil this role in the probable event of some future crisis, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere? Unfortunately there are many reasons why we should be rash to bank on anything of the kind.
In the first place, the veto-wielding members of the Security Council now consist of one genuine super power, one former super power, two medium sized powers and an enormous state which seems to be chiefly preoccupied with its own interests. If and when the war in the Gulf is won by the application of immense American force with, for the most part, British assistance, the Security Council is thus likely to be regarded in the world as a whole—and certainly in the Middle East—not as a body, the decisions of which must be respected and obeyed, but rather as a manifestation of Anglo-Saxon dominance in world affairs.
Further, although the United Nations has, with great difficulty, effectively authorised the use of force against Iraq, this is not—this has already been pointed out by many speakers—strictly speaking, a United Nations war under Article 42 of the Charter. Theoretically such a war should be conducted under the auspices of the Military Staff Committee composed of the Chiefs of Staff of the five permanent members of the Security Council, or their representatives. However, regrettably, the Military Staff Committee does not in practice exist, and although we must all hope that it will be revived one day, there is seemingly no intention and no likelihood of reviving it. A United Nations force might nevertheless be formed—as in Korea—with a supreme commander
1178
nominated by the Security Council. However, this has not been done and, in spite of the hopes of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, there seems little chance of that being done in the future.
Still, if the projected conference on the Middle East, which is due to follow on the cessation of hostilities, is to have any success, it should surely be organised under the auspices of a Security Council which is both powerful and generally respected. This, on the face of it, would seem to require a certain change in the operation of the Security Council. Sir Anthony Parsons has had a creditable shot at how this might be done in an article in today's edition of The Times. However, it is not entirely clear how his "new kind of force", which he states should be at the disposal of the existing Security Council, would in practice be organised.
I myself, before venturing any definite opinion on this very difficult and contentious matter, would like to ponder over the collective wisdom of your Lordships as expressed in the debate this afternoon.
4.7 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, when I put my name down last week to speak in this debate, it appeared to me that I must be one of the few speakers who had never even heard of Chapter VII. However, thanks to the ever helpful staff in the Printed Paper Office, I obtained a little book which I have read diligently.
I wish to congratulate two speakers who obviously are very knowledgeable about this subject. I admit that I am not so knowledgeable about the subject. I did not realise before this debate that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, had taken such an active part in the matter we are discussing. I am impressed by that.
I read the book that I was given very carefully. It states that the aims of the charter are to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.
That sentence rang a bell with me. This morning I found a similar passage in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address of 19th November 1863. That address contains some of the most beautiful words that have ever been written on this subject. It states:
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure".
That address may be better written than the preamble to the United Nations Charter, but the passages are similar. I find it interesting that way back then people conceived the idea that if you want freedom for all people you have to fight for it. As a child, I remember the League of Nations and what a pathetic organisation that was. It was a laughing stock. Whatever one wants to say about the present war in the Gulf, it shows that the United Nations can fight back. In saying that, many brave men are losing their lives. I recall being in Vancouver, Canada, and going

1179
ashore from my ship. They have, as most towns have, a war memorial and all it said on that war memorial was,
"They gave their todays for our tomorrows."
That again stands true today.
There has been talk not only in this House but in other places about sanctions; that if we had allowed more time the sanctions would ultimately have worked. I do not believe that sanctions have ever worked, nor do I believe that they ever will work. They did not work in Rhodesia and they did not work in South Africa.
To take the case of Rhodesia, who were the main sanctions busters? If sanctions were imposed on behalf of the black countries surrounding Rhodesia, it was they who broke those sanctions by feeding through their countries the goods and supplies that Rhodesia required. Why, my Lords? It was because they were making money out of it. That is a simple fact.
Sanctions are like blockades. They never work either. In two world wars, the might of Germany was unable to run a successful blockade of this country, which is a small island. Blockades do not work and sanctions will never work.
The right reverend Prelate was shocked by the fact that the allied forces had bombed water reservoirs in Baghdad. He said that particularly on humanitarian grounds. Yet the Iraqis have set forth tens of millions of gallons of oil which will despoil the whole of the sea coast there, probably for generations to come. A simple reservoir can be rebuilt, but there is a danger that the oil in the Gulf now will foul up all the machinery which produces fresh water for the whole of Saudi Arabia. I ask your Lordships to compare that alone, leaving out the millions of animals and seabirds which have been slaughtered or are suffering a terrible lingering death, with the bombing of one reservoir. The bombing then seems a very small thing.
I shall now turn to the subject matter in hand which is Chapter VII. I should like to make one point with regard to Article 51. I read it only last week and I marked the beginning which states:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations."
I take that to mean that we have a pact with Kuwait and that that pact states, "If you attack Kuwait, we will defend it. If someone attacks us, Kuwait will defend us." If, as some people claim, the United Nations have no right to do what they are doing now, I say that we in this country have every right. We are fulfilling our treaty obligations.
Many noble Lords here will remember that at the time of the Second World War we did not go to the defence of small countries when we should have done, and we all know the result. Someone has attacked a country with which we have a treaty. We are reacting. Thankfully the major power in the world, the United States of America, is helping to lead that attack. If Saddam Hussein thinks that he can rape the Middle East, he has been shown that it is a very dangerous thing to do.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, surely he recognises that he has cast a gross calumny on the black neighbours of Rhodesia. Was it not the South Africans who were supplying the bulk of materials to Rhodesia? Did we not leave Zambia 13 months after independence totally linked economically to Rhodesia? Were not this country and the United States themselves responsible for breaking sanctions? Has the noble Earl read the Bingham Report?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, all I know is that there was trade passing through the black countries. But if we are on that subject, perhaps I may make one point? For whose benefit were the sanctions against Rhodesia and South Africa? Basically they were for the benefit of the black people. But if you cut off the raw materials, how do the black people earn their living? They cannot do so. It is ridiculous. If you want to save the black people, you want to invest in South Africa. You do not want to take investment out of South Africa. That is cutting the throats of the blacks.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, what is happening now?
4.17 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I rise to speak in this valuable and timely short debate because I have had considerable personal experience of the plight of a people ignored by the world, even though they and their case have been the subject of numerous United Nations motions and resolutions. Several noble Lords will know the people to whom I am referring. But first imagine, if you will, that my home country has been brutally invaded by overwhelming military force and captured by the foreign power next door which is a full member of the UN.
I have been forced to flee into the open desert leaving all my possessions behind. I have been pursued by enemy planes and bombed and strafed. Thousands of my countrymen, women and children have been killed outright with many more dying later of wounds or lack of medical attention, food or water. Relatives were left behind who have been imprisoned and tortured. My country has been looted, raped and pillaged.
Am I a Kuwaiti? No, my Lords, I am not. I am a Saharawi from the western Sahara at the other end of the Arab world from the Gulf and I do not have the benefit of being oil rich; so I am not ensured that the free world is arrayed against the invader, my conquering neighbour. It is precisely that kind of situation which has given the UN such a bad name among those who are victims of invasion and oppression by countries that are members of the UN, sworn to uphold its basic underpinning principle of respect for other people's national boundaries and their basic human right of living unmolested in their own country.
Morocco invaded the western Sahara 16 years ago. Why was no task force sent out to repel the invader? Why was there not an immediate outcry at the UN

1181
against the invader? It was because the western Sahara had nothing that the rest of the world wanted and Morocco was of strategic importance to NATO.
Are we really prepared only to defend freedom and basic human rights when we are offered an economic return for our support? Do we put a price tag on those commodities as we would do for weaponry? Are we really prepared to continue to turn our collective blind eyes to all the millions of people who are the victims of other peoples' aggression? Double standards are very much in evidence and they make the United Nations a bitter pill for helpless people to swallow.
I do not for one second deny the agonies of Kuwait and its people, and I know that most of us support their struggle. My heart cries out to those who have been cast into the desert, because I have been there and I know what they are experiencing. But I should like your Lordships to weigh what the world is doing for the Kuwaitis against what it has failed to do for the Saharawi, the Timorese, the Palestinians, the Nicaraguans, the Hungarians in 1956 and the Czechs in 1968. We stand accused by most of the under-developed world of having double standards, and they are right—we do.
It is time we changed that. Freedom must not be for sale to the highest bidder. Perhaps one good thing that could come out of the Gulf war is that freedom, democracy and basic human rights will not have to pay a price to be upheld and enforced. I quote Ian McEwan from the Observer last Sunday, 3rd February. He wrote:
"A moral principle has no validity if it is applied selectively and self-servingly. Saddam's genocidal use of poison gas against the Kurdish nation did not lead to his ostracism from the community of nations, nor did it deter western governments from continuing to sell him arms. He was needed at that time to do battle against Iran"—
a battle which he started—
"Now the need is for low-priced oil".
It is a great pity that President Bush's outrage over the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was not mindful of United States actions over Nicaragua, Grenada and Vietnam, to name but a few. It would sound a lot more convincing if it were. Can we please abandon these outrageous practices of selecting those areas of conflict in the world where we will actively seek a solution based on what is in it for us and start applying the rules laid down in the United Nations Charter with impartiality for all?
However, I fail to see how the poor United Nations can ever hope to succeed in fulfilling the role for which it was created when the developed nations of the world persist in selling the under-developed nations assorted armaments and weaponry which are then, inevitably, used aggressively either on neighbouring countries or on those citizens of its own country who are opposed to the current regime; and, in the case of Iraq, on us the people who supplied them. That might have something to do with the fact that there are hardly any democracies in the underdeveloped world, and none
1182
whatever in the Arab world from the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf. Yesterday's Question and the answers concerning East Timor were timely and revealing.
4.23 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the House owes a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, not only for introducing this subject for debate today but also for his own personal, helpful and historical contribution.
I felt it was regrettable that this particular debate should have been confined to 2½ hours in view of the number of your Lordships who have served long years in the United Nations and who have great experience from which we could all benefit, especially because of the many complex and difficult issues that are raised: for example, the question of sanctions, which was so ably addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce; the question of blockade by land, sea and air forces; the question of the right to self-defence and the right to resort to all measures necessary to restore peace in the region. What does that mean in legal and political terms?
Then there is the need for humanitarian aid to the thousands of refugees who have suffered in the past few months. Whatever the publicly expressed views of the Jordanian people may be—which may not be in conformity with our feelings in this House and in this country—towards the British forces in the Gulf, to whom we all pay warm tribute, tribute should be paid to all those Jordanians who are helping to relieve the sufferings and anxieties of the thousands of refugees who have poured into that poor and small country.
The adoption of the United Nations Charter in 1945 brought a new legal and political perspective to international relations and in particular, through its Chapter VII, to the settlement of disputes between nations. Lord McNair said in 1925:
"It is an illusion that law has a monopoly in the settlement of international disputes".
That is still partly true today; but certain parameters have been laid down within which armed force may be used legitimately against aggression. In the current situation in the Gulf, this is aggression which includes massive destruction, torture, murder and the expulsion of thousands of Kuwaitis from their homeland. It is relevant here to consider sanctions. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, that it has not been economically proved whether sanctions have yet worked against Iraq. One has to consider that while sanctions were applied, for instance, to Rhodesia and South Africa, neither of those countries was in a state of war. They did not have their troops in other countries where people were daily being killed, tortured, massacred and expelled from their country. We have to look at sanctions in a very different light in the case of Iraq. We know what was going on in Kuwait and that was not going on in Rhodesia and South Africa. I do not say whether they were right or wrong, but I certainly think we must discriminate between cases where sanctions are applied—
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, would the noble Baroness forgive me? Concerning sanctions in Southern Africa, she would appreciate—would she not?—that there was a war raging in Namibia under colonial occupation, and that many people were suffering.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, it is true that there was a war in Namibia; but I would not compare it with the position in Kuwait, especially considering the timescale that was bearing upon Kuwait with the rest of the world standing by, watching them being eliminated. That could have been considered a form of genocide, which is a crime against humanity far greater than any other crime mentioned in the United Nations Charter.
The role of the Security Council has been and is central to any action that may be taken. For the first time, as many of your Lordships have said, the five permanent members have been able to exert together the primary responsibility which is conferred upon the Security Council by all members of the United Nations in Article 24 of the Charter. That includes the provision that in agreeing to carry out its duties under this responsibility, the Security Council acts on their behalf. We should remind ourselves that all members of the United Nations take responsibility for the decisions of the Security Council when they are taken, as in this present case.
Further, and remarkably, the Security Council has shown that it can act speedily. Those of us who have served from time to time at the United Nations will often have deplored the long time lag between talking, decision and action. But in this case the Security Council condemned on the same day, in Resolution 660, on 2nd August the act of aggression committed by Iraq. Within four days, on 6th August, an economic embargo was imposed on Iraq, applicable to all member states of the United Nations.
This resolution and successive resolutions up to Resolution 678 all fall within the provisions of Chapter VII, culminating in the imposition of the deadline on 15th January. In this connection, we recall the enormous efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement. I am sure that many of us will recall the picture of the Secretary-General, Perez de Cuellar, after his return from Baghdad, having made a final effort for peace which, alas, failed.
The United States, with the sacrifice of the lives of its people and its vast financial contribution, supported fully by the United Kingdom, deserves support in helping the international community as a whole in its efforts to restore Kuwait to its people. It could have been more comprehensible to the world public in general—if there is such a thing—if the armed forces had been sent under the United Nations flag.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy reminded us that in the case of Korea, a similar situation, the United Nations forces went to Korea under the United Nations flag but with the decision of the Security Council to hand over military decisions to the United States. If this had happened in this case it
1184
would have given a much better understanding—I do not say impression, because that would be the wrong word—of the role of the allied forces in the Gulf today if they had come under the United Nations flag and not primarily under the United States.
Further on this question of who is taking part in this fight, we are very much at the mercy of news presentation. We see night after night American bombers and our own troops engaged in fighting. This is quite right and proper, and the world should be informed. However, it gives an uneven picture and an inevitable imbalance of what is happening. We are not reminded daily of what the Iraqis have done and are doing in Kuwait, or what they are doing to their own people, or to the dangers to which they are submitting their own people and troops. Therefore, we are imbued with this news the whole time of the might of the American forces without always taking into account the reasons why they are so necessary, and taking into account the work that they are doing and which they intend to complete.
At the conclusion of hostilities, whoever is in control of Iraq at the time, with the elimination of troops from Iraq there will be pressing considerations deserving and needing international support to restore peace in the region, as well as the settlement of long-standing problems without which there will never be, and could not be, peace in the region. For instance, the territorial borders of the Arab states, including Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, and of course Israel must be respected and ensured so that Christian, Jew and Moslem can live in peace in the region without the threat of force or oppression from any one particular country.
The problem of vast numbers of refugees returning to their homelands, the restoration of massive material destruction that has taken place, will be major tasks not only for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees but for the world community as a whole. Is it conceivable that all these tasks, and indeed many others, could be undertaken under Chapter VII of the charter? I was thinking in particular of Article 45 concerning agreements regarding contingency forces of member states being available for the maintenance of peace. In this connection, I would think of the emphasis on Arab states contributing.
Are state members being requested at the conclusion of this conflict to provide troops—and again I say particularly from the Arab states—for a police-keeping force in the region, with greater powers than were hitherto generally available to the United Nations peace-keeping forces? Can these provisions of Article 45 referring to combined international enforcement action apply in terms of peace as well as during an armed conflict?
In Resolution 665 of 25th August, reference is made to the Military Staff Committee. Here I ask a question of which I have given notice to my noble friend. Can the Minister tell the House what role, if any, this committee has so far played during the current situation, and is it envisaged to have a role at the end of the conflict not only to supervise and monitor any

1185
police peace-keeping force that may be established but also to assist in the regulation of possible disarmament as provided in Article 47(1) of the charter?
The United Nations, with its failings and its obvious weaknesses, perhaps with continued co-operation between the five permanent members of the Security Council, will be supported by the hopes of people who wish to see peace in the world. It is only the United Nations, so far as I can see, that has the combined task on behalf of the world community of peacemaking, peace-keeping, peace enforcing and peace building, and we wish them every success. If one cannot be an optimist, at least one can hope.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has proposed a very timely debate. He has done so eloquently, drawing on his long and relevant experience, and the debate has already produced an important and interesting statement by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, on the problems of sanctions in the modern world. It has also given us an opportunity to pay tribute once again to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for the part that he played in the creation of the United Nations. I was always impressed, reading the Charter, by the wisdom of those people who had that initial task.
Discussion of Chapter VII cannot, I believe, be undertaken in isolation. The United Nations Charter is a mature document. It is in fact older than the noble Earl on the government Front Bench, who will wind up for the Foreign Office. It is surprising that it has not been amended in any significant way. But can it continue unchanged much longer? In the past there have been suggestions for reform of the Charter, which would of course have included Chapter VII.
I was, on more than one occasion, with the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, was there also—when he suggested to Gromyko that some amendments to the Charter might be discussed between us. We were at that time looking for some new means for the peaceful settlement of disputes and improvement of Chapter VI. But Gromyko's response was always the same. It was the famous Soviet, "nyet". However, he gave what seemed to me a good reason. He spoke to Lord Stewart in a rather fatherly way on the following lines, "If you had known how terribly difficult it was to agree the existing text, you would not be suggesting that we start discussing it all over again".
Chapter VII, and particularly Articles 41 and 42, were designed to be the teeth of the Charter; the means by which the organisation disciplined those who wished to break the peace, and the discipline which could be imposed by the use of force. The authors of course envisaged a postwar world which never came about. As might have been expected the Charter reflected—and particularly in Chapter VII—the way in which the allies had successfully conducted World
1186
War II, and they assumed their harmony and the immense power of the new weapons would continue unchallenged and in their control.
It involved a military committee in New York, which would act like a combined chiefs of staff committee. In the event, this committee never had a chance of planning or running a United Nations war. It was not equipped to do so, and could not do so now. But times have changed. It looks very much as though the Security Council can, for the time being, act in unison, but it is by no means certain that this unity will continue.
A new and ugly factor is that many countries now possess sophisticated weaponry and cannot be intimidated into abandoning aggressive policies. The non-proliferation treaty is not universally accepted and could always be evaded. The plain fact is that Chapter VII is out of date and will, in the long term, need modernisation. What changes can usefully be made will depend upon the outcome of the present war, and for the time being we must carry on as best we can.
Reference has been made to Sir Anthony Parsons' perceptive article, which the noble Lord will have seen, in today's Times. No one is more qualified than he to speak because of his involvement in the Falklands war and the time he spent in New York. He underlines the inadequacy of the present system and explains where it has failed in the past.
However, once a revision of the Charter becomes a matter of international discussion, it is not only Chapter VII that will be called into question. Pandora's Box will be opened and there will be calls for changes from large numbers of the membership. First and foremost will surely be a call for a change in the composition of the Security Council, and British interests will be very much involved. Some people already speak of a single European seat. What role will Japan wish to play? There are other countries with populations of well over 100 million in Africa and South America which will wish to play a much bigger part than they have done hitherto. Gromyko's warnings come again to mind and will be seen to have some justification.
History will show the Gulf war to have been worth while only if eventually it leads to a redesigned United Nations which will have to show how world order can be assured and how a revised Chapter VII will be made to play its part.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with all noble Lords in expressing gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who has performed a very timely service in initiating this debate on the future of the United Nations operations under Chapter VII of its Charter.
There has been a great deal of criticism of the United Nations during the course of this debate. The United Nations simply reflects the kind of world that we live in; a world of conflicting national interests, commercial rivalries and competing alliances. But it is the task of mankind to fulfil what I believe is the spirit

1187
that lies behind the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell; namely, to seek ways of creating a more civilised international order. That is a justification for the points that he put before your Lordships' House this afternoon.
Despite the many imperfections of the United Nations, it is important to remember that during its 50 years of existence it has provided a permanent and at times important forum for international debate and discussion in times of danger. One must remember that it has quietly gone on with its own technical assistance programme which has been very valuable to the countries of the third world. But, as a number of noble Lords have said, it is absolutely true that the United Nations has not been able to fulfil the high hopes with which it was born in terms of creating an effective international peace-keeping force. It was not able to develop the potential for peace-keeping in the various articles of Chapter VII, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. As this debate has made clear, the reason was that the birth of the United Nations at Dumbarton Oaks in San Francisco took place only a short time before the beginning of the cold war, which deeply divided the permanent members of the Security Council with their powers of veto.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, gave a vivid first-hand account of the only major collective United Nations' action for peace which took place in the face of North Korean aggression in 1950. But now momentous changes within the Soviet empire have created a new situation. It is a situation with many risks and dangers as well as hopes, but with new possibilities of enabling the United Nations to pursue its original purpose as an effective world peace-keeping force. For the first time in United Nations' history both economic sanctions and collective military action against aggression are taking place with the full authority of the United Nations set out in a series of Security Council resolutions.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, intended this to be a debate on the Gulf war and I shall not talk, about that other than to say that there is no doubt that once Saddam Hussein is forced to withdraw from Kuwait, as undoubtedly he will be as a result of this collective security action, there will be an unrepeatable period of opportunity to build on that outcome. I welcome the words of the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, at the weekend to the effect that we must begin to prepare to use peace wisely. If the United Nations has had the authority to undertake the war in the Gulf, we should seek a United Nations responsibility for the peace that follows.
One immediate task will be to tackle the wider problem of establishing peace and security throughout the Middle East. I do not for a moment underestimate the difficulties involved and I do not intend to go into them in this debate. This debate relates to an even wider aim which goes beyond the Security Council resolutions relating to Kuwait and the Middle East in order to seek to make more of a reality of the peace-keeping articles of Chapter VII.
I agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill; namely, that Chapter VII is now more
1188
than 50 years old and relates to a world that has changed tremendously. As Sir Anthony Parsons argues in the article just cited, it is no longer realistic to consider implementing some of the provisions of Chapter VII in the way that was thought possible at the time that the chapter was drafted. Either the chapter must be modernised with all the formidable difficulties that lie along that path, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, indicated, or, as has been done so often with the United Nations, we must modernise and adapt our international practice of diplomacy within the Charter. It was in that spirit that I think we all listened with very great interest to the ideas of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, that after Kuwait we must seek to make very much more effective the international pooling of information and techniques relating to sanctions through the United Nations. Again, there is a very real role for much more contingency planning for the future in these matters. There is a need to look again at Chapter VI of the charter with regard to steps in relation to the peaceful settlement of disputes.
These matters are urgent. They are practical issues. We are in a very new world situation. Since the start of the cold war, the safeguard against a major world conflict has not been the United Nations but the balance of nuclear terror between the two superpowers and the military alliances. That balance has been costly and frightening but for 40 years it has acted as a deterrent to a third world war. Now that the Cold War is ending there is a much less stable situation and an urgent need to create an effective form of world order. The only way to do that is through the United Nations. In any case, as we all know, the balance of nuclear power had its limits. Around it smaller and often bloody conflicts have taken place, sometimes fed by cold war rivalries. At times the blue berets of the United Nations have been called in to police the partial settlements with varying degrees of success, as noble Lords have said. Sir Anthony Parsons has some interesting ideas on how one might move forward to a more effective form of United Nations forces.
Again, the military technology and commercial rivalries of the international arms trade have made it possible for medium-sized and even small countries to acquire weapons of terror: chemical, biological and, ultimately, even nuclear. The United Nations has the particular responsibility of trying to bring about the regulation and limitation of the international arms trade. Countries, however poor and small, have a right to the means of conventional self-defence, but the weapons of modern terror are another matter. They demand urgent international regulation.
All those issues can be dealt with inside the present United Nations Charter but it needs adapting in fundamental ways. All noble Lords were fascinated to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who helped to draft the original Charter. His years have not dimmed his constructive zeal for progress in international order, nor the fertility of his mind in seeking practical reforms in the United Nations machinery.

1189
The speech of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, reminded me that a companion of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, at the San Francisco conference was the then Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee. I read that he went to the conference as an idealist but not a starry-eyed idealist. He remarked that any hope for the United Nations depended upon the agreement of the great powers. That is now a cliché but perhaps not then so obvious.
For the first time since the foundation of the United Nations we have that agreement among the great powers, however temporary it may be. We all hope that it will last much longer. There has been a fateful act of will to go to collective war in the interests of peace. Surely it cannot be starry-eyed to urge that the sacrifices of life by both sides in the Gulf war should give us a powerful reason to seek to make the United Nations charter more effective in order to prevent any repetition of the kind of aggression through which Saddam Hussein has plunged his people, and many others, into such suffering.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for introducing the debate today. No one can disagree with the fact that it is timely. It is extremely helpful and useful to discuss at this time the role of the United Nations. The discussion is not confined to the Gulf war but extends to the lessons that can be drawn from the way in which the UN has behaved in relation to it which will serve us well in the future.
The United Nations, analysed as it has been by many noble Lords during the past six months, has come in for considerable criticism. As always I enjoyed the eloquent pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. Again he told the House that nations are moved by their perceptions of national interest. Of course they are; no one questions that for an instant. However, I am sure he will agree that perceptions of national interest are not static; they change. It may be that a number of countries now perceive their national interests to lie in having an effective and efficient mechanism at an international level for settling international disputes. I am conscious of the fact that the Soviet Union now clearly perceives the United Nations as being a body which it is in its national interests to support. I do not say that that view will be permanent, that it will be written in tablets of stone in the Kremlin wall, and that hereafter the Soviet Union will always behave with the degree of rationality that we in the West hope for. However, I am saying that for the first time since 1945 perceptions of national interests held by the world's major countries appear to be converging.
I have always understood that one of the UN's objectives is to provide an international institution for settling situations where perceptions of national interest differ. One must have some way of resolving a dispute between countries which may feel equally deeply about their national interests. If there is no way of settling such disputes by peaceful means, the outlook for the world is sad.
1190
I wish to make a general point. My noble friend Lord Hutch of Lusby, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and other noble Lords castigated what the United Nations has done and is doing in the Gulf. The right reverend Prelate said that it does not look like a genuine UN operation; rather that the UN appears to have been hijacked. I wish to make a small plea. If we have a situation in which the Security Council agrees with the United States we must not assume that the Security Council has gone wrong. If one looks at the history of the resolutions dating back to 2nd August it is instructive to consider the wealth of experience of the various countries which are members of the Security Council. The council does not consist only of the five permanent members; there are 10 non-permanent members. Most of the resolutions that were passed relating to the Gulf episode received the conscious approval of all the non-permanent countries.
Which countries have been hijacked by the United States and the United Kingdom during the past few months? I shall name them, and your Lordships can draw your own conclusions. Three are African countries; Zaire, Ethiopia and the Ivory Coast. That is a fair spread of African opinion and it is interesting to note that there is not one Anglophone country among them. There are two Western countries, Canada and Finland, and one Eastern European country, Romania. There are two Asian countries; Malaysia and the Yemen, and, finally, a Caribbean and a South American country, Cuba and Colombia. If one adds to those countries the five permanent members one has a fair spread of international opinion that will be difficult to emulate and almost impossible to surpass.
What happened when the issue came before the Security Council? It is extraordinary that the original resolutions —even going back to Resolutions 660 and 661—were expressed to be under Chapter VII of the Charter. When I was in New York I was vigorously instructed that no language that even hinted at action under Chapter VII would be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. That appeared to be a recurrent instruction sent to all UN ambassadors. However, I must confess—and I do not do so with pride—to having cast three vetoes in one morning. I and two other Western ambassadors cast a total of nine vetoes in 12 minutes. All related to southern African resolutions not because they fell under Chapter VII but because they merely hinted at action under that Chapter.
We have now reached the stage when the world community as a whole, faced with an act of aggression, can almost immediately move international action under the enforcement provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter. That is extraordinarily encouraging—
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I made clear in my remarks the fact that I too found most encouraging the initial coming together of all those nations in the Security Council. However, I made the

1191
point that the military operation did not look like a United Nations operation because of the strength of the American involvement.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with respect, I regard that as being about a point and a half down the road this afternoon.
I wish to make a further comment about the way in which co-operation appears to be developing in the United Nations. I hesitate to say that it is a case of cause and effect but the situation has improved enormously since I left. The degree of co-operation, discussion and co-ordination that is now taking place among the five permanent members of the Security Council is extraordinary. One has reached a stage where there is almost a rotating chairmanship of one of the five permanent members. There are regular meetings; I believe that there is even a rudimentary secretariat. One has reached a situation in which the spirit of the Charter is being implemented by the five so-called most powerful countries on earth although it is possible to argue whether Britain and France should still be included in that category. I accept that argument. I accept also that if one looks at amendments to the Charter, one is opening a Pandora's Box and that, as Ernest Bevin once said, "Who knows what Trojan horses will come out of it?" The fact is that at present the Charter is beginning to operate in the way envisaged.
Perhaps I may deal with a point raised by the right reverend Prelate. If one looks at the enforcement provisions of the Charter, it is clear that prima facie the direction of action must lie with the Security Council. It is clear also that there are a number of articles in the Charter and a number of hoops through which one must go before one reaches a stage of a UN war. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that this is not a UN war under Article 42 of the Charter. If it were, the Military Staff Committee of the Security Council would be playing a much more active part. The words of Article 47 are:
"The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked Out subesquently".
Therefore, if it is an enforcement provision under Article 42, then prima facie the Military Staff Committee must be involved in that way.
I must say to your Lordships that I do not believe that that is possible at present. Whether one believes it to be desirable as an intellectual exercise that a war should be run by a Military Staff Committee consisting of the five chiefs of staff of the five permanent members is one question. However, the technology of warfare has outstripped the decision-making process as envisaged in the treaty. Matters are progressing too quickly on a technological level on the battlefield for a Military Staff Committee as at present constituted to be able to exercise the control which the Charter seems to envisage.
I come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill. If out of the Gulf war there emerges a general feeling that the Charter needs to be looked at again so that those enforcement provisions and the difficulties of grafting the Charter's provisions on to
1192
the technology of modern warfare can he overcome, then some good will come out of the war not only in relation to Kuwait but more generally.
I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for raising the issue. There is a club of people who at some stage have worked for the United Nations. I believe that we should have a tie so that we are all recognisable. However, in the time honoured phrase, very few of us who have worked there have failed to go native. One goes native because the UN is a unique organisation in which one sees a genuine attempt to create an international consensus at the highest possible level. I found my work there inspiriting. It was occasionally depressing but—if I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—I was more optimistic about the organisation when I came out than when I went in.
5.3 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy with his great experience for initiating this debate and indeed to those of your Lordships who have taken part in it. It is timely because Chapter VII of the UN Charter has never been invoked as much as in the past six months. Through the handling of the Gulf crisis, parts of the UN Charter regarded by many commentators as a dead letter have been shown to possess unexpected life and potential.
The preamble of the UN Charter begins by noting the determination of the people of the United Nations:
"to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war".
The question of how to do this is the specific subject of the 13 articles of Chapter VII. They therefore form a cornerstone of the Charter as a whole.
As the Motion states, Chapter VII deals with:
"action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression".
Together with Chapter VI, dealing with the "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", it sets out the special powers accorded to the Security Council so that the council may exercise the:
"primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security"
conferred on it by the members of the United Nations under Article 24 of the Charter.
The provisions of Chapter VII reflect the concerns of the drafters of the Charter, at the San Francisco conference in 1945, to set up a system for the maintenance of international peace and security which would be more effective than that of the League of Nations. The League's provisions in this area had shown themselves to be inadequate. Under the League's covenant, each member state had been allowed to reserve the right to determine for itself whether the hostile actions of another state amounted to a breach of the covenant, and whether or not to comply with the League's recommendations—for they were no more than that on how to respond. The events of the 1930s had demonstrated all too clearly the fatal shortcomings of such a system.

1193
With the drafting of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, these shortcomings were tackled by explicitly concentrating the power to take decisive action on the Security Council. The council was given the power to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression and what should be done about it. Moreover, under Article 25 of the Charter, all members of the United Nations are bound to accept and carry out the council's decisions. Under Article 103, obligations arising under the Charter prevail over a member's obligations under other international agreements.
Action may only be taken by the Security Council under Chapter VII where there is a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression. All decisions of the Security Council on non-procedural matters require the concurring votes of the five permanent members. It is chiefly for this reason that the council has so rarely determined that such a situation exists. Through the long decades of the cold war, occasions when the five permanent members—in particular the United States and the Soviet Union—took a common view were rare. Before the present crisis in the Gulf erupted on 2nd August last year, the council had only done so explicitly in six cases: Palestine in 1948, Korea in 1950 (in the absence of the Soviet Union), Southern Rhodesia in the late 1960s and 1970s; South Africa in 1977; the Falklands in 1982; and the Iran/Iraq war in 1987.
Where a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression exists, the Security Council has the choice of either making recommendations for action or deciding on mandatory measures. These mandatory measures can be ordered under Article 41, which covers measures not involving the use of armed force, such as complete or partial interruption of economic, transport and communication links, and the breaking of diplomatic relations. The economic sanctions against Rhodesia and the arms embargo against South Africa are examples of this.
If non-forcible measures are insufficient, Article 42 provides for the Security Council to take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. However, the five permanent members have never been able to agree which forces should be put at the council's disposal and what they should do. Articles 43 to 45, relating to agreements between member states and the Security Council for the provision of forces and other assistance, have never been implemented.
Perhaps it may be opportune to pause and consider a quotation from the then Sir Gladwyn Jebb, now the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, one of the founding fathers of the Charter, which he made in the Security Council on 7th July 1950 in connection with the Korean war. He said:
"Had the Charter come fully into force and had the agreement provided for in Article 43 of the Charter been concluded, we should, of course, have proceeded differently, and the action to be taken by the Security Council would no doubt have been founded on Article 42. As it is, however, the
1194
Council can naturally act only under Article 39, which enables the Security Council to recommend what measures should be taken to restore international peace and security".
Subsequent articles of Chapter VII also remain unfulfilled. Articles 46 and 47 deal with the Military Staff Committee, consisting of the chiefs of staff of the permanent five members or their representatives, and tasked according to Article 47 with:
"advising and assisting the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament".
The Military Staff Committee was duly established in 1945, and has continued to this day to meet roughly twice a month. However, in the absence of any forces placed at the council's disposal on the basis of the special agreements referred to in these articles, it has never exercised the responsibilities orginally envisaged for it.
Perhaps my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, as a military man, would agree that it is difficult to believe that the five members of the Military Staff Committee could have undertaken the strategic direction of armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council with anything like the speed and efficiency of the coalition commanders.
Articles 48 and 49 concern implementation of Security Council decisions by the members of the United Nations. Article 50 deals with the question of assistance to states which find themselves confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of measures taken by the Security Council. This article was invoked by various front line states when sanctions were placed on Rhodesia. Finally, Article 51, the chapter's concluding article, records the important principle that the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence remains unimpaired by the other provisions of the Charter, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
I turn now to the present. The application of Chapter VII during the Gulf crisis has shown that it has sufficient versatility to cope with circumstances that might not have been directly anticipated by its drafters in 1945.
The present crisis in the Gulf represents the seventh occasion when the Security Council has made an explicit formal determination that there exists a breach of international peace and security under Article 39 of the Charter. It was undoubtedly right to do so. A more unequivocal breach of the Charter than Saddam Hussein's aggression against Kuwait is hard to imagine. It is also the third occasion when the Council has proceeded to call for mandatory measures under Chapter VII, imposing comprehensive economic sanctions on Iraq and occupied Kuwait under Security Council Resolution 661. These were subsequently reinforced by maritime enforcement measures under Resolution 665 and an air embargo under Resolution 670. Resolution 665 also provided for the use of mechanisms of the Military Staff Committee. On five occasions in the second half of

1195
1990 ad hoc meetings of the Military Staff Committee provided a forum for the exchange of information on the measures taken by maritime forces to enforce the embargo.
Other articles of Chapter VII have also been invoked as part of the council's response to the Iraqi invasion. Resolution 669 led to the establishment of a special working group of the council's Sanctions Committee, to consider requests for economic assistance under Article 50, from states suffering economic disruption as a result of applying sanctions. The working group dealt with applications from 19 countries in the last quarter of the year.
Article 51 of Chapter VII was invoked in Resolution 661, affirming the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in response to Iraq's armed attack on Kuwait. This inherent right provided a firm legal basis for the government of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to request the assistance of the armed forces of other states following the Iraqi invasion.
The comprehensive economic sanctions imposed by Resolution 661 represent only one form of the mandatory measures under Chapter VII called for by the council in response to the Gulf crisis. Since 15th January the member states co-operating with Kuwait have been authorised to use all necessary means to that end in the face of persistent Iraqi intransigence. They have resorted to military force in order to see the council's resolutions implemented and upheld.
The council has not invoked Article 42 explicitly and the command and control arrangements of the forces continue to be handled by host nations and contributing countries for reasons of military efficacy. Nevertheless—and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, made the point to the right reverend Prelate better than I can—it is because of Resolution 678 that the forces are operating just as much on the basis of UN authority as if they were under UN command.
I have no doubt that when the present crisis is over much thought will be given to its lessons and the issues raised in this debate will be much discussed. One theme will be the lessons learnt from the implementation of sanctions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, majored on this in a most interesting and apposite speech. He drew attention to the importance of Article 41 in the scheme of Chapter VII and the considerable practical and legal difficulties of imposing economic sanctions.
Sanctions have been, quite rightly, a central pillar of the international community's response to the Iraqi invasion. The operation of the embargo represents a comprehensive indictment of Iraqi aggression. Sanctions have been almost universally enforced. Iraq has suffered considerable economic dislocation. Its oil exports have been effectively stopped; its imports reduced to a trickle, and its access to foreign exchange drastically cut back. But, as my noble friend Lord Beloff reminded the House, the key test of their effectiveness would have been whether sanctions forced Saddam Hussein to change his policies and to comply with the Security Council's resolutions. This
1196
they did not do. Nor was there any evidence that sanctions alone would do so. There are many who would agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that they would never do so. Iraq has taken steps to increase its domestic food production. Key military industries, supplying one of the world's largest armies, have been insulated from the effects of the embargo. And meanwhile the ordeal of the Kuwaiti people continued.
Sanctions were, and remain, a significant element in the international pressure on Iraq to withdraw its forces from Kuwait. In terms of their effectiveness, they mark the most thorough and comprehensive application of sanctions ever. And yet even they were not conclusive. Economic pressure alone was an inadequate match for military aggression. In these circumstances, and with the UN's authority, it was right to resort to the use of force.
Nevertheless the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, claimed that he had given me evidence that sanctions would work. He has not. He has now summarised on three occasions what Judge Webster said to the House Armed Services Committee on 5th December, and each time he has changed the wording of what was said. In contrast to the inaccurate generalisations that he has made let me quote from Judge Webster's statement. He said:
"Our judgment has been and continues to be that there is no assurance or guarantee that economic hardships will compel Saddam to change his policies".
It is impossible to predict at this stage how the Security Council will respond to future crises. But we must be realistic. There is no immediate prospect of the conclusion of the special agreements on the provision of forces and other assistance referred to in Articles 43 to 45. Consequently—as will be deduced by my noble friend Lady Elles from what I have said—the full activation of the Military Staff Committee or the establishment of a standby UN deterrent force is not on the short-term agenda either.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I can ask whether the noble Earl intends to take just that small section of the quotation from Judge Webster.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I quoted exactly from Judge Webster's statement. I did not make a generalisation, as did the noble Lord.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that is being selective.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it would be wrong to conclude from this that Chapter VII has been in some sense deficient. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, described it as out of date. I would submit that the council's handling of the Gulf crisis suggests the opposite. To the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I would quote one great expert on the Charter, Sydney Bailey, who said:
"The challenge is not to draft a better Charter: it is to make better use of the Charter we have".
I take issue with those noble Lords who argued that Chapter VII is out of date in the sense that it needs revision. The Charter is a flexible instrument and has

1197
proved its worth on this occasion. It would be very dangerous to open the Pandora's Box, to which some noble Lords have already referred. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, with his profound experience of the UN, reminded us that response has been unprecedented, and of the hope that that offered.
A series of 12 powerful resolutions have been adopted under Chapter VII, all unanimously or with overwhelming majorities. There has been the closest co-operation between the council's five permanent members. Ad hoc mechanisms of the Military Staff Committee have proved their worth for the exchange of information on naval deployments and the maritime embargo. Resolution 678 has shown that there are ways of giving a multi-national force the authority of the United Nations under Chapter VII of the Charter, while retaining the military advantages of leaving responsibility for command and control arrangements with the nations involved.
In his speech the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, drew attention to the preamble to the Charter and surely its most poetic part. If we read on we come to these words, which I believe are particularly relevant to what the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, said:
"To live together in peace with one another as good neighbours and to unite their strength to maintain international peace and security."
I do not follow the noble Earl down the path which he wanted to go in comparing cases. They are all different. The United Nations itself as an institution certainly cannot be blamed if it fails to resolve all the disputes in the world. Unfortunately, there has not always been unanimity among the members of the United Nations on past occasions. The world has changed radically since the Charter was drafted and will no doubt go on doing so. I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy that the important matter is that the Charter is sufficiently flexible to tackle specific situations quickly and effectively. The Security Council has shown in the past six months that this is indubitably so. It is no exaggeration to say that it is at last acting with the vigour, determination and authority which its drafters envisaged.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I have a few minutes left in this limited-time debate, but it is difficult to say as much as one would wish. I wish to reply to two or three points raised about my opening speech. I pointed to the fact that the Military Staff Committee, although formed, had never operated with agreement as intended. I would like to make it clear that I do not suggest that it should do that. I think that the time for formal agreements, with contingents earmarked, is well past. I agree with what has been said about that. Whether or not more is done in the MSC, there should be a focus for provisional consideration of suitable contributions from members in a crisis. A great deal more work could be done on that in peace-time. That can be done in all kinds of
1198
fields. I refer, for example, to the financial and medical side, because field hospitals and the like are greatly needed.
That need not affect the command structure. I should like to make it clear again that my interpretation of Article 47, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, allows for command matters to be worked out subsequently, as stated. To my mind that means separately. What happened both in Korea and in the Gulf is that a commander was appointed outside and not connected with the MSC. That is in line with my interpretation of that part of the Charter.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for his contribution to the debate based on the five years of his distinguished career as our ambassador at the United Nations. He spoke of a club of people who had worked there. Perhaps I may give an illustration of that in my own case. After having been a junior Minister in a Conservative Government in another place, I was asked immediately after the election to join, and I served on, the panel of advisers on the United Nations which the Labour Party set up in accordance with its election manifesto.
There has always been a bi-partisan approach within British politics to United Nations' affairs. That is to be welcomed and is most refreshing. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Caithness for his reply, knowing that he has just come back having spent five days in the Far East. He dealt with most of the important points, if not all of them. As we are now engaged in a war, perhaps I may mention that his father and I were in the same brigade of a Scottish division for two years. We took part in some major military actions which we both had the good luck to survive. I am now delighted that my noble friend is taking a leading part in the world's councils.
I agree with what he said at the end of his remarks. The main and realistic course is to make better use of the Charter as it is. We can see what has not been done and what could be better done. We might redraft it if we had another chance now, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said in a very thoughtful speech. The most realistic policy is to make it work as best we can. That has been done in the case of the Gulf crisis, but I believe that a great deal of work needs to be done when that crisis is over. Work should be done under the Charter in improving arrangements for any future situation of the same kind. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Farm Commodities: Over-Production
5.26 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley rose to call attention to the case for controlling over-production of farm commodities in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the problems of the United Kingdom cannot be resolved in isolation. We must have regard to the European and indeed worldwide food surpluses. British agriculture is

1199
virtually bankrupt. One of the main reasons is over-production. I ask your Lordships: what can we do about it? I believe that we must all accept the fact that we are bankrupt. Until we do that we shall make no progress in solving our problem. I say "our problem" because it is not just the Government who are to blame; we all are. We pay too much for our agricultural land; we pay uneconomic rents, and that is partly caused by roll-over relief and a natural human desire to farm. The great difficulty is being able to get out of farming once you are in it.
The high land prices and rents then force farmers to produce more, so adding to the problem. We shall not solve our problem until we recognise our bankrupt state and so force down land prices and rents, thus allowing us to farm less intensively. Governments must also shoulder some blame in encouraging us over past decades to go down that path. My point is that we must accept the situation, stop crying over spilt milk, and try to solve our problem. The first requirement in solving it is to discover the aim of British agriculture. Without a clear objective we shall fail.
In any policy to control surpluses we must insist at the end of the day that the centuries of achievement and work which have made British agriculture, dynamic, resourceful and efficient, must be preserved and indeed encouraged. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure fair trading conditions, so enabling a reasonable livelihood for those remaining in farming. If my noble friend Lady Trumpington does not agree with that objective—and I think she does—I hope that she will say what her alternative is. Certainly the MacSharry proposals, concentrating support on the very small part-time farmer, would do the opposite. Why subsidise inefficient peasant holdings at the expense of the British farmer and farm worker?
I believe that any other objective, particularly the MacSharry proposals, will cause the following problems. First, they will cause higher food prices that will encourage imports and make us lose our markets; secondly, they will lead to an inefficient high-cost, unhygienic and indeed dangerous peasant agriculture; thirdly, they will place an impossible strain on the GATT negotiations and destroy—this is possibly what I mind most—the soul of the farmer. Will any farmer wish to produce half crops or manage livestock inefficiently? Will he have any self-respect left if he has to live off social security payments, as suggested by MacSharry? Fourthly, they will cause more environmental damage because an illiterate, struggling peasant agriculture will not have the ability to keep and improve our countryside. I hope that I have carried your Lordships with me so far. The question is: how do we achieve our objective?
First, as I have said before, we must all recognise that, as we are bankrupt, the do-nothing situation is just not an option. Indeed it would encourage more production, resulting in more bankruptcies. Moreover, time is not on our side. We have dillied and dallied far too long and a decision is essential. I used to think that the way forward was market forces, or
1200
the devil take the hindmost. This could still work if we had a level field, but sadly this is not possible, or certainly not possible in the short term.
If I may, I will give my usual simple example, which I know always irritates my noble friend on the Front Bench. If I am to have a level field I must be allowed to take out useless hedges, perhaps have all rectangular 100-acre fields and be allowed to burn my straw. The ban on burning will cost me £30 an acre; I am not allowed to burn, and, moreover, I am not compensated for it. So the level field already has a trench in it. Of course these are only small examples.
The market forces philosophy will not work unless the public and the Government are prepared to put up with these level field practices. While we are a rich nation, with full, or perhaps overfull bellies, they will not. From a conservation point of view, certainly in many cases they should not. Therefore the free market philosophy to control our surpluses must be coupled with some other form of medicine. The menu of environmental grants, although helping those few who are rich enough to indulge in such practices anyway, will not help the working farmer. There must be, in the short term at least, some form of production control. For instance, if it is necessary to reduce production of arable crops by, say, 10 per cent. to get into a non-surplus situation, there should be a compulsory—I repeat, compulsory—set-aside in excess of that 10 per cent. figure. I would hope very much that the set-aside payment could be enhanced on environmental grounds to encourage a grass set-aside with restrictions on how it should be extensively farmed.
We ought also to consider redundancy payments to help farmers and farm workers leave the industry for, sadly, we still have too many farmers. It may also be necessary in some commodities to have quotas. But they must be transferable so as to encourage the efficient and to enable the inefficient to get out. This would allow our farms to be farmed efficiently and cost effectively. Once the surplus problem is solved it should be possible to open our gates to imports, perhaps with some form of deficiency payments. I accept that in the first few years my scheme would require more bureaucracy, but not that much more in the United Kingdom where we have relatively large holdings. If other European Community countries prefer a different method, so be it, provided that they do not make the field less level. If they wish to keep their part-time peasant farmers on the land, they should be supported out of national social payments not agricultural ones.
I strongly believe that we should not sacrifice our efficient and progressive British agriculture on the altar of the European Community inefficient and high-cost peasant system. We have tried the carrot of voluntary controls on production and they have not worked, so now it must, sadly, be a question of the stick in the form of compulsory supply management to get our surpluses under control. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for his choice of subject and for the able manner in which he introduced this important subject to the House this evening. There are in our opinion three aspects which need to be stated at the outset: first, the effects of any GATT settlement on Community agricultural policy; secondly, the recently tabled proposals by Commissioner MacSharry for the future of the CAP; and, thirdly, but no less important, the European Commission's own work programme for 1991 which includes a review of the financing of the European Community, evaluation of the common agricultural policy and re-examination of the common agricultural policy. All these are outwith the direct control of the Ministry of Agriculture. Therefore any production controls in Britain will necessarily mirror settlements reached elsewhere and especially those reached in Brussels.
The United Kingdom is again in a position of having to respond to Community proposals. It has no powers of initiative. This is both a weakness and certainly the price that we pay for the indirect system of democracy which exists in the European Community. The position is aggravated in my opinion by the fact that Britain's nominees to the Commission itself have never held the agricultural portfolio. The last three were Danish, Dutch and Irish in that order. That suits very well the other major agricultural member states such as France, Germany and Italy. All are small farmer nations and current retrenchment policies, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has pointed out, are geared to suit small farmers, especially when social payments to compensate for low guarantee prices are included. This perpetuates the existing small farm structure in Europe and therefore must automatically penalise United Kingdom farmers.
Britain's position under Commissioner MacSharry's proposals looks like being our worst ever. We pay a major part of the cost of the common agricultural policy, yet the policy is now being restructured in a way which we know will penalise British farming. We must ask ourselves whether the Minister of Agriculture is wise to seek merely to change present proposals. Mr. Gummer played a significant part in getting fellow agriculture ministers in the Community to face the reality of the GATT negotiations, but he now appears to believe that he can negotiate a solution to the consequences of any GATT settlement which will not excessively penalise British farmers nor add to costs for British consumers. In our opinion, he cannot.
More radical reforms are necessary than have been mooted so far, including a critical look at the five objectives of the common agricultural policy enshrined in the Treaty of Rome, some of which are now unreal. If amendments are required to the treaty, we should declare for them. After all, we conceded as much if not more in agreeing to the Single European Act which included the extension of majority voting in the Community.
1202
No one denies the fact that without a common agricultural policy it is unlikely that the European Community would have been formed in the first place. We are however on the verge of forming a Community where most internal trade barriers will have been removed. We must ask ourselves whether present commodity regimes for agricultural products in the Community can be justified after 1992. If fundamental change along those lines is unacceptable to the agriculture ministers at present, then a start should be made by repatriating responsibility for those commodity regimes which are not of major significance in all member states. Tobacco, sheep meat, rice and wine come to mind. Regimes may remain in the Community for those commodities which are basic to member states, such as cereals, milk and beef. Here again, one should add the rider that they must be subject to eventual repatriation.
Such a policy would permit specialised retrenchment in the Community. I believe that most people who have had experience of expansion and retrenchment in business will recognise at once that it is relatively easy to expand, but that it is significantly difficult to retrench. In particular, where entrenchment involves an element of justice such as is now necessary under the common agricultural policy, it becomes infinitely more difficult in our view to retrench justly for 12 member states rather than allow the member states to engage in such retrenchment as is necessary. We believe that Britain, as a paymaster of the common agricultural policy, needs to be less wedded to the concept of an all-embracing CAP after 1992. By merely seeking to reform existing proposals which are unhelpful to us, we run the risk of being outvoted in the process of seeking to change the present proposals.
Plans to curb over-production devised thus far in Brussels will, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, neither help our farmers nor stifle the complaints of British consumers. Even as a negotiating ploy—such ploys are very important as we well know when dealing with the common agricultural policy—we should now be making strong repatriation noises in Brussels, especially at meetings of finance ministers. I say that because in the final analysis it is the finance ministers who will control agricultural spending and any policies of retrenchment under the common agricultural policy.
In a sense, to engage now in proposals for specific commodities may merely encourage the continuance of present proposals. If we must retrench, then we believe that that can best be done by our own agricultural ministry in England and Wales as well as by the agricultural departments, which are no less important, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. In our opinion, we ought to be saying that loud and clear. One hopes that one of the consequences of this debate will be that we shall have fresh thinking on the overall problem, without becoming enmeshed in the details of which commodities to produce and in what fashion we propose to produce them.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for raising this important issue and for opening the debate in such a thoughtful and admirably brief speech. I find myself caught rather unprepared by the brevity of the speeches which we have heard thus far. Nevertheless, I shall do my best to emulate them. I have also been thrown by the sight of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, sitting on the Bishops' Benches. I must tell him that he would for my money, make a most welcome addition to them. Finally, by way of apologia, I must admit that I have not as yet had the opportunity to read the MacSharry Report. However, from what I have heard, it is not all bad.
When I saw the Motion on the Order Paper I was a little suspicious because it refers to "controlling over-production". It aroused my mean economist's suspicions of further devices and dodges such as quotas, licences, set-asides, funny money like the MCAs, and other short-term expedients; but what we want is not so much to control over-production as to put an end to it. The method is not more fancy franchises, but more free trade in world markets, including Eastern Europe, with less subsidised prices, as the USA and the Cairns Group have been urging on the benighted EC. If there were any suspense involved I would spare your Lordships from waiting by saying that, in a nutshell, my argument is that the mischief of over-production is the perverse result of well-intentioned political efforts to control markets by faking the price system. I believe that there are better policies available to match our chosen ends.
A week ago in Moscow with the temperature at 28 degrees below freezing I saw a group of young Russian market economists positively boiling with rage at the effect of artificially low shop prices which create queues and shortages of what passes as foodstuffs, though they are more stuffs than food. Today, with the temperature somewhat warmer, I shall try to keep cool in denouncing the opposite effect of artificially high producer prices which create the surpluses about which the noble Lord complains.
On the return flight from Moscow I read an article in the British Airways Business magazine on the crisis in Europe's agriculture. It confirmed that it is not only the taxpayers and consumers who are suffering under the CAP but also a large part of the farming community for whose benefit the entire game is supposed to be rigged. I stand before your Lordships in the unlikely disguise of a farmer's friend.
Over the years, party men like to talk about keeping the countryside in good heart, with independent yeoman farmers eagerly preparing for the next harvest. It is true that the minority of big farmer-landowners may still be flourishing—although they may deny that fact—but the drift from the land continues, driven by high rents or mortgages and interest rates which absorb the lion's share of more modest incomes. They leave behind many others who are apprehensive of the vagaries of future European politics.
1204
The article in the British Airways magazine referred to farmers selling off their land for various leisure pursuits and warned that if all the golf courses being planned in the South East were actually built we could before long be facing the equivalent of a golf mountain; though I predict that that will not happen so long as people are using their own money.
Faced by such nightmares, I turned for illumination and hope to a recent IEA Hobart paperback entitled Farming for Farmers? by Richard Howarth of University College, Bangor. He has obligingly written a popular version for the Bruges Group of which I confess to being chairman. You do not have to be a paid-up Bruges-ite to find the whole story both shocking and alarming. With analysis and statistics, Mr. Howarth explains how it is that, despite a family of four paying about £1,000 a year in higher prices and taxes, the majority of small farmers derive little, if any, benefit from this macabre game of pass the parcel. Figures vary, but it appears that the public may be paying £2 for every £1 of theoretical benefit conferred on the farmer. But in a recent year, of total farm subsidies costing two-thirds the EC budget well over half was absorbed in storing surpluses, paying subsidies to export them and administering the whole crazy system. We do not know how much of that goes in fraud, which is estimated to abstract at least 10 per cent. of the total budget under the somewhat complacent control of Monsieur Jacques Delors.
The full tally of wickedness includes what the economists call the "Ricardo" effect of high guaranteed prices and quotas becoming embodied in higher land values, the harm which intensive farming inflicts on the environment, the havoc that surpluses wreak on world markets and the damage subsidised exports impose on farmers in less developed lands.
However, noble Lords will be glad to hear that Mr. Howarth is no doctrinaire. He acknowledges a case for helping small farmers; not by price fixing which he thinks should be phased out but by direct support for low farm incomes and by encouraging the growing trend towards diversification.
We are already seeing the expansion of deer farming, wine production, organic food, and farm shops, as well as catering for leisure pursuits such as nature trails, farmhouse holidays, camping, canoeing, even war games, as well as sports—favoured, I am told, by your Lordships—such as riding, shooting and fishing.
Mr. Howarth foresees the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food being wound up—or wound down—in favour of the Department of the Environment; though not I hope, I hasten to add, during the amiable tenure of the Minister. Such a change could dramatise an extension of existing grants for conservation areas. That need not rule out building developments, including contemporary country houses and balanced modern villages, as well as the tasteful conversion of farm buildings into holiday cottages, restaurants, craft workshops and retirement homes. We can argue how extensive such grants and subsidies should he, but they will be open payments which could be costed and compared with the visible benefits.

1205
Mr. Howarth believes that there is no reason why we should not continue to have prosperous and flourishing agriculture, different in shape perhaps from that which we now see. Above all, a policy along those lines would replace the damaging paraphernalia of price guarantees and the resultant export subsidies and import levies of which the full costs may be less visible or calculable but which are certainly very much larger.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, it is always most refreshing to hear the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I suppose that a man from Mars would be astonished that we can use the words "over-production of farm commodities" in a hungry world less than one-thirtieth of whose surface is suitable for growing crops and whose population is increasing by 200,000 every day. That is a paradox that could be debated ad infinitum.
My noble friend's Motion refers to overproduction in the United Kingdom, but he has explained that he is looking outside the United Kingdom at the wider picture of European Community over-production and its implications for the European budget and the GATT negotiations. Of course those are not new problems. He will remember, from his work on Sub-Committee D, that the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Community has been looking at them since it was set up about 18 years ago.
My noble friend referred to the need for production control. When the Select Committee reported in 1983, Sub-Committee D had looked at the various options for supply control, including control over support prices, quotas, a mixed price system, acreage diversion schemes, production thresholds, deficiency payments and so on. The committee reported again in 1985 on reform of the CAP; in 1986, on cereal surpluses; and in 1988 on stabilisers.
Every year, the committee examined the Commission's annual farm price proposals. Our conclusions have been consistent. We have been opposed to quotas, which, except for certain products such as milk, are difficult to administer and which under a high pricing system are not beneficial to the consumer and prevent an efficient producer from expanding his market at the expense of the less efficient. We have been unenthusiastic about acreage diversion schemes. We were against the limitation of cereals output through a tax on imports, such as nitrogen fertilisers, which would not be conducive to efficient production and would be difficult to organise and police. In general, until now, we have concluded that the CAP must operate to a greater extent through the price mechanism.
In last year's Select Committee report on rural policies, we recognised the inevitability of a greater exposure of farmers to market forces. Nevertheless, we have consistently said that the complete abandonment of support for agriculture would not be acceptable on economic and social grounds. In view of
1206
what noble Lords have referred to as the "MacSharry" proposals, which are currently under discussion in Brussels, it is worth recalling the Select Committee's 1985 report Reform of the CAP, in which we said that where farming became economically unviable in certain areas then the problem should be dealt with as a matter of social and regional policy and not through the price system. My noble friend Lord Stanley said that he agreed with that view. That view was restated in our rural policy report, which we debated last November.
What has happened in the past few years is that there has been much tighter control through the price system and by the means of stabilisers; a milk quota has been in force for seven years; and the produce mountains have shrunk, at any rate in the United Kingdom if not in the rest of the European Community; but so have farmers' incomes. Yet the European Community budgetary problems remain as intractable as ever, and the GATT negotiations are bedevilled by the friction caused by subsidies on the export of farm products.
As industry teeters on the edge of recession, the Commission is now calling for a sharp reduction in price support for European farmers. Those proposals are contained in a paper which I read only this morning, as soon as it became available. It is a communication from the Commission to the Council entitled, The Development and Future of the CAP. It is subtitled, A Reflection Paper. It is those proposals that have been discussed in Brussels this week by the agriculture Ministers. Broadly, what the Commission is saying is that it has so far failed to stem the continued increase in Community budgetary expenditure and that therefore more drastic measures are required to limit production.
The Commission proposes severe cuts in support prices. To compensate, payment will be made to farmers conditional upon land being taken out of production. The proposal is that the amount of support would be scaled according to farm size: the larger the farm, the less the support. No figures are included in that version of the proposals.
In the paper, the Commission is calling for discussions on a fundamental reform of the CAP. It is the intention that Sub-Committee D shall inquire into these proposals forthwith and report to your Lordships. We shall need to consider the implications of an open market approach to agriculture policies and a sharply reduced level of CAP support. I suspect that much of the argument will revolve around the question of whether the price mechanism should be used to achieve social objectives. In view of what we said on the subject in our recent rural society report, I have no doubt that we shall look critically at the suggestions for the modulation of price control. I suspect that we shall see the need for expanded special help for producers in disadvantaged areas. I dare say that we shall once again look hard at any proposals for compulsory controls on output; and we shall consider the need to promote rather than inhibit efficient production. I hope that, if any report to the House on the proposals were to be critical, it would

1207
also be constructive. In that connection, it was interesting to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said, and I shall read his speech with enormous interest.
I am grateful to my noble friend for once again bringing these complex matters to the attention of your Lordships. The views which noble Lords have expressed this evening in the debate will be of great benefit to the Select Committee's forthcoming inquiry.
6 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I urge noble Lords to study carefully the MacSharry recommendations on the future of the CAP. I believe it to be the most important substantive document before the Community so far on the subject. Until we study it carefully and understand its purposes and implications, I do not believe that we can carry on an intelligent debate on the future of surpluses in our agricultural industry.
We are dealing, first, with the need to achieve a Community policy and, secondly, with the need to find an intelligent and acceptable policy for agriculture. When the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley (whom I thank for introducing the debate) asked what was the purpose of agricultural policy, the answer must be in large measure to keep farmers on the land. The land can go to no one else if the environment is to be preserved and the countryside to bear some semblance of care and prosperity, as it has done over the past 30 or 40 years.
Thus we must pay attention to small farmers so long as it is possible to keep them on the land. If we consieer withdrawing support from the larger farms and withholding it gradually from the smaller farms, agriculture will fall into the hands of big agricultural business. My fear is that the pressure on intensive animal husbandry will increase. That is my main interest for my allotted eight minutes.
Until now we have paid insufficient attention to what has been going on in intensive animal production. A letter appeared in The Times this morning which wounded me deeply. I was a member of the Labour Government who were so weak in dealing with the Brambell Report 25 years ago. What an opportunity we had and how we missed it!
Brambell was warning of the conditions in which animals were kept under the intensive system. The report tried to lay down basic conditions for the lives of animals in those circumstances. One demand was that they should be able to turn round; another was that they should be able to lie down on reasonable bedding. Where we failed was in not making more statutory conditions for intensive animal husbandry. We relied too much on the voluntary response of the farming industry to this kind of animal keeping.
The MacSharry Report contemplates pressure for more extensive animal husbandry and curtailing intensive animal husbandry. That is what we ought to do wish the land which may become available for wider use in farming interests. What we have done to pigs in the past 25 years has gone absolutely against the recommendations of the Brambell Report. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. Who called for
1208
alleviation of these dreadful conditions? Not the farmers, not even the veterinary surgeons. It was the animal welfare people who are scorned as cissies by a large section of the community. We should never have allowed this to happen.
When we tackle the conditions we find that capital investment in equipment and processes is so heavy that it becomes almost impossible to get rid of it. Farmers want eight years in which to give pigs a decent life. They would prefer 10 years and the Government think it should be five; or do they? I am not sure. It is possible that the Government also think it ought to be eight years. That is eight years of misery for millions of pigs while we get rid of the cruel equipment in the intensive pig industry today and provide a broader and happier life for one of the most intelligent farm animals. I have said before that pigs are probably as intelligent as some Members of Parliament. They should be able to seek a better understanding of their conditions from Parliament than at present.
I plead for animals. Greater competition may put pressure on intensive husbandry, and we must be careful about that. However, as long as the conditions encourage greater production of meat—sheep meat, beef and so on—we must watch what we do with the surplus. The budget for the Common Market has doubled in the past four years. Production has quadrupled in that time. We are up against a rise in production in the Common Market of 2 per cent. per year, with internal consumption rising only 1 per cent. and farm incomes not improving. The numbers employed in agriculture are falling, with the result that there is a surplus in production which we wish to dump on a stagnant economy in neighbouring countries. That causes friction over the CAP and GATT in our relations with other countries, as well as their internal differences.
This problem can be the source of much discord in the Common Market. Since the European Community will undergo considerable additional strains in the near future, possibly as a result of the Gulf conflict, we do not wish to aggravate members. Let us give every consideration to what may provide a consensus in the CAP. If our own department has a better scheme, let it produce it and tell us more about it. Quite clearly, British people must take a greater interest in agricultural production methods and the industry than in the past. One cannot do to the agricultural industry what one can do to manufacturing industry: leave industrial units of production to close down and say goodbye to the workers and the people who run it.
The land is in the hands of the farming industry. It belongs to the people. We are entitled to know how it is used. If it is used intelligently, with compassion for animals, then we shall probably be happier about it than at present.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, how warmly I commend the debate on how to control agricultural surpluses. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, on bringing the subject to the attention of

1209
the House. However, it seems tragic that, viewed globally, there is no over-production of food. In reality, there is a vast amount of under-consumption, especially if we consider central and eastern Africa, where millions are dying from a lack of food. But perhaps that ought to be the subject of another debate.
It is worth reflecting for a moment on what the so-called surpluses really are. Are the Government aware that just before Christmas the UK had 27 days' supply of butter in stock, 25 of beef and—I am amazed to hear—just one day's worth of wheat? With many nations involved in a dangerous war, I should have thought that these stock levels were surprisingly low.
The Government have always had a strategic and moral responsibility to ensure that the nation is defended and fed. I am sure your Lordships agree that they have done this admirably. However, the partnership between the Government and the agricultural industry is unique. Successive governments from the middle of the last century have fulfilled this responsibility to feed the nation by providing and managing a support system for the means of production of our vital food. Without food, there is no nation.
With indebtedness by UK farmers standing, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, at an all-time record of nearly £7 billion—a 95 per cent. increase over the previous decade —the Government cannot simply walk away from the problem. The Minister in another place has pledged that British farmers will not be disadvantaged. In your Lordships' House too we have heard much sympathy expressed for farmers and their terrible plight. This sympathy is much appreciated but it does not pacify the bank manager, nor does it stave off bankruptcy. We must not forget how the situation has arisen. Most importantly of all, we must remember that farmers throughout Europe have only done what they were told to do.
One often hears the argument that agriculture is facing the same problems as the coal and steel industries have faced. However, the problem is not the same for farmers, in that they were financially encouraged to produce more. They were told to drain the wetlands and to borrow from the bank to make up the shortfall. Suddenly the brakes are on, but the very nature of farming requires long-term planning. Already 90 per cent. of the 1991 wheat harvest is in the ground and growing. No one can realistically hazard a guess at the tonnage or what the financial yield will be. Are the Government aware that a 10 per cent. reduction in the price of wheat paid to farmers would reduce the price of a 60p loaf by just 1p?
A bad spell of weather at the wrong time could easily reduce incomes by up to £150 per acre. That is why any plans to reduce the so-called surpluses must take the long-term future into consideration. The agricultural industry must be sufficiently prosperous to attract new blood into its ranks and to ensure that UK agriculture is competitive with agriculture elsewhere in the world, and most especially in Europe. At the same time farmers must be able to afford to
1210
manage the countryside for conservation and recreation purposes in the ways which the public require and deserve.
In the past some people have dismissed farmers for crying wolf. However, there is nothing mythical about the wolf now at the door not only of farmers but also of many thousands of people in the countryside who depend on a healthy rural economy. The Government have a moral commitment in this matter and they must act now before it is too late. I should be grateful if the Minister will assure the House that the Government will resist most strongly the MacSharry proposals. They discriminate most unjustly against UK farmers and will bankrupt many of them. Despite being criticised by the Council of Ministers earlier this week, the proposals seem likely to creep back via the Commission's farm price proposals which are to be announced shortly. Let us hope that that is not the case.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has said, any discussion of United Kingdom over-production cannot be divorced from European agriculture and the common agricultural policy. The structure of the CAP gives every incentive for over-production. Radical change is essential both from the point of view of the present unsustainable cost of the CAP and of the effect of dumping onto world markets Euro-surpluses at a fraction of their cost. The CAP has not even succeeded in maintaining the incomes of both arable and livestock farmers. Here I must declare a painful interest as I have a dairy and arable farm in Warwickshire.
With this debate in mind, I have considered some of the methods which other countries use to control their agricultural output. I shall not argue whether it is a matter of controlling or stopping output. New Zealand is perhaps the most radical example. There the system of farm support was viewed by farmers themselves as being unsustainable. Over a short period of time from 1984 to 1989 New Zealand made its farming subsidy free. That was achieved at some cost but not at the catastrophic cost that had been forecast. I am told that some 800 farmers out of a total of 50,000 left the industry with compensation. New Zealand fed this country for a long period, including during the war. That country has legitimate cause for complaint when the EC, in spite of a commitment to the contrary, continues to dump cheese and other dairy products on markets that New Zealand has developed. That course lacks both justice and financial common sense.
Neither Australia nor Argentina subsidise their farmers. The US has a system which approximates to Mr. MacSharry's proposals which seem to have been unceremoniously booted into touch this evening. In the United States a deficiency payment is made to those wheat farmers who agree to take 15 per cent. of their land out of production while a further 15 per cent. of the land has to be diverted to other crops. The American farmer receives about a quarter of his gross

1211
income through this deficiency payment. I am told that this is a successful programme and that it has an uptake of about 85 per cent.
I am astounded that British taxpayers have not reacted more strongly to the huge cost of farm support in Europe. After all, the taxpayer foots the bill for wheat at £120 a tonne when the world price is now £40 a tonne or even below. The taxpayer foots the bill for the butter sold to Russia at 1,100 dollars a tonne when it costs the EC 4,000 dollars a tonne. That subsidy amounts to well over twice the world price. Every cow in Europe receives a subsidy that is higher than the per capita income of half the world's population. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can tell the House what dairy stocks are currently held in intervention stores.
The cost of CAP expenditure in the UK alone is quite staggering. It amounted to £1,000 million in 1989–90 and it is estimated to increase by a further £600 million in 1991, while the figure for the EC as a whole last year was £12,000 million. We have had poll tax riots but I have yet to hear of CAP riots. Perhaps we have not had such riots because the taxpayer is unaware of what he or she is shelling out. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, pointed out that it costs each family of four nearly £1,000 a year, or the equivalent of 7p. off the rate of income tax, to support European farming and its attendant surpluses.
The final insult to the British taxpayer is that the great majority of his unwitting contribution goes not to the British farmer—that would probably be bad enough—but to the many French, German and Italian farmers. For many of those farmers farming is only a part-time job anyway. The taxpayer, having paid his subsidy, then pays a second time by buying back his now high-priced goods through the shops. If the CAP is to be reformed, that could easily be the result of a taxpayers' revolt rather than through political debate.
What methods should we consider to reduce these surpluses and the cost of producing and selling them? This evening we have discussed cuts in support prices. I have not had the opportunity to read the paper to which my noble friend Lord Middleton referred. I hope that any of the cuts would bear equally on all producers. However, that may be politically difficult to achieve.
Voluntary set-aside has demonstrably not worked. Grain output increased during the first two years of set-aside. As my noble friend Lord Stanley has commented, compulsory set-aside would probably work. We must, however, realise that we are talking of a large acreage, probably at least 20 per cent. of the total arable acreage to achieve a 10 per cent. reduction in output. I gather that that would amount to about 3 million acres. One could fit a lot of golf courses into that acreage. But what of the rest of the land? Should we use it for mown weeds or long-term tree planting? My noble friend Lord Stanley helpfully suggested extensive grazing. That might be more attractive than the present alternatives. However, at current prices of £90 to £100 an acre for an unspecified period, the set-aside option could end up looking awfully
1212
expensive, leaving aside the image of paying farmers to do nothing—a sort of agricultural dock labour scheme.
Could we not discuss some sort of contract between farmer and government to produce less; say, 20 per cent. less over five years? The farmer could reduce his production by any means he liked, probably by reducing nitrogen and herbicide application, but without the necessity for the bureaucracy that would be entailed in nitrogen rationing. He would be compensated for joining the programme, provided that he reached his target year by year. This would, at least, have the advantage of keeping farmland farmed, maybe in a more environmentally acceptable way, without the disruption to the rural economy that large-scale set aside would entail.
I believe that farmers would welcome constructive proposals such as we have heard tonight. Farm incomes are still falling with no relief in sight and we are still over-producing as hard as we can. I am sure that most of us would back a policy which made real sense for the future, which may well be a combination of some of the proposals that we have heard today. The need is urgent, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has said, and I much look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister what the Government may have in mind.
6.21 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I, too, am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, for introducing this very important debate on farming to your Lordships' House. The European Community's Commission is considering radical revisions of the common agricultural policy, which are designed to control production and reduce surpluses, to protect the environment and to redirect support to some farmers and some regions.
Some of these ideas are extremely worrying for the United Kingdom's medium to large family farms, both livestock and cereal growers, and is leading to a run down of a great industry. It will cause more loss of employment in rural areas and—this is an important point—will compromise the farmer's and landowner's traditional role as managers of the countryside.
I believe that the Community should increase extensification and introduce more appropriate set-aside policies, which could achieve lower levels of production and a more environmentally friendly farming industry. If this is achieved, then local planning authorities must not negate the effect by failing to understand the farmer's predicament, and by putting every possible obstacle in the way of him enjoying his livelihood and maintaining his workforce.
My own workforce at Highclere has decreased from 14 in 1987 to seven today. This not only affects those families very drastically, but also all the non-farming rural industries in villages and small towns which they help to sustain. Only 10 years ago United Kingdom agriculture provided 200,000 full-time jobs. Now there are about 140,000. That points to a severe decline in the economic health of the farming industry which is now at crisis level.

1213
I do not apologise for being anecdotal. This week I was delighted to hear that our family farm had topped the gross margin league table in the Meat and Livestock Commission's single-suckled lowland herds in the south and south-west area. One should have been thrilled but, allowing for fixed costs, we showed only a small profit. I believe that the runner-up just about paid his way. The other 18 have probably all lost money. I think it fair to say that livestock farmers returning figures to the Meat and Livestock Commission are probably among the most go-ahead in the country.
Nothing gave me more sadness in December last year than to have to make redundant two senior staff, both of whom had been with me for over 20 years, and one of their sons. I know that other industries are in a depressed state as well as farming, but they do not get the same hammering from the media as farming. I hope that this debate will put the record straight as to the very serious position that farming is in today and the overall effect that this may have on our countryside generally.
6.25 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend for bringing this very important matter before your Lordships this evening. But I have to say to him, and to my noble friend on the Front Bench, that I do not have quite the same enthusiasm for the set-aside arrangements that have been made recently in order to try to control the production of our crops.
I said to my noble friend when she was introducing a Bill in an admirable way—the amount of work put into it was tremendous and deserved compliment—as I say now, that it is not the right way to go about matters. When we think of it, the set-aside arrangements are a financial incentive to a farmer not to do anything. It is a reward for sitting back and doing nothing. I do not think that in any walk of life one should be rewarded for sitting back and doing nothing.
One day the set-aside arrangements are bound to come to an end. When that time comes, what will happen to the many farmers who have decided to adopt the scheme, to reduce their manpower, to reduce their livestock and to capitalise thereon? It will be much harder to find money then in order to go back into the business of farming and the production of food. It is a dangerous step for farmers to take, although I understand why it was felt to be necessary.
Quotas do not really work—my noble friend Lord Middleton has touched on this point—but some arrangement like that must be looked at far more seriously. It is no good having a farmer on one side of the fence producing four tonnes of wheat to the acre while a farmer on the other side of the fence is being paid to do nothing. Surely to goodness there is a middle road. Is it not possible to devise some form of quota? Is it not possible, as my noble friend Lord Willoughby mentioned, to achieve some reduction in
1214
the use of the fertilisers and nitrogen which seem to get into our water systems, causing great concern to many people?
I do not expect to carry everybody with me, and I see a noble Lord shaking his head, but we ought to address ourselves to these points. Why have an enormous input into some areas in order to maximise output when there could be a lower general level? That would benefit the conservation side. Instead of the combine finishing harvesting in August or in July with the plough following close behind and the field being sown again immediately in order to get increased production—earlier sowing, increased production—why not leave the stubble as they used to do and encourage the wildlife? You may encourage your game as well as your wildlife, but that is traditionally the source of part of a farm's income.
One does ask the question whether we may perhaps be going down the wrong route. That is my contribution to this debate. I am concerned about set-aside and I believe there should be a better way, such as encouraging lower production. Yes, indeed, the money might have to be found to subsidise and assist farmers and landowners who may suffer a reduction in income, but it would be a better route to take than actually paying people to do nothing.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, very rightly said, the land is there and something has to be done with it. Farmers exist and we have to look after them. I would go one stage further and say that it is not only the farmer but also the landlord who is involved here. It is a partnership, as the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, has said. If the returns from agriculture are such as to prohibit the farmer from gaining a meaningful living and, if he is a tenant farmer, paying a realistic rent to his landlord, then the countryside will be affected. There is no doubt about that.
There exists a popular myth of the landlord with broad acres, worth an awful lot of money and so on; but, realistically speaking, not an enormous amount of return is made out of investment in land and agriculture. I am sure many of your Lordships will know that very well. There are sacrifices to be made by many landlords and indeed farmers, if they own their own farms, for providing the benefits of conservation, such as the planting of trees, the resurrection of hedgerows, the maintenance of stiles and gates along public footpaths, and so on. If the money is not there to carry out these activities the conservation of our countryside will suffer. It is no good handing it over to conservation bodies and so on. It is the people who live and work on the land who actually do it quite well. It can only be done provided proper returns are made, and I come back to where I started: to pay people in any walk of life to sit back and do nothing cannot be the right approach.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, would he not agree that it has been highly profitable to hold land and that the capital value has risen enormously, even though the

1215
return is very small? Would he not agree that this factor has contributed to the rise in costs to the farmer?
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, of course it is perfectly true that the capital value of the land is high, but you do not go around with your land stuffed in your pocket in order to pay for this, that and the other. Indeed, if returns continue to fall, the capital value will continue to fall.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, on instituting such a lively debate, to which one of the most lively contributions so far has been that made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I agree that there is a major problem of over-production in European agriculture and, still more, there is the ghastly waste resulting from the common agricultural policy. Surpluses, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, pointed out in his excellent speech, if not a thing of the past, are not so much with us as they were.
The fundamental problem is technological progress, and in this country technological progress, in crop production at least, has given rise historically to approximately 2 or 3 per cent. increased yield potential year on year. There is no particular reason to suppose that this incremental ability to produce crops will not continue. Therein lies our problem: from the same amount of land, whether we want to or not, we are going to produce more crops; and that is why we must, either physically or through economic sanctions, reduce the incentives to maximise production.
Like many of your Lordships, I must confess to being a large farmer. I have to say that I do not recognise the image of large farmers which we have learnt to expect from the press and which some speakers this evening, like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, have been tempted to follow. I believe that on the whole large farmers in this country are doing an excellent job, producing food efficiently and looking after the countryside. I think most of your Lordships would agree that those of us who live in the countryside, when we do make a bit of money out of farming, are inclined to plough it back into the piece of the countryside we live in and love. There is a warning there: that if the fortunes of agriculture decline too sharply—a point just made by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret—the potential for landowners and farmers to maintain the countryside will be eroded. This applies not simply to ecological considerations but also to the maintenance of many historic buildings in the countryside—not only the great houses but also the historic and beautiful farm buildings which are probably one of the most important features of the English landscape. I suggest that the Government will have to take into account the inability of farmers to maintain these buildings in future and, if they want to preserve the landscape, will have to do something about it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, referred to nitrogen in the water supplies. I had the privilege of being on Sub-Committee D when we were taking evidence on nitrogen pollution. It appears in fact that
1216
most of the nitrogen flowing into the water supplies now was released some 50 years ago when the grasslands were ploughed out at the beginning of the Second World War. It also appeared from that inquiry that nitrogen fertiliser out of the bag, properly used and with the timing of the application in spring, not in autumn, is probably the most efficient way of ensuring that nitrogen does not percolate into the water supply; and ley farming is the worst culprit, I was sorry to learn. It is a very surprising result. And of course the reason why most of us can no longer have bare stubbles in the autumn for the partridges is because we cannot afford to. As most of your Lordships know, spring corn crops do not pay.
I should like to talk for a moment about small farmers. I absolutely agree that there are reasons for subsidising them, but I think it is important that we should look at why we want to subsidise small farmers. I believe that will lead us to certain conclusions as to how they should be subsidised. Do we want to subsidise them because they are producing better quality food? I would suggest the answer is no, because it is not the case. Do we want to subsidise them because they are less costly producers? I do not think that that is the case. Do we want to subsidise them for social reasons? There I think the answer is probably yes; we want to support them for the benefit of the rural community and sometimes perhaps because they have no alternative employment possibilities. Finally, but not least important, we want to subsidise them for environmental reasons, particularly for the sake of the maintenance of the landscape and of the buildings in the countryside.
If we look at those reasons, it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that the most powerful thing any government could do to encourage small farmers would be at once to repeal the existing landlord and tenant legislation. When I was a boy there were eight farms on the estate where I live in East Kent. Now there is one. The reason is entirely because no landlord in his right mind will sign away to a tenant a farm which he knows is going to drop to half or two-thirds of its value the day he signs that lease. However, perhaps that is a matter for another debate.
I believe that the next most valuable thing we can do to help small farmers in the countryside is to create opportunities for part-time work. That would enable people to go on farming in relatively uneconomic agricultural situations, while retaining their self-respect and achieving a reasonable standard of living. In this context, it is worth noting that in Germany more than 50 per cent. of farmers are now part-time farmers. In Redesdale, where I used to farm, I was talking to one of the old farmers the other day. We were going through a list of farmers up and down the valley and there was not one who did not work on forestry in the winter, take paying guests, or have a caravan site. The movement is already there.
Environmental payments, and particularly environmental payments in conservation areas and less favoured areas, are already established and agreed as being a way of helping farmers, and particularly a way of paying farmers to do something useful in terms of management of the countryside. Finally, and as a last

1217
resort, there is the possibility of social subsidies, and social subsidies on a regressive basis so as not to patronise people and not to fossilise the society of the countryside. I see that I am running out of time. I should like to finish by saying how much I look forward to the report of that admirable body, Sub-Committee D.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, the truth is that a planned industry never works. The more subsidy you put into an industry the poorer everybody seems to get. My family have farmed in Cheshire for many generations. I look back and I see the lifestyle that was enjoyed by my grandfather and great-grandfather. Relative to the size of business we run now and they ran then when there were no subsidies, one sees that we have gained nothing from the vast amount of money that has been poured in. This is mainly because of what has happened to it. Every time we have put money in, we have put it in for the wrong reasons. We have put it in to support the inefficient rather than to improve and benefit the industry.
Noble Lords have emphasised the serious difficulty in which agriculture now finds itself. This cannot be emphasised anything like enough. In many parts of the country we have never seen such numbers of farmers going bankrupt. As a result the businesses that depend on farming locally for their living are also disappearing at a phenomenal rate. Within the CAP the British industry has to pull back, even though it is not over-producing.
In fact we do not produce enough temporal food. We have to import a large quantity of milk products and various other products. That would be unnecessary if we were to use all the opportunities that we have. On the other hand we have to look at the fact that since 1945 we have brought into production much land that was never previously thought capable of cultivation. That is because of advances which have made it possible to drain and improve land, to plough up land and to take down woodland. I can see in Wales land ploughed in the last 20 years which for generations previously no one would have dreamt of going anywhere near with a plough.
We have encouraged a lot of land to come in. Now, in the course of events, we have to encourage a lot of land to go out. Even if we are not over-producing in the United Kingdom we have to see ourselves within the European context. As suggested by certain noble Lords, we have to take out certainly up to 2 million acres of land within the next few years. I believe that the right approach is to take it out of production.
One of the difficulties in the past was the fact that people saw ours as an industry that they could plan and control. The best and easiest way for change to evolve in agriculture is to allow the market, as much as possible, to take its place. We can slowly allow farmers to switch to the activities they should be undertaking. I do not agree with many environmentalists. I would also say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the cattle and breeding animals of this
1218
country have never, in the history of time, been so well looked after, so healthy and so fit as they have been over the last 25 or 30 years. They have never suffered less disease. They have never been better cared for by the farmer.
I have travelled round and seen herds of every possible species. They are fitter, better, more effective, and better fed than they have ever been. If I have the misfortune to come back as any other animal, I know that I would prefer the life of an animal in the last 25 years. At any other time in history, I would have sat out in fields up to my neck in mud with nothing to eat. I do not agree with those who say that agriculture, or farming, has had a bad effect on the environment or the animals. The skills and technology to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred, have never been better.
If we are to solve the problems of the future then I believe that the answer is to take out the land and for farmers to move from what is now a subsidised system to a free market system. It has to be accepted within our industry, and most farmers do accept, that that change has to take place. If we are to survive in the ever closer world in which trade has to take place, then we have to trade at world market prices and we have to restructure our industry so that we can cope with world market prices. We can only do that if we stop using money to support production which is uneconomic.
I do not agree with any of the policies put forward which say that we should use what resources are available in the CAP to support marginal producers and those whose enterprise is not viable. Once that decision is taken and we accept that what has to happen is that people have to go out of the business if they cannot run efficiently on a lowering price, then we have to use our resources to help them to get out, and look for the free market structured industry which will then develop. If we are to do that, it will require a fresh look at what people can do with land and how the rural economy actually operates.
As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, if people are going to leave agriculture then the individual has to have something else to do. What we cannot accept, and what will never work, is a concept that says on the one hand that we have to reduce agriculture and reduce production but on the other hand that we cannot use the land for anything else. Many argue that the ideal world is a world where all the farms and all the greenery around us are looked after and are beautiful. Well, that only happens when there is efficiency. People refer to the buildings. The buildings are beautiful, but they were not built in recent times. There have been complaints during discussion of recent Bills —the Planning and Compensation Bill comes to mind—about the poor condition of farm buildings. That has nothing to do with planning. It is because the farmers do not have any money to build any decent farm buildings.
The farm buildings that people take pride in—the buildings that they like to drive around and look at—were built when the industry was prosperous. If you want a prosperous industry you have to encourage

1219
those who are efficient. You have to produce on the land that can produce efficiently and take out of production the land that is inefficient.
It should be clear policy—it has now to be a European policy—that within a period of time agriculture will be taken into a free market where people can produce at world market prices. To do that there is a river to cross. We have supported our farmers so strongly for the last 25 to 30 years that we have to help them to cross the river. We have to give them a pair of Wellingtons or a bridge to show them that we can see a way out and that we have a clear definition of the sort of competitive, effective, and efficient industry that can be a powerful and great force for Britain. We will then see the beautiful countryside and the attractive farms because the farmers will be able to create the wealth to make it possible.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I join with noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for having introduced this topic, which is one of considerable concern to all of us who are at present involved in agriculture. We are grateful to him for having, raised the subject at this time. As a number of noble Lords have intimated, the common agricultural policy is to a large extent a social policy rather than an agricultural policy.
It is understandable that within the EC there should be the aspiration to keep as many farmers as possible on the land. But I consider it basically wrong—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley also said this—to penalise the efficient in order to subsidise the inefficient. It is not an exact parallel, but there are similarities with the collapse of communism, when the inefficient were subsidised at the expense of the efficient. I have seen that in Russia and, more recently, in Poland. I do not believe that that is the answer to the EC problem at the moment.
Furthermore, as noble Lords have said, many of the small farmers, about whom Commissioner MacSharry is quite rightly concerned, are part-time farmers. Moreover, quite a number of them do not farm from the land but from concrete, using the by-products of other industries, such as the brewing industry. In my view those people should not be the recipients of subsidy to the detriment of the efficient farmers. After all, that is what the market economy is all about; namely, that the efficient thrive and the industry slim itself down accordingly.
By contrast with the European farmers to whom I have just referred, in that part of the country from which I come, Northern Ireland, farming is the biggest single industry. It employs about 13 per cent. of the population—not just the farmers themselves but those in the service industries ancillary to it. Most of the farmers are family farmers who own their land. They are not tenant farmers. They are entirely dependent on their own efforts to make their living. For the most part they do not have other jobs. The only way in which they can strive to beat increasing overheads and keep themselves efficient is by expansion, acquiring
1220
either more land or more milk quota. If that opportunity is denied them, people who contribute in a considerable degree to the economy will be put out of business. I am sure that we all agree that it would be disastrous for that to happen in Northern Ireland.
The original purpose of the common agricultural policy was to encourage farmers to produce efficiently what it is possible to produce in their areas. In other words, there is no point trying to grow maize or sugar beet in the northern and western parts of this country where the climate is not suitable for such products. However, in the northern and western parts of the British Isles grass can be grown much better than anywhere else in the European Community. Therefore our grassland-based farming should be encouraged. That is the area to which the Community should be looking for the production of milk, beef and sheep. Let other areas of the Community grow other crops for which they are more suited. If the Community is to be efficient, the original objective of encouraging farmers to do what they can do best should he pursued. That is what the market economy is all about: encouraging people, whether in industry or agriculture, to do what they do best.
There is perhaps also an argument for holding a certain surplus of foodstuffs in the EC. Surpluses are expensive to retain but compared with the possibility of a disaster—perhaps a couple of seasons of bad weather—a surplus probably acts as an insurance policy. If that surplus has to be reduced, as I think it probably does, then contrary to what some noble Lords have said—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said that it would reduce efficiency—I respectfully suggest that a restriction on the use of nitrogenous fertilizer is one of the best ways to do it. Not only would such a restriction reduce production, it would also reduce the risk of leaching of nitrates into the water system.
In contrast to certain other noble Lords, I am afraid that I cannot be enthusiastic about the set-aside system. Most farmers are proud of their land and look after it well. They do not want to see it polluted by scutch grass and other weeds which would take a long time to clean up should the set-aside policy be reversed. Therefore bearing in mind that our land and farmers constitute one of our greatest assets, I suggest that efficient and well-managed farming should be encouraged rather than discouraged.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Aldenham: My Lords, I also should like to thank my noble friend Lord Stanley for introducing this debate. I was slightly surprised to note that the wording of the Motion had been slightly changed. I was also surprised to see that it referred to surpluses in the United Kingdom. I was not aware that there were enormous surpluses in UK agriculture, which I think various other noble Lords also suggested.
I should declare my interest. For the past 10 years I have been a landlord, tenant, partner and indeed proprietor in various farm enterprises, all of them extremely small but not by European standards. With impeccable timing I left the City to enjoy the life of the

1221
open air, in the hope of sharing in the profits of what I thought was a booming industry. I arrived to find a situation which, in retrospect, is not unlike what I believe used to be called the Schleswig-Holstein question: three people understood it; one is dead, one is mad and the other one has forgotten the answer.
Ten years ago the common agricultural policy was basically out of control. Surpluses were rising fast. The public's perception of farmers was not at all that of the dear old Farmer Giles of my youth. I went to a farm very like the one that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, mentioned. It was a London clay farm which was ploughed up as a wartime measure and only survives as mainly an arable farm because of the kindly aid of the common agricultural policy. In my lighter moments I am inclined to say that I am a hobby farmer rather than a professional one because I am certainly not paid to do it. On the other hand, I employ one man full-time and manage to employ two more on a seasonal basis. I am delighted to do so. The same man has been there for 27 years. Like the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, I should be most unhappy to sack someone who has lived for so long in the same place and who knows the farm better than I do.
I could opt for set-aside and I am sure that I should do better out of the land. However, I did not leave the City to do that. As many noble Lords have suggested, I prefer to work in the open air and feel that I am doing something that in theory is useful. I also have doubts about my landlords' views on my setting aside land that I rent from them. I am not 100 per cent. convinced that I should enjoy the alternative, probably of liaising with the local council for more public access. I already enjoy sufficient access because I live only 12 miles from Marble Arch.
I do not believe that country management—that is the maintenance of a beautiful countryside—would be an attractive option without the discipline of working on the land. It is like a theatre set rather than what industry unfortunately calls its factory floor.
The debate is about over supply in the UK. I have read the latest figures for agriculture in the UK and I find it difficult to equate them with serious over supply. Last year we produced a total of 22.5 million tonnes of cereals and we used 1,000 tonnes more than we produced. We are net importers of sugar, potatoes, tomatoes and, I am sorry to say, apples and pears. We also import lamb, beef, pigmeat, poultry, butter and cheese. Of all those commodities we produce less than we consume. Wheatstocks in the UK are now about 75,000 tonnes. I estimate that to be about 3½ lbs. of wheat per head; that is about two loaves.
Certainly there is an over supply in the European Community. Since the reunification of Germany the problem has become worse. I understand that this year 1.5 million tonnes of East German wheat have gone into intervention. That amounts to 14½ lbs. of wheat per head of the population in the European Community. That is a great deal for us to be paying for.
I looked at the original aims of the common agricultural policy. I shall summarise them but I expect that most noble Lords already know them. The
1222
first aim was for efficient production; the second aim was for a fair standard of living with increasing earnings for people on farms; the third aim was to stabilise markets; the fourth aim was to regularise supplies; and the fifth aim was to maintain reasonable prices for the consumer. In addition, it was stated that social structures should be investigated; any necessary adjustments should be gradual; and it should be borne in mind that agriculture is integrated with the whole economy of the Community.
In considering those aims I believe that production is efficient; it appears to be far too efficient. The aim to achieve a fair standard of living is now a failure; the standard of living is dropping fast. The internal markets are stable but destabilised world markets contribute to a considerable degree, as was seen in the recent GATT talks. Supplies are obviously sufficient. As regards reasonable prices, I have read many recent press cuttings which state that consumers are paying too much for their food. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, pointed out that a change in price of 10 per cent. made only 1p difference on a loaf. However, the farm-gate price has little bearing on the total value of a product when it reaches the consumer.
Many noble Lords have spoken about the MacSharry proposals which, I understand, have been shot down. I believe that there is merit in some of his ideas. Originally price incentives were important in raising production but they are now overused. I have read that the basic world price for wheat would be approximately £85 per tonne if we had a level playing field, as requested by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. Prices should drop to an open market level as soon as possible to enable efficient producers to continue and to allow the less efficient producers such as myself to drop out. Much as I enjoy farming I must admit that I do not do it at the cheapest price.
If we wish to keep farmers on the land, there must be some form of graduated support in order to help small farmers to counteract the drop in prices that I suggest is necessary to reduce production.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, many varied opinions have been expressed in the debate. Indeed, there was a considerable difference in volume and in content between the previous two speakers. I begin by reiterating the necessity for discussing the topic of the debate because the situation is ludicrous. In 1975 the figure for the guaranteed support fund was 4.5 billion ecus. In the same terms it is 11.5 billion ecus for this year and still rising. Therefore, it is obvious that something needs to be done about the situation.
It is extraordinary that since the 1970s the income from farming in this country has halved. The Government say that this year the income has decreased by 14 per cent. but, rightly, the NFU have upped that to 22 per cent. taking into account all the factors. It is extraordinary that, while the income of farmers has been decreasing, there has been an enormous rise in costs in the CAP. Obviously the taxpayers will not tolerate that situation for long; something must be done about it.

1223
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, wants compulsory set-aside. He mentioned a figure of about 10 per cent. That is a solution but I do not favour it. One always gets on better in agriculture by bribing farmers rather than shooting them. By that means we can achieve the noble Lord's desired result. I do not believe that MacSharry was on the wrong track in his proposals for set-aside. After all, the tying of guarantees to set-aside has worked in the United States. They have set aside a bigger area than the whole of the cereal area in Europe. If that were cultivated one can imagine that we should be in oil slicks of grain. It is a practical example to follow. If we returned to a fair figure, and old-fashioned acreage payment, paid to people who have set aside, we should leave the competent farmer on good land to farm the whole of his acreage if he wished.
He would have the guarantee of only about 90 ecus as an intervention price. If he wanted to do that and that was better than taking the set-aside payment, which would perhaps not even cover his overheads, he would be entitled to do so. However, a great many people farming land which should not be growing grain—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton—would take the set-aside and thus reduce the acreage of land for growing cereals, and I am talking about cereals.
We must look at what the quota system has done. The dairy farmers have been getting on rather well and the quota system suited them. However, it is a ludicrous position. The quota system is set to leave a surplus as of 14 per cent. That is the most expensive form of support in the whole system. We cannot possibly continue with that. The quota system and the land price have led to farms in the west of Scotland, to which I personally would not go for love nor money, receiving £3,000 to £4,000 per acre. The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, would regard that as a very bad investment. Even with the quota, those farms are in no way worth that sort of money. That is the distortion which occurs with a quota system. If we wish to return to a system of a world price based on a restraint on production which is reasonable and to which efficient farmers can work, we cannot continue with the complications which give rise to the sort of distortions which we have seen.
Consumer associations always talk about how much money the consumer would save if we could buy our food from abroad. However, the world price is ludicrous and is subsidised. Let us consider a price of £40 per tonne. The best figures that I have seen for production for Australia, the United States and the good farms in this country and the North of Germany, demonstrate that the lowest figure at which a competent farmer can produce and make a reasonable, small profit is about £80 per tonne. Therefore, we are dealing with totally false figures.
On social payments, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, about repatriation. There is no question other than that should be in the hands of government. However, I am not in favour of giving up the CAP. The urban population of this country is the most anti-farmer that one can find anywhere in the world. For years the people of this country have been
1224
accustomed to buying their food from the poverty of the Okies in between the wars, written about so eloquently, and from all over the world at prices which starve the farmers. In conditions of surplus I should not like to return to being at the mercy of the electorate of this country. Therefore, we need a European policy which works.
The reason that it has not worked is that the Council of Ministers did not do its job properly. For 20 or 30 years the Commission has tried to point out that surpluses were arising. The Council of Ministers, for purely political ends, kept on increasing prices and exaggerating the price of land and, as I have said before, the price of equipment. Equipment dealers did very well because farmers bought equipment for tax and many other reasons. Therefore, costs were driven up.
If we are to be sensible, we need a set-aside payment which will take out of production the bad land and reduce acreage and surpluses. Furthermore, that would keep land available should we return to the situation where, for example, there is a dangerous drop in the level of world stocks of wheat. There may well be a return to years of drought, as happened in the land of the Pharaohs. Therefore I believe that we should look at the MacSharry plan. I agree that we need to take land out of production. However, I should prefer to do that by bribing the farmers with an acreage support system; and the small farmer, who is not the worst off, should be looked after by the state. The state should make the social payments. The CAP payments should go in a practical manner to those who produce efficiently.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, for giving us the opportunity to debate this extremely important subject. Although the terms of the Motion refer to the over-production of farm commodities in the United Kingdom, we have obviously had to set that in a European context. This has been a wide-ranging debate with a subtext: how do we deal with the problems of success in agricultural production?
We can all agree that no one in his right mind would now design a system of agricultural support remotely resembling the common agricultural policy. Like the proverbial Irishman, we certainly would not start from here. Unfortunately, there is an Irishman—Mr. MacSharry—who is starting from here. It is clear that, if they were adopted in their present form, his proposals would be disastrous for the British rural economy, a point well made by my noble friend Lord Gallacher. I beg leave to doubt whether a vast system of outdoor relief for the majority of European farmers is the best way to secure adequate supplies of food at a reasonable cost to the European taxpayer and consumer.
At the outset I should like to deal with an idea mentioned in the information memorandum on the communication of the commissioner and also on the proposals in the reflection paper. The information memo states:

1225
"At the same time the top 10 per cent. or so of larger and more developed farmers will be asked to fend a little more for themselves".
For something over 30 years I have been involved in very detailed farm management accounting on some 60 large farms which are mainly in the South of England. The average working acreage of the farms is about 1,200 acres, just the sort of farms which should be able to fend a little more for themselves. I checked the figures this morning and, in the five years from 1985 to 1989, the average return on those farms on a tenant's capital before any charge for interest on borrowed money was as follows: in 1985, 5.2 per cent; in 1986, 9 per cent; in 1987, 7.5 per cent; in 1988, 7.9 per cent; in 1989, 11.4 per cent. the average over the five years was 8.2 per cent. I am not entirely sure if those are the large farmers who are flourishing according to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. Those figures, as I have said, take no account of interest charges on borrowed money.
If one-third of the capital was borrowed, the average return after paying interest would be 3.8 per cent. If half the capital was borrowed, the average return after paying interest would be 1.3 per cent. If the value of the land was included in the calculation, the return on capital would be hardly noticeable.
A number of your Lordships have made the point that both the MacSharry and the free market approach will be disastrous for agricultural employment. Each of the samples of farms which I have described has an average labour bill of just under £100,000 per annum. Their first reaction to severe pressure from MacSharry or for the free market will be to reduce the scale of their operations and to release labour. One can imagine the effect on employment and the knock-on effect on the rural economy if those farms were forced down the MacSharry or the free market road.
However, we can all agree that there is a problem of over-production. So how should that be dealt with? Perhaps I may say a few words about approaching the problem through relying on the free market—an approach which seemed to be favoured by the noble Lords, Lord Harris of High Cross and Lord Wade. It is a point that I have not seen made elsewhere. Suppose we were able to reduce our farm prices to world prices; how do we ensure that that reduction is reflected in the retail price of food to the consumer? The concentration of buying power in this country is greater than in any other member state in the Community. How do we ensure that the reduction in the farm price is not just absorbed in increased margins for the wholesaler, the processor and the retailer?
Many ideas have been expressed in the debate, and all rely on reducing output in one form or another. We know that physical production quotas work best on those products which leave the farm and go to a single buyer—for example, milk and sugar beet—or by restricting the acreage of the crop that can be grown, for example, potatoes or hops. If we restrict the acreage of a crop, what happens to the surplus acreage? As we know it can either be set aside or planted to a crop which is not in surplus, or a crop
1226
which could be used for non-food purposes. I should say immediately that the latter is a very doubtful prospect. The forthcoming report from Sub-Committee D will bear that out.
With crops, such systems of physical control, either of output or acreage, are feasible but are difficult to operate. With livestock it would be very difficult indeed. There are the problems with intermediate livestock. What happens to the price of store cattle, sheep or pigs? There are problems in counting. Putting the position as delicately as I can, livestock may be moved around to make the counting of them rather difficult; that is not easy to do with crop acreages.
Therefore we must ask what is the alternative to the physical control of output. As we have heard it would be an attempt to reduce output by reducing inputs—the less intensive farming mentioned by a number of noble Lords. I suggest that such proposals should be examined in the UK with some care. In principle they have many attractions. There are the obvious environmental attractions and also the employment attractions. It has been calculated that in every successful scheme for set-aside one job will be lost for every 800 acres set aside. On the sample of large farms I described earlier, a 20 per cent. reduction in output, while maintaining the level of profitability to secure the princely level of 8 per cent. return on a tenant's capital before payment of interest, would, in the absence of any form of grant aid for environmentally friendly systems, require reductions in costs of around £70 to £80 per acre in the running costs of those farms.
An environmental grant—perhaps the "green premium" that the Labour Party are suggesting, or the ideas of the National Farmers' Union, the CLA or the CPRE—used with a form of cross compliance to price support, could, in the UK circumstances resulting from our farm structure, be an attractive idea. There is no time to elaborate on that. It needs a debate in itself. But it is clear that production could be reduced by 20 per cent. if grants to encourage environmentally friendly farming were made sufficiently attractive.
The great attraction of such an approach for UK agriculture is that it must be adopted, if it is to make sense, irrespective of farm size. Indeed, a rational environmental policy intended to reduce surplus production would be particularly generous to the 20 per cent. of farms which produce most of the agricultural output. That thought is touched on in the MacSharry paper, which, in referring to the contribution of an environmentally sustainable form of agricultural production and food quality, suggests:
"This approach would be complemented by more specific measures on the environment to be tailored to the situation in individual Member States".
That is a point which we should be negotiating on the MacSharry paper and bearing very much in mind. I understand that the Government have rejected the MacSharry proposals, at least in principle. It would be unfair to expect a detailed response from the Government at this stage. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House an outline idea of the Government's reaction to the proposals—after all, we have them in front of us and they are proposals for the fundamental reform of the CAP. We hear that

1227
Mr. Gummer has said that he intends to ensure that British farmers will not be disadvantaged. If the Government reject the MacSharry proposals, as I believe they do, we should be told exactly what is the nature of the Government's alternative.
7.25 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Minister will want to read your Lordships remarks and ideas very carefully. I, too, will want to read the debate. I fear that if I answered all the points now I would take too long and greatly bore your Lordships.
The Motion of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley focuses on over-production in the United Kingdom. In winding up this debate I want to emphasise that what we face is a Community problem and it is only action at a Community level which will bring forward just solutions. Thus, the fact that the European Commission has just produced a discussion paper suggesting the most far-reaching and wide-ranging reforms of the common agricultural policy since its inception over 20 years ago is of the utmost importance to us in the UK. This paper, which sets out the Commission's ideas for CAP reform but does not include any detailed proposals—let alone figures, as my noble friend Lord Middleton reminded us—was discussed by agriculture Ministers at the Council in Brussels earlier this week.
Let us first look at the hard facts. My noble friend Lord Aldenham was quite right in saying that with the exception of cereals the UK is not in surplus in any of the main commodities. Consumption actually exceeds demand in all the other main commodities. For beef, for example, we are only some 90 per cent. self-sufficient compared with an EC figure of 110 per cent. The figures are even more striking for milk. We are only 88 per cent. self-sufficient in butterfat against a Community figure of 114 per cent.; with a figure for the Netherlands of 233 per cent. and for Ireland 317 per cent. This makes the Commission's apparent wish to cut our milk quota by more than any other country's—to which I shall turn in a moment—all the more ironic.
However, whatever the source, we have to look at the matter from an overall EC point of view and surplus production is wrong. It does not make economic sense to produce more than the market needs; keeping supply above the level of demand imposes costs on the consumer, and the storage and disposal of surpluses is expensive for the taxpayer. Furthermore, surplus disposal on world markets creates tension with our world trading partners, as the current GATT negotiations have made clear. That is why—and in this I reject some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer—the UK Government have for so many years been leading the fight to reform the CAP; to bring down its costs and to make it more market-orientated.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said that the Minister could not negotiate a successful GATT deal without damaging agriculture. It is in our interests that there should be a successful outcome to the
1228
GATT negotiations, and that includes agriculture. Failure would rebound on our farmers as trade retaliation would follow. As I have already said, reform of the CAP is vital, regardless of the GATT.
There is also an overriding reason why changes to the CAP are needed now. It is clear that agriculture expenditure in the Community is again running out of control. Forecasts for this year and next are alarming. If nothing is done the CAP could cost 25 per cent. more in 1991 than in 1990. If expenditure is to be kept within the agricultural guideline, as it is legally required to be, policies will have to be changed. I need hardly remind your Lordships that these increases in expenditure come at a time when farmers' incomes are under severe pressure. To paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, it seems to work out that more and more money is spent, but less and less is seen by the farmers. That is an intolerable situation.
The Government therefore welcome the fact that the European Commission is considering radical reform of the CAP. We also welcome some of the ideas put forward in its discussion paper. We agree that substantial cuts are needed in support prices and that milk quotas should be reduced. That would encourage consumption, improve competition and help to bring supply into line with demand. We agree that existing environmental measures need to be extended although in our view the Commission's ideas do not go far enough; and in that respect I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
But although we welcome some of the Commission's ideas we believe that there are fundamental flaws in its basic approach. In particular, we are concerned by the cost of its ideas and by the emphasis that it places on exempting small farmers from the consequences of reform. The result of this obsession with small farmers is that the measures suggested by the Commission would, in our judgment, actually increase the cost of agricultural support in the Community. Believe it, or believe it not, these ideas were brought forward to deal with a budget crisis! Equally, the Commission's paper does little to address the problems of the beef regime where expenditure is rising most rapidly.
Incidentally, beef intervention stocks in the EC in 1989 stood at 123,000 tonnes. In December 1990 they stood at 700,000 tonnes. The figures speak for themselves. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke asked me for the stock figures for EC milk products. In 1989 butter stocks stood at 20,000 tonnes. In December 1990 they stood at 243,000 tonnes. In 1989 stocks of skimmed milk powder were 5,000 tonnes. In December 1990 there were 336,000 tonnes.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said that in December there was one tonne of wheat stocks in the United Kingdom. The figures that he was giving were wrong. In December there were 34,000 tonnes of wheat in the United Kingdom. I am at one with my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley on the Commission's ideas. Small farmers would be favoured and larger farmers would be severely disadvantaged.

1229
For example, small milk producers would be exempt from quota cuts which would fall exclusively on larger producers. Under such a system the largest overall cut in quota would inevitably be suffered by the UK despite the fact that, as I have already said, we are not self-sufficient in milk.
In the cereals sector the Commission is suggesting that farmers should receive direct payments on an area basis provided that they set aside a proportion of their land. But larger producers would receive lower rates of aid and have to set aside higher proportions of their farms. Again, the UK, with its efficient structure and large number of larger farms, would be worst hit.
I must make clear that we cannot support, and are strenuously resisting, this emphasis on protecting the smallest and least viable farmers. It simply does not make economic sense to protect the less efficient at the expense of the most efficient when we are trying to make the CAP more market-orientated and competitive in a world situation. It is simply not fair to discriminate heavily against UK producers who, as I have said, contribute very little to the overall surplus problem in the Community. Why should they pay the price for efficiency twice? That is once by undertaking the cost of modernisation and a second time by paying the price for protecting those farmers who have failed to modernise. We shall therefore continue to argue in the strongest possible terms that the burden of CAP reform must be a shared one and borne equally by all member states.
I turn to some of the specific points raised by your Lordships. My noble friends Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Middleton both referred to supply management. One difficulty in dealing with that idea is that it often seems to mean different things to different people. However, if supply management means the widespread use of compulsory measures to reduce production linked to high support prices, I and my colleagues in the Government are against it. The best way to manage supply is to link it with demand. Compulsory set-aside or new production quotas would reduce the ability of producers to respond to changes and it would make farming less able to adapt to the demands of the market. That is the exact opposite of what we wish to achieve. By treating the efficient producer on a par with the inefficient one, such policies would reduce the premium on efficiency.
In the United Kingdom we have some of the most efficient and competitive farmers in Europe. It cannot make sense to handicap them in that way. I know that there are many in the industry who also support that view and lay great store on increasing productivity, competitiveness and not putting the industry in a straitjacket. However, it remains true that in the total pattern of CAP reform quotas may have some part to play. For example, we cannot ignore the contribution that milk quotas have made to halting the growth in milk production. We are certainly ready to consider proposals to make voluntary set-aside more efficient.
I know that a number of your Lordships expressed concern about set-aside, but we continue to believe that voluntary set-aside has a useful role to play as a
1230
complement to a policy of price restraint. A number of your Lordships also advocated greater use of extensification. That is something which is hinted at in the Commission's paper. We are equally ready to consider any ideas that emerge to encourage extensive farming.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, touched on nitrogen quotas which have also been suggested as a form of supply management. It is claimed that these could provide a simple means not only of reducing production but also nitrate pollution. That is a simple concept but one which, on closer examination, proves to be both technically and administratively complex. It would be unlikely to achieve the desired result. If noble Lords would like me to expand on that I shall be happy to write to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said that we should support the MacSharry ideas because they would discourage intensive animal husbandry. As I said, we do not believe in penalising efficient farmers and rewarding the inefficient. However, I do not accept that efficient farming and high standards of animal welfare are incompatible. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Minister has been actively pressing the EC to introduce uniformly high welfare standards across the Community. I hope that if I quote Churchill I shall not get the same letters that I had when I last spoke about pigs to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. It was Churchill who said:
"Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us and pigs treat us as equals".
My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke spoke about cheese and the situation in regard to New Zealand and the EC. Exports of cheese from the EC attract an export refund in order to bridge the gap between the EC and world market prices. The current rate of refund for Cheddar cheese to Japan is 48p per pound and that has remained unchanged throughout 1990 and 1991.
It is not known whether the Commission consulted New Zealand before this rate was set, though that would not be usual. World trade in dairy products is regularly discussed in meetings of the GATT international dairy arrangement at which both the EC and New Zealand are represented.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, claimed that a successful reform of the CAP was impossible to achieve and that we should seek repatriation of agricultural policy. I found that part of his speech most interesting. My right honourable friend the Minister is well aware of the negotiating realities in Brussels. I am sure the problems of agriculture cannot be dealt with by trying to destroy a common policy for agriculture; but it must be a reformed CAP, which is what we are determined to achieve. We are not alone in seeking reform. All EC agriculture ministers agree that reform is necessary. We are not alone in objecting to Commissioner MacSharry's ideas, so I do not agree that a successful outcome is impossible to achieve.
This debate has given me the chance to underline the importance that the Government attach to reforming the CAP and to ending the unnecessary and

1231
costly production of surplus foods in the Community. Our aims in considering these reforms are to make EC agriculture more market-orientated and competitive; to reduce the cost of the CAP; to lead to closer integration between agriculture and the environment; and last, but by no means least, to avoid discrimination between farmers in different member states.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I must thank all noble Lords for a most stimulating debate. In particular I thank my noble friend Lady Trumpington for the trouble she has taken in replying. Noble Lords were particularly disciplined in the time they took in making their speeches. If we had the same amount of discipline among the Twelve in the European Community we might better be able to get somewhere.
We had general agreement on a number of points. First, your Lordships agreed that the financial position of British agriculture is far more serious than is generally recognised outside the House, particularly by the media, and perhaps possibly by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Secondly, the bankrupt state of the industry will cause havoc, not just to farmers but, as your Lordships pointed out, to the environment, to the rural society and to the welfare of stock. We agreed too that British agriculture should not be made inefficient as a result of any policy and that we should aim—I think the word would be right—for a competitive agriculture. But we need some medicine, or as my noble friend said, a bridge, to help us get there. I heard no opposition or alternative to supply management as that medicine or bridge, though I fully accept that some of your Lordships thought erroneously that such a system was paying a farmer to do nothing. It is not. It is far from that, and it is far from the ordinary set-aside that one sees today. It is much more than set-aside. I fail to understand the description of my noble friend Lady Trumpington of supply management. It is not the same as mine, so perhaps if we understood each other a little better there would be a compromise way forward here. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Baltic States and the Soviet Union
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the changing circumstances in the Baltic states and the Soviet Union.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am most grateful that so many of your Lordships have agreed to speak at this relatively late hour. That so many noble Lords have done so is a reflection of widespread and deep concern over recent unhappy events in the Baltic states and in the Soviet Union.
I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who has persistently brought these events to the attention of the House with his highly relevant Starred Questions, and also to my noble friend Lord
1232
Caithness for the principled robustness of his responses to those Questions. However, the situation in the Baltic states and the Soviet Union is so serious that it seemed desirable to have a little longer to consider the issues than is possible with a Starred Question.
Recent developments are of the utmost significance politically and in terms of human suffering but they tend to have been eclipsed by the inevitable preoccupation of Western governments and media with the tragic war in the Gulf. Indeed we may surmise that this preoccupation was part of the calculations of those in the Soviet Union who chose 15th and 16th January for an ultimatum to the Baltic states in the full knowledge that all eyes throughout the world would be focused on Saddam Hussein and his response to the United Nations deadline of 15th January. There were here shades of 1956 and the brutal Soviet repression of the Hungarian uprising while most of the rest of the world was preoccupied with Suez.
I shall offer a brief overview of events and issues as a broader context in which your Lordships may wish to develop more specific aspects in greater detail. My starting point is the reaffirmation of the historic truth that the Baltic states were never legitimately a part of the Soviet Union. Their forcible incorporation and brutal repression was a tragic outcome of the notorious Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939. By international law, therefore, they are independent states and deserve recognition as such. Therefore, I suggest, attempts by the Baltic states to realise their independence by peaceful means deserve not only our sympathy but also our support. The brutal repression to which they have been subjected deserves our condemnation. I shall therefore begin by summarising briefly some of the recent repressive measures adopted by the Soviet Union.
I refer, first, to Lithuania. As is well known, on 13th January Soviet troops and tanks attacked an unarmed crowd in Vilnius. The casualties were 14 dead and 346 wounded. The spine-chilling photographs of Soviet tanks crushing unarmed civilians will be indelibly etched on all our memories. Initially the Soviet ministry of defence put out its own version of those events in Lithuania. It was redolent of the worst kind of Soviet disinformation. Four days after the event, it claimed that no one had been killed; that those buried in the mass funeral in Vilnius on 16th January were victims of road accidents; and that the photographs of the man being crushed by a tank were "forged". Army violence has continued in Lithuania. There are reports of harassment and brutality. It is reported that six Lithuanian men seized at a roadblock were beaten up in military barracks. President Landsbergis has likened the Soviet troops to "a mob of bandits" and people are living in an atmosphere of fear.
In Latvia, atrocities have been mainly committed by the OMON black beret storm troops who, on 20th January, attacked the Latvian department of internal affairs in Riga, with four people killed and nine injured, one of whom has tragically just died. Previously, on 16th January, OMON units in armoured personnel carriers attacked vehicles on the

1233
Brasa bridge in Riga. A minibus with five passengers, including two small girls, caught fire. Although those passengers luckily escaped, another car was hit by automatic fire and its driver, Roberts Munieks, was killed. OMON black beret troops have also been deployed in Estonia and there are reports of harassment there. In all three Baltic states the parliamentary buildings are surrounded by barricades and by civilian volunteers taking a valiant but inevitably token stand in defence of independence—a tragic situation for freely elected parliaments.
These developments in the Baltic states have implications which reach far beyond the immediate human tragedy and political tensions in those countries. They include the exercise of power in the Soviet Union and its strategy vis-à-vis the Baltic states, general political developments in the Soviet Union and the appropriate response of the West in general and of Britain in particular.
I shall deal first with the Soviet Union's response to the developments in the Baltics. In a programme broadcast on the BBC World Service on 28th January, aptly named "Who's calling the shots in Lithuania?", Stephen Dalziel pointed out that,
"it took Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev 36 hours to respond to the news of the seizure of the Lithuanian TV centre in Vilnius, in which 14 people died. But far from expressing regret at what had happened—it was only this week at a short, hastily arranged press conference that he did that—he supported the troops' action, blaming the Lithuanian authorities for starting the trouble. This view was also presented by the Interior Minister, Boris Pugo, and the Defence Minister, Marshal Dmitry Yazov. With no censure of their actions forthcoming from Moscow, the military continued to exert their influence in Lithuania".
Stephen Dalziel went on to suggest that the tone of those speeches made it clear that the Soviet leadership, including Mr. Gorbachev, had decided to adopt a hardline approach to quell moves towards independence in the Baltic states.
Other measures which are causing concern in the Baltic states include Mr. Gorbachev's insistence that an "all union" treaty be signed. That is being resisted, as it would indicate acceptance of Moscow's sovereignty. There is similar opposition in the Baltics to Mr. Gorbachev's demand that independence referenda be held on his terms. There is opposition to that because it is contrary to international law for an occupying power to make such a demand; because pro-independence parliaments have already been elected with free elections; and because those voting in such a referendum are likely to include Soviet troops and their families who are based in the Baltics.
Other more general moves are being made by the Soviet leadership throughout the Soviet Union to tighten its grip and to repress its citizens. For example, from 1st February joint army-police patrols have been on the streets in Soviet cities. That development is viewed with great fear by Soviet citizens because, although the soldiers are supposed to be armed only on public holidays or when demonstrations are expected, local commanders can extend provisions at their own discretion.
Another repressive measure is Mr. Gorbachev's decree which gives the KGB and interior ministry officials the right to enter and search business premises. Although the ostensible justification for this is that it is an attempt to tackle crimes associated with the black market, there is clearly an alternative possibility of harassment of many non-governmental organisations and democratic enterprises. As Stephen Dalziel has pointed out:
"It is difficult to see these latest moves as anything other than a further tightening of the screws on democracy—and two more nails in the coffin of perestroika".
The confidence and ruthlessness with which the Soviets planned their strike against Baltic independence may well have resulted from the West's acquiescence in excluding the Baltic delegates as observers at the CSCE conference in Paris on 19th November. In retrospect, that cruel and unnecessary humiliation of the Baltic peoples may have convinced the Soviet authorities that they could enjoy a free hand.
I suggest that all those developments are particularly ominous, coming as they do in the wake of previous measures which have given Mr. Gorbachev the most complete powers ever held by a Soviet leader. There is now in place both the formal provision and the proven ability to extend the major crackdown against democratic reforms which could return the Soviet Union to the harsh totalitarianism of its recent bloody past.
I do not have time to discuss other recent repressive developments, such as the closure of channels of media communication like Interfax and the takeover of printing works, or the harassment of citizens like the assault on Alexander Podrabinek who is editor of Express Kronika and whom I am deeply privileged to regard as a friend. These are all deeply disturbing developments: they cannot be condoned.
In conclusion, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister the following questions. First, does my noble friend believe that it is right for the CSCE conference, scheduled for later this year, to be held in Moscow? Will the Government do all in their power to try to change the location, unless or until the Soviet Union demonstrates its commitment to genuine democratic reforms? Secondly, will the Government initiate a debate in the United Nations on the situation in the Baltic states and press for their recognition and participation given that they were full members of the League of Nations and that their forcible incorporation into the Soviet Union was a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and was contrary to international law?
Thirdly, will the Government state that the Soviet Union's actions in the Baltic states are a clear breach of the CSCE Helsinki process, the most recent summit of which was held in Paris last November? Fourthly, will the Government extend some recognition of the freely elected Baltic governments; for example, as a first step at consular level, as has already been done by Scandinavian governments to their great credit? Fifthly, will the Government encourage cultural, sporting and educational contacts with the Baltic

1235
states; for example, by opening British Council offices in the area? Sixthly, and more generally, will the Government expand links with, and support for, non-governmental democratic organisations within the Soviet Union and the Baltic states to encourage the development of democratic institutions and a free economy?
My seventh question concerns aid. Will the Government reconsider their policy on aid, particularly food aid, to the Soviet Union, bearing in mind the fact that the Soviets had an outstandingly good harvest last year and that the problems of shortages are a result of the malfunctioning of the system? Is my noble friend aware that it is reported that much of the food aid has been used to replenish military stocks and that it has not been made available to citizens who are in most need? It seems ironic that we should be providing generous aid to a nation which is proposing to increase its spending on defence by about 20 per cent. this year when its defence expenditure is already running at about 25 per cent. of its national income.
Finally, if the Soviet Union is moving into a new era of hardline repressive communism, should we not be revising, albeit sadly but as a matter of urgency, our approach to our own defence? Can my noble friend confirm that the Soviet Union is still producing new offensive weapons at an alarming rate—a new submarine every six weeks, together with two aircraft, six tanks and one missile every day? Can he also confirm that armaments removed from Europe are massed, potentially still ready for use, east of the Urals?
I am most grateful for having had the opportunity to raise these issues which are worrying many people who are concerned for the future of democracy in the Baltic states, in the Soviet Union and, indeed, in Europe. There are some who resist a strong response by the West to recent developments in the Soviet Unions because they fear that that will undermine Mr. Gorbachev. But surely our support for President Gorbachev has been based on his initiatives which have appeared to promote democracy and freedom. It is those fundamental principles to which we are committed and which we must continue to support even—and, perhaps, especially—if Mr. Gorvachev jettisons them. I can do no better than to finish with a quotation from Mark Almond's booklet entitled Retreat to Moscow which is published by the Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies. It reappraises Mr. Gorbachev and admonishes us:
"it would be wise to remember Montaigne's dictum that the worst form of servility is to be grateful to rulers who return some part of their subjects' liberty to which they had no right in the first place".
At present, when there is no sign on the horizon of even a return to liberty for the Baltic states or for the Soviet Union, can we condone their humiliation and support a ruler and regime that inflict it?
8 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Baroness for introducing this subject. I was born in Lithuania. The dramatic, passionate struggle for freedom is understandable against the background
1236
of Lithuania's ancient history. Lithuania became a kingdom in 1200 at the time of Magna Charta. By the 15th century, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania under its ruler, Vytautas the Great extended from the Baltic Sea to the Caspian Sea. After the union of Lublin in 1569, when Lithuania joined Poland, it became the largest country in Eastern Europe. Then, of course, Moscow started expanding. By 1795, under Catherine the Great, Lithuania lost its battle and became a province of the Czars. Intense russification followed. Lithuania was a Catholic country. The Catholic Church was forbidden. It was driven underground. The Russian Orthodox Church was imposed.
The Latin alphabet was forbidden in school books, bibles and so on. The cyrillic alphabet was imposed. That brought official education almost to a dead stop because the Lithuanian population would not accept the cyrillic alphabet and could not use the Latin one without risk of being sent to Siberia, even in those days. However, despite repression, the Lithuanian language and culture were kept alive and survived.
Not until the Versailles Treaty in 1918 did Lithuania re-emerge as a nation. It was recognised by the League of Nations as an independent state on 16th February 1919. Lithuania happened to be on the crossroads between the Kaiser's Germany and the Czar's Russia. It was the battlefield. The armies moved over it both ways. The country was destroyed and ravaged to such an extent that my grandfather, who was born in the house, after the war could not identify the spot where his family house had stood. He had to bring surveyors to identify it from the remnants of chimney. From such beginnings, Lithuania started to rebuild its future.
On one side, Lithuania had Stalin's dictatorship. On the other side, for a time, it had the German Weimar Republic, Germany's inflation and total industrial ruin. It subsequently became Hitler's Germany. Lithuania was wedged between two of the most vicious of dictatorships, but it had the courage to set up a democratic government.
From a razed base, between 1919 and 1940 Lithuanian agriculture succeeded in becoming the largest exporter of bacon in Europe—even greater than that of Denmark. Lithuania's currency became the strongest currency in Europe. Eighty per cent. of it was covered by gold; in other words, it was similar to the gold sovereign. Budget after budget was balanced.
Lithuania had various presidents. It was not a command economy. There was a benign, enlightened autocracy. From 1926 to 1940 Antanas Smetona was president. During that time Lithuania's prosperity and peace continued. Despite having Hitler on one side and Stalin on the other, Lithuania had the courage to open its doors—it became a sanctuary for the new refugees from both dictatorships. If Mrs. Thatcher had seen Lithuania she would have praised it as a market economy. It was an incentive economy. Achievement was encouraged.
In 1940 we had the Hitler-Ribbentrop pact. Ten per cent. of the population, especially those with any

1237
education or achievement, was deported to the gulags and Kazakhstan. The terror was total; overt resistance impossible. Then came Hitler's occupation and Stalin's return in 1944 until 1985 when Gorbachev emerged.
Mr. Gorbachev realised, for his own reasons, that the Soviet economy had to change. In a competitive world, Russia could not afford a command economy. The problem of Russia and Gorbachev was that he could not just introduce reforms by decree. A market economy has to have a culture and a population that is willing and able to use it. It was obvious to him that if he could win over Lithuania it would be the seed bed, the showcase, the part of Russia which would most easily adapt, exploit and use perestroika.
In 1986 perestroika was introduced and in 1987 and 1988 glasnost was introduced. Mr. Gorbachev travelled across the world and was rapturously received in Berlin, Washington and London. I am sure that when he went to Lithuania and told them, "I am the man who let you out of the cage; I am the man who opened the prison doors; I want to give you the opportunity to be the leaders of this new freedom", he assumed that he would be received with the same rapture as in Berlin.
Now perhaps we may look at how it was perceived in Lithuania. Basically, after 70 years of terror in the USSR and 50 years of terror in Lithuania, people were in the same position as a man in a diving bell pushed right down. Suddenly the diving bell is brought up without gradual decompression and there is an explosion. The heady atmosphere did not allow the people to take a reasoned look at the situation.
When Gorbachev approached Lithuania and said, "This is what I want to do, this is your opportunity. After all, the greatest guarantee is our joint common interest", the reply was, "We want independence, we are entitled to it". Nobody in the world could doubt that, but they said, "We want it now, instantly". However, it was not his to give; he would not have survived 48 hours if he had given it.
Gorbachev returned and said, "Look, can we change the agenda and not make it independence and economy but economy and independence? I promise you that". They said, "No, we don't trust any Russian and we don't trust you". Gorbachev then introduced the law of recession to which the noble Baroness referred. He went back to Vilnius in January 1990 and thought he would talk to the newly elected members of the Lithuanian government. However, they were not free to reason with him. They were elected to their parliament with a clear-cut mandate: independence now, nothing less than total independence. The members were not even free to negotiate, and a deadlock resulted.
Thus, Gorbachev introduced the new law of secession on 12th March. On 11th March, the Lithuanian parliament was called together and declared UDI. Right was and is 100 per cent. on the side of Lithuania, but politics is the art of the possible.
1238
One should never face a person on one's side or the opposite side of the table with a demand which cannot be carried out.
The situation was not due to ill will or deception; it arose because two peoples—Lithuanians and Soviets —started to run democratic lives without having their L plates removed. They went at speed. After all, even in the past 12 months or two years, one has an impression that the Almighty has pressed the fast-forward button on history. Neither the Soviets nor the Lithuanians had a tradition of freedom. They could not handle the heady atmosphere. It is one of the historic tragedies that Lithuania could have been the conduit for the Soviet Union to Europe. It could have had all the benefits which Finland has; it could have been the Switzerland of the Soviet Union. What is more, the latter needed Lithuania badly but because neither could handle the problem they ended in confrontation.
I agree with the noble Baroness regarding the western approach. If the world were as it should be we should simply be able to say, "Look, this, that and the other". However, in the real world we cannot do that. I would not presume to teach Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, Mr. Major or Mr. Bush the right and prudent course regarding Lithuania.
Is it too late? Has the historic opportunity gone? Last Sunday there came on the television screen the teletext announcement that Mr. Landsbergis had agreed to discussions without preconditions; Moscow had agreed to the same. I do not believe that there is a good, realistic alternative. If Mr. Gorbachev is dislodged, who or what is the alternative? I said in this House four years ago that the Soviet Union would end up with a military dictatorship or a Napoleonic solution. It is beginning to look that way.
One aspect that has misled Lithuania is that as soon as the country had its flag there was enthusiasm, as could be expected after 50 years of terror, and the world applauded: but it also applauded Czechoslovakia, the Prague spring, and Hungary! Unless and until we have the will and the means to back up people we should refrain from encouraging them to climb on to the barricades. It is easy to be a spectator patriot, but who foots the bill?
8.18 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kagan. He has given us some fascinating insights into both the history and current affairs of the Baltic states. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for raising the wider Question tonight. I thank her for her kind personal reference to me.
In view of the war in the Middle East, I thought it necessary by means of Starred and Written Questions to keep the three Baltic states before your Lordships' attention. Tonight's debate enables us to range a little more widely and deeply. In many ways, the history of the Russian empire and that of the British empire in India is remarkably similar. The Russians had suffered greatly from Tartar invasions and raids. From the 1550s onwards, the rulers of Muscovy expanded

1239
continuously until the late 19th century. In the process, they overran Siberia, they conquered Trans-Caucasia and much of central Asia.
The English, on the other hand, established their first trading post in India in the early 1600s. By 1850 we dominated the whole Indian sub-continent. Both great powers made the mistake of intervening in Afghanistan; both suffered a good deal as a result. From 1900 onwards the British evolved the concepts of dominion status and colonial self-government.
When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and renounced worldwide revolution and domination, they seem to have had little idea of what to do with their historical land empire beyond perhaps some vague notions of federalism. The new deal offered by the Communist Party included more open and responsive government; the ending of arbitrary imprisonment and censorship, and greater freedom for the press and media.
There has been much talk of economic reconstruction, but without fully legalising private property and investment and without going wholeheartedly for a market economy or even for a social market. The resulting ferment has let loose nationalist desires which had long been kept firmly suppressed. The problem of the minorities is now acute, just as it was in Europe after the fall of the Prussian and Austrian empires. That problem is still acute to this day in India and Pakistan. We have seen ethnic tension in central Asia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Moldavia and to a lesser degree in the Baltic states. I wonder what the future trend will be. My intuition tells me that the trend will be towards stronger republics with a gradually weakening centre.
The influence of the party, the KGB and the army will no doubt slow down the movement. But given the apparent bankruptcy of Marxism as a unifying philosophy, it is difficult to see how the reactionary forces will succeed in stopping the trend completely. In the European parts of the USSR one can foresee three or four major republics, depending perhaps on whether the east and west Ukraine manage to hold together. In Transcaucasia there are likely to be at least three units. It remains to be seen whether the Russian republic will succeed in keeping control over Siberia with its strategic oil, gas and minerals. The Moslem areas of central Asia are likely to want to control their own destinies with, no doubt, many local rivalries.
How should Her Majesty's Government respond to this situation? I submit that the USSR is far too vast to be covered by just one embassy in Moscow. In addition the Ukraine and Byelorussia are already theoretical members of the United Nations Organisation. We need to be represented in such places as Kiev, Leningrad, Minsk and perhaps also in Siberia. Other European states that have opened offices in republican capitals have found them rewarding in terms of contracts won. If the objection to this idea is the usual one of cost, surely it should be possible for the European Community as a whole to be represented in these vitally important capitals of the major republics. If this is to be the approach, the
1240
representatives will have to have major political as well as economic competence. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to comment further this evening on this question of representation.
A second approach lies through the English language which holds the key to so much of the world of computing and high technology generally. Here we have a major product to market. The British Council and British institutes have a definite part to play, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, indicated. They could help overcome the obvious problem of our non-acceptance of the Soviet claims to jurisdiction over the three Baltic states.
I was a little disappointed by the Government's reply in Hansard of 31st January to my Question for Written Answer on this matter. Can the noble Earl now assure me that this point will be kept under active review, not only as regards the Baltic states but also more widely within the Soviet Union? Her Majesty's Government also have at their disposal other diplomatic means of action. The USSR and its component republics, as they rejoin the rest of the world economy and the community of nations, will increasingly want to join the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and many other specialised international bodies. I trust that our Government will be absolutely firm in resisting any such requests until they are satisfied that a fair and just relationship has been worked out, and is functioning, between any central Soviet government and its component republics. Can the noble Earl give me any hopeful sign on that?
Soviet applications to join specialised bodies should not just be looked at on their own merits. I suggest that they should be closely related to improvements in human rights throughout the whole of the USSR. Conversely we should be active in sponsoring the Baltic states as members of international bodies.
Trade is another matter that should enable our Government to exercise a positive influence. I believe we still import considerable quantities of Russian timber. We could take Soviet oil, if any is available for export. Oil and possibly refrigerated natural gas from this source could reduce our dependence on the volatile Middle East at a time when our own North Sea supplies may be beginning to diminish. Trade could and should be increased as it would constitute an incentive to civilised behaviour by our suppliers. Similarly the release of credits for Soviet purchases should be closely linked to observance by the USSR of the Helsinki, Paris and CFE agreements.
I turn now to the particular matter of the Baltic states. I am personally grateful to Her Majesty's Government for the firm and resolute line they have taken. I believe this has, in concert with our European partners and others, induced some second thoughts in the Soviet authorities. The positive signs are Mr. Gorbachev's public expression of regret over the unnecessary deaths and woundings; the withdrawal of some at least of the special forces, and the appointment of negotiators to treat with each of the three republics.

1241
A letter in the Independent newspaper of 31st January signed by Mr. Markov of the Novosti press agency in Moscow was also encouraging. It stated that the events, that is the shootings:
"are being painstakingly investigated, and those to blame will be punished according to law".
Against all this we have to balance Mr. Gorbachev's ruling that the Lithuanian independence poll and the provocations in Latvia associated with Mr. Alexander Nevzorov are illegal. In and around Moscow there has been interference with the relatively free news agency, Interfax, and also with Radio Russia. I am sorry to say that in the past five months three well-known orthodox priests have been murdered—Fathers Men, Solnyshko and Shlykov—in possibly sinister circumstances. It would be interesting to hear how Her Majesty's Government evaluate these conflicting signals.
In the short-term there are several matters on which I hope our Government will continue to press the Soviet Union. They are compensation for the Baltic families of those killed and wounded by Soviet forces; repayment of the money stolen by Soviet forces from Marcus Warren, Brian Killen and Anatol Lieven of the Daily Telegraph, Reuters and The Times respectively; accountability for their actions by the Soviet forces; and the complete withdrawal of ministry of the interior and other special units from the Baltic states. The CSCE Helsinki process may be a suitable means for making progress on these matters.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, I wish to look at the longer term position. I start from the clear statement made in the House of Commons by Mr. Waldegrave on 5th April 1990 at col. 1361 of Hansard. He said that the secret Molotov-Ribbentrop protocol of 1939, implemented in 1940 by the forcible annexation of the Baltic states, was illegal. The Baltic peoples have a legal right to their independence. The question is therefore how they are to achieve it. The task is delicate, as was indicated by Sir Michael Howard in yesterday's Times. It need not necessarily be a precedent leading to a rapid dissolution of the Soviet Union.
The right honourable gentleman, Mr. David Owen, suggested in today's Daily Telegraph that the International Court of Justice should be invited to rule on the special status of the Baltic republics. I support that suggestion. It may even be in the long-term interest of the USSR that the Baltic states should be treated as a special case.
We should also remember that their total population amounts only to some 8 million. They have shown remarkable restraint and self-discipline in the face of great provocation. Nevertheless we have also to understand the fears of the Soviet military leaders. They look on the Baltic as important to their security. They have access to that sea, both from Leningrad and from Kaliningrad in former East Prussia. There may well be a case for allowing the USSR to have some strategic sovereign bases within the independent republics which otherwise should
1242
remain as neutral as Finland or Austria. It may be right for NATO to give certain guarantees about spatial limits for the ships and aircraft belonging to the alliance.
The question for the Soviet Union is: does it accept that the Baltic states are a special case? Does it repudiate the crimes of Stalin just as much as those of Hitler? Can it see that neutral neighbours can be a source of strength to it rather than just a weakness? Her Majesty's Government have already made a promising start in their important task of persuading the USSR. I wish them still further success. At this point, perhaps I should add that it is appropriate for us to thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for the stamina he is showing in replying to two debates on the same day.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lady Cox for introducing this extremely interesting debate on the issue of the Baltic states. I want to make my speech in relation to what our attitude should be in the light of the history of the Baltic states and of our own part in it.
I do not think I need dwell very much more on the history of these nations, since the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, did that admirably for us earlier on. I would only say that it is perhaps worth while to point out that Lithuania was created at the partition of Poland in the 1790s—I do not think the noble Lord mentioned that—and we are all aware that that is looked upon as one of the most unjust acts of great power policy in history.
As for Lithuania and Estonia, they have been a part of the Russian empire since much earlier times, since the 1720s. But no one in this House would think that the 1720s was a very long time ago, and no one would think that injustice is improved by having continued for a long time. Anyway, such injustices were recognised as being unacceptable in 1920 when Lenin himself accepted by a treaty that these states should be independent. They, of course, became such and were full members of the League of Nations, as my noble friend Lady Cox has pointed out. They were, too, in a rather roundabout manner, absorbed in Russia by another infamous action, which my noble friend Lady Cox has mentioned—the Russo-German pact of 1939.
This is where our own part in the history of our allies becomes suddenly relevant, because, when the Soviet Union absorbed the Baltic states in 1940, our first reaction was naturally that that action was as bad as the invasion of Czechoslovakia or Austria by Germany, and that is indeed what Lord Halifax told the Cabinet when it happened. A similar line was taken by President Roosevelt when he said,
"Independence has only been suspended provisionally. Lithuania will be free again and sooner than you think".
He said that to a group of Lithuanian Americans in 1941.
As we know, that line was not sustained. The then British ambassador in Moscow, Sir Stafford Cripps, was extremely anxious that we should overlook the

1243
action of absorption in the interests of our long-term friendship with the Soviet Union, which he argued forcefully was essential for winning the war. Stalin stressed the same when he saw Sir Anthony Eden, then Foreign Secretary, in December 1941, arguing, in a way which no Soviet leader had done between the wars, that the Baltic states had been, as it were, snatched from Russia illegally in 1920. This wrong should be undone after the war.
The consequence was that the British government hesitated and, it seems to me, made a mistaken decision, not in recognising the absorption of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union, but in agreeing, in the first and subsequent drafts of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty of 1942, that the frontier of the Soviet Union after the war should indeed be that of June 1941, the day of entry of the Soviet Union into the war, rather than that of 1939.
The United States, being further away and, in those days at least, perhaps more principled, for a time took a stronger position. I found a letter from the Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, to Sir Anthony Eden in early 1942 arguing that to accept the Soviet position would be to destroy the meaning of one of the most important clauses of the Atlantic Charter. Nevertheless, that principled decision of the United States government was soon modified.
I came across another reference to policy in, as it were, evolution, when I found President Roosevelt suggesting to his Secretary of State that perhaps a compromise could be reached whereby the territory could be recognised as being Soviet but the population could be allowed to emigrate. This was called by his own Under-Secretary a Baltic Munich, and indeed the idea did not get very far since Mr. Molotov turned it down.
Not long after that we found Under-Secretary of State Sumner Wells stating publicly that the United States had no vital interest in opposing the union of the Baltic States with the Soviet Union, and that concession was fundamentally made at the Tehran Conference in 1943 by both ourselves and the United States. That was the first, but by no means the last, of the major concessions of principle made to Stalin by the two major Western allies during the course of the Second World War.
It may well be argued, as President Roosevelt did at the time, that,
"The fact, surely, is that by the time the war comes to an end the Soviet Union will be occupying the Baltic States anyway, and we will not be able to do anything about it".
Nevertheless there was a concession of principle which must have been of assistance to Stalin in summing up the long-term plans of the Western allies in the subsequent part of the war.
I found another note in one of the briefs made for the Potsdam Conference by a Foreign Office official:
"We hope very much that this question"—
that is, the question of the Baltic states—
"will not be raised".
1244
And indeed it was not. That attitude, it seems to me, was the position of Her Majesty's Government up till two or three years ago.
I recall that when I first came to this House a friend of mine, the late Lord St. Oswald, told me that he had decided in 1981 to put down a Question in this House, asking what would be Her Majesty's Government's policy at the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations towards the question of the Baltic states. He told me that when he put it down the Foreign Office approached him and said: "Please do not do so. This would rock the boat terribly. We are trying to do something extremely interesting at the moment with the Soviet Union and this will not be helpful". And indeed he withdrew the Question.
Given this past, what should be our current policy towards the Baltic states? I have some suggestions which I do not think have been mentioned so far, although if I am wrong I apologise. I think we should approach the Soviet Union in a very businesslike and "ex-imperial" way, if I can put it like that. We should say that we perfectly understand Mr. Gorbachev's difficulties in dealing with the subject peoples of the nations of which the Soviet Union is composed. We ourselves, as an imperial power, had the same difficulties and experienced similar crises throughout the world towards the end of our declining empire.
We should he resolute and point out that the loss of empire does not necessarily mean the loss of national identity: indeed, far from it, as our own statesmen and also General de Gaulle, in relation to France, have been able to prove very effectively. I think we should say that we are very flattered by the use which some Soviet commentators have made of the concept of the Commonwealth, as something which could play a part in the future evolution of the Soviet Union, although we ourselves have some doubt about what the Commonwealth means. We might well throw that in.
We should certainly insist—I think that history is important here—that we know very well what the history of the Baltic states has been between 1919 and 1945. Any suggestion that these are faraway countries of which we know nothing should be banished from our approaches and discussions with the Soviet Union. We should point out forcefully that bloodshed by an empire in decline practically never delays the inevitable day of judgment and probably only makes martyrs—martyrs whose names may be quite embarrassing for the imperial power, when their representatives travel down the avenues of the capital of the country concerned, since the names will be very clearly indicated on the side of the streets.
We should insist that, in an age of nationalism which is still going on and which is a development in which the Soviet Union has itself played a large part in encouraging—there is no question about that—the long-term goals of the independence movements in these countries are not likely to be stopped by some rather hesitant and inadequate use of force which is afterwards withdrawn. These are quite unnecessary and ineffective methods of indicating policy. After all, Solzhenitsyn himself—and who would deny that he

1245
was a very great Russian and certainly a very patriotic one?—said that the Baltic states, if they wished, should be allowed to separate from the Soviet Union.
We should say that we have an obligation to see and entertain Baltic leaders who come here, since we are in many ways sympathetic to their ideas. The Soviet leaders may insist that this is a ridiculous posture and that these countries are far too small. I have heard people—not Soviet citizens—who are not sympathetic to these independence movements say "that is a Stalinist suggestion, since Stalin himself was the person who insisted that some small countries give a very great deal of trouble". He was talking about Poland when he said that but obviously it applies to the Baltic states as well. Strategic access to the Baltic was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hylton, but we might point out that the Soviet Union has access to the Baltic without using the Baltic states.
Finally, when discussing these questions with Soviet leaders, we should argue that there is a difference between these states and most of the other nations of the Soviet Union. These were independent states with different cultures, and were recognised as such for 20 years during the golden age of the Soviet Union between 1920 and 1940, as Lenin himself admitted. If the Baltic states were to achieve some kind of economic and cultural association with the other states which border on the Baltic it might well be that they would give far less trouble to the Soviet Union in future than if they remained within the embrace of the prison house. An approach along these lines should surely inform our policies in discussion them with the Soviet leaders.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I welcome the very apposite Question which the noble Baroness has put to the Government this evening. I entirely share the feeling of revulsion and dismay which she has so eloquently expressed about recent events in the Baltic states. However, I do not entirely share the conclusions she has drawn from the situation. The points I should like to put to the Government are summarised under four headings, and I hope that the Government may be able to take account of them in their consideration of this very important question.
My first plea would be for care, because the stated views of our Government on this issue, I believe, will be noted with much attention by the Soviet Union. Our power and influence in the world declined very much in the last generation but, for strange reasons, we still loom rather larger than life in the Soviet Union. There are a number of historical reasons for this which I will not go into now, but the stated position of our Government will attract much attention in the Kremlin. We should be aware of that. Policy making "on the hoof" on this subject is best avoided, and I do not think we can act with the freedom of some other governments such as the Scandinavian governments mentioned by the noble Baroness.
Next, I think we need to remind ourselves of the particular constitutional position of this problem in
1246
the Soviet Union. The USSR is a unique phenomenon in the modern world, as a vast assemblage of peoples and territories spread across two continents: an entity which is polyglot and multi-ethnic. Perhaps the closest parallels in this century have been the Ottoman empire and the Austro-Hungarian empire—not parallels which would appeal very much to the Russians but which I think are just.
Unlike these two empires, the Soviet Union has a written constitution of apparently open character, and it has two very important articles on the right of a member republic to secede. Article 72 specifically includes that right, although Article 73 reserves the determination of state frontiers to the Soviet state. It is clear that, as a state on the periphery of the union cannot secede without altering the state frontiers, it will be difficult to find a legal way to exercise the right to secede without co-operation from the centre. This in fact is what has been going on in the past two years. President Gorbachev has been seeking some way in which the right to secede could be expressed, while safeguarding the vital interests of the Soviet state. I noted with much interest what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kagan. He seemed to believe that this was the right way for us to hope for progress. That is certainly my own belief."
Thirdly, I think we should reflect most carefully on the effect of what we say in public on the turmoil now prevalent in the Soviet Union. This upheaval involves all the key policy areas in the Soviet state, including the future place of their constituent republics in the Union. The history of the past century in the world at large suggests that in the end the centre must yield. It will not be able to hold this disparate grouping of peoples together indefinitely. But I hope that our Government will agree with me that the most satisfactory outcome will be recognition by all the peoples of the Soviet Union of the need for constitutional change. This will be an enormously difficult task but, if unnecessary bloodshed is to be avoided, a new agreement will have to be reached in the end.
However much we sympathise with their sufferings and aspirations—and clearly all of your Lordships who have spoken tonight feel that way, as I do myself—it would, I believe, be a serious mistake for any of us in the West to seek to play a direct role in what happens except in relation to the agreements to which both we and the Soviet Union are parties, such as the CSCE treaty, the United Nations Charter, and so on.
I recognise that these feelings may be unwelcome to some of your Lordships, but I place much emphasis on this because there are those in the Soviet Union who are already looking for signs of Western interference. Noble Lords will, I expect, have noticed a recent statement to this effect by the head of the KGB. In this country we need to be particularly careful because of our role of military intervention in Russia after the Bolshevik revolution. We may have forgotten about this episode of history here, but the Russians have not. It is in their school history textbooks, and practically every Soviet citizen I have spoken to remembers it.
Next I should like to say a separate word about the Baltic states. It was suggested recently in this House

1247
that we have never recognised their incorporation into the USSR. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, has just reminded us in his most interesting historical exposition, that is emphatically not the case. We have recognised the incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR de facto if not de jure. If I can add one detail to the full and interesting account that the noble Lord gave, the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Anthony Eden, informed Joseph Stalin of this in December 1941 in terms, in the conversation to which he referred, and this has been our position ever since. I am no international lawyer but it would seem to me that, after a lapse of 49 years, the boundary between de facto recognition and de jure recognition must be a pretty thin one.
Thus, I believe that the words of caution that I have spoken about non-interference apply particularly to the question of the Baltic states. Any suggestion that we are trying to detach the Baltic states from the Soviet Union could, I believe, be extremely dangerous in the current situation in the Soviet Union. We cannot tell what this turmoil will lead to, but if we were to give this historical evolution a character directed against the West, it could have far-reaching consequences.
Your Lordships may think that I am a little too cautious on this matter, but I would emphasise that we are dealing with extremely long-term issues here. To illustrate what I mean in relation to the history of that part of Eastern Europe, I should like to refer to two earlier decisions made by Britain, which it may be salutary to remember.
The first concerns a little-known episode during the Crimean War when, in order to open a second front, the British Government sent a naval expedition in two successive years with the object of bombarding the Russian forts on the Aaland islands and at the approaches to Helsinki and St. Petersburg. In order to make this campaign more successful it was intended to invite the Swedish Government to join this expedition, with a promise that Finland would be allotted to Sweden in the event of success, Finland then, of course, being part of the Czarist empire. The expedition failed mainly, it seems, because the King of Sweden declined the terms offered to him. The interesting part of this little episode is the opinion held by scholars in many Nordic countries that if the offer had been taken up and the expedition had been successful, Finland would now be a part of the Soviet Union.
The second illustration, a more recent one, concerns the 1939–40 winter war when the USSR invaded Finland. I expect that many of your Lordships will recall the strong pressure that was exerted on the British Government of that time that we should send aid to Finland, with whom of course public opinion in this country greatly sympathised. But after prolonged and agonised deliberation the government of the day decided that it would be imprudent to engage on a campaign of that nature against the USSR, just because the consequences were so unpredictable. That view was surely as sensible and correct, unheroic though it may have been, as the
1248
earlier decision to invite the Swedes to engage with us in war against Russia was perhaps imprudent in the last century.
I mention these two historical events as I believe, as I said a little earlier, that the public attitudes expressed by Her Majesty's Government on the issues raised by the noble Baroness are of great long-term importance. It is a sad fact that Russian history has been characterised by an inability to make political changes in a peaceful way. Instead political change in that country has sadly nearly always been accompanied by violence and disruption. My suggestion is that our actions should be carefully calculated to make a peaceful evolution more likely and not less likely. If we can make a contribution in that direction, we will have served our country well.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I put to him two questions? Does he accept overall the Soviet view of the situation of these republics? Secondly, does he think that national self-determination is perhaps rather too dangerous?
Lord Bridges: No, my Lords, I do not take that view. I would certainly agree that a great injustice was done to the Baltic states in 1940, but I think that the injustice is part of history and we have to accept the situation that flowed from it as being a reality with which we have to deal. In other words, we are emotionally engaged but we should not allow our emotions to govern our reason. On the noble Lord's second question, I certainly believe that constitutional change is necessary and I believe that it should come about, but I think it can come about most effectively as a result of what happens inside the Soviet Union rather than external prompting, which can be so readily misinterpreted.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I join with others in thanking the noble Baroness for raising this subject, which has enabled all of us to improve our knowledge of a difficult and important problem. I should like to begin by reassuring the noble Earl that he need not worry about what I am going to say because I have no suggestions to make to Her Majesty's Government and am prepared, for the time being at any rate, to leave this difficult matter to their discretion, understanding, as I think we all must, the priority that Her Majesty's Government, the government of the United States and other members of the alliance at present engaged in war, place upon keeping the Soviet Union on board. In the light of that overriding priority, it would, I feel, be unreasonable, even if we thought it otherwise reasonable, to expect a major démarche on a subject of this kind.
I think it is difficult—and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has helped us there—to start with the Baltic states. The evolution of the Soviet Union over the last few years, and our assessment of what has been happening and where it is going, are surely more important than even the undoubted issues of principle and national self-determination that we consider when we look at the Baltic states.

1249
According to an insert in this evening's television news, apparently Mr. Gorbachev went on air unexpectedly this afternoon in the Soviet Union to stress the importance that he attached to preserving the national unity—the state unity, if you like—of the Soviet Union. That is a useful reminder because his definition of the Soviet Union would undoubtedly include its present frontiers; that is to say, it would include the Baltic states and all the other republics—Moldavia and the Transcaucasian republics—which, to varying degrees, have stressed their wish for independence.
That means—and it is something which I believe has been characteristic of the Soviet position in the United Nations and elsewhere—that such matters are wholly matters of domestic concern and that any expression of opinion from outside on the internal relations of the Soviet Union is to be regarded as interference. When there is, as there is here, a clear divergence of major principle—what to the Soviet Union is regarded as a wholly internal matter, a local domestic matter, is regarded by much of the rest of the world as of international significance—it is very difficult to see how progress can be made.
It seems to me that, if there is to be any external input into this situation, it can only be as a result of not so much the United Kingdom alone but the Western world generally having a strong bargaining position. One can get results by a bargain. In circumstances where issues of principle are involved one cannot expect to get results by persuasion.
In my view, over the past few years—I have said this in this House before but I repeat it because it is relevant to this evening's discussion—the West has wholly misinterpreted what is happening in the Soviet Union. It was argued that the clear signs that the Soviet Union was withdrawing more and more rapidly from some external positions in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan and overseas denoted a major change in the Soviet perception of itself; that is to say, that the Soviet Union was in the process of re-entering on equal terms and in the same spirit the family of nations. I did not think that that was plausible and the remarks made by the noble Baroness about the Soviet Union's interpretation or misinterpretation of recent arms control treaties would seem to bear me out.
But more significant and very closely connected with that was the belief that the economic changes which appeared to be coming about or planned in the Soviet Union were economic changes in the direction of a market economy and that Mr. Gorbachev was a major reformer with a goal which would bring the Soviet Union into the pattern of world trade, world financial relations and so forth. With that, it was believed—rightly, because the two things cannot be disconnected—that that would also imply a relaxation of single party rule and some kind (not necessarily on the Westminster or Washington model) of what we regard as a liberal democratic internal polity.
I have never been able to understand why people should think that Mr. Gorbachev, coming from where he did and having come up through the bureaucracy
1250
with close links with the instruments of internal repression, should believe these things; and indeed, to do him credit, he has never professed to do so. If one examines his writings and speeches, one finds that over and over again he has stressed that the Soviet Union must remain socialist, which of course means the repudiation of the market economy, and that the party must not abandon its leading role, which in Soviet terms means single party rule.
Let us consider the steps that appear to have been taken, which will show why I come back to the bargaining factor. It seems to me that the policy of the Soviet Union since Mr. Gorbachev took over has been one of trying to solve its internal economic problems by assistance from the West. The moves that have been made toward an accommodation of the Western outlook have been moves directed toward breaking down the inhibitions on the export of high technology and to securing financial and administrative assistance from Western countries while, as in the 1920s, holding out to Western capitalists the hope that they can find in the Soviet Union a useful field for investment activity.
However, unfortunately for the Soviet Union and its economic prospects, the policy will not work. In order to exploit the advantages of Western technology and management systems one needs a legal regime—for instance, of private property - and a series of institutions which, even if Mr. Gorbachev genuinely wished, it is doubtful whether the Soviet Union is capable of setting on foot.
I speak from the point of view of the ordinary Russian and not specifically about people in the Baltic states, who are slightly better off. For them the Gorbachev era has been marked by a steady fall in the standard of living. That has exacerbated the rivalries between the nationalities and the desire of an increasing number of Soviet republics to be allowed to follow their own path. It is clear that if in the case of the Baltic states and Georgia, and probably in some other cases, they were left on their own and suddenly allowed to become independent they might manage on a smaller scale to introduce the perestroika which has wholly failed in the Soviet Union itself.
Therefore, it has been increasingly necessary—and this is the background to the dismal and deplorable story outlined by the noble Baroness and others—to clamp down on the aspirations of the republics. If one gave them their head it is clear that even the Russian Republic, the heart of the Soviet Union, might strive for an area of economic independence. We have seen various moves towards collaborative arrangements between the governments of the several republics.
That is clear from what at one point was much the most successful and much the most acclaimed aspect of the Gorbachev era from the point of view of the West; namely, glasnost. For the first time since the revolution it was possible to see in the Soviet press, media and book publications many items which had been unavailable for three generations. But that freedom immediately and inevitably became caught up in the political and economic problems. If you allow freedom of speech and permit the media to flourish independently of government you must expect

1251
the bona fides of government to be challenged. Therefore, there has been a clamp down on publications, presses, television and radio not only in the Baltic states but in the heart of the Soviet Union. Indeed, the noble Baroness gave concrete details.
One would imagine that we are moving towards what Mr. Shevardnadze at his resignation called a dictatorship. It may take a military form, and that is closely related to what may happen in the Gulf. The noble Lord, Lord Kagan, reminded us that some years ago he spoke in this House about Bonapartism. Alternatively, it may take a civilian form or a combination of both. It looks as though we shall have a transitional period during which Soviet power will clamp down once more.
We need to consider what the European Community has been considering and what, no doubt, the United States will consider once its current preoccupations have come to an end; that is, whether anything useful can be done in respect of the co-operation to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred. As the political and economic problems of the Soviet Union will not be solved by dictatorship, will there be the possibility of entering into relations with the smaller units which may have a greater capacity for making something of the opportunities that have opened up?
These are grave issues. In the long run they are far more important than anything that we could do now by demonstrations, petitions or diplomatic moves on the part of the Baltic states. Therefore, my conclusion is no advice for Her Majesty's Government but some advice for those who look after our study of other countries. It is a concern that the next phase of Soviet development should be assessed more realistically than, I fear, have been the past five years.
9.13 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, when the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, began her speech I wondered why she had tabled such a Question. After listening to her I realise that she knows what she is talking about. I have never been to the Soviet Union nor to the Baltic states. Anything that I say is the result of what I have seen or feel.
In 1945, when I was in the Merchant Navy, a crewman had been torpedoed and had escaped back to this country via the Soviet Union. I remember him saying that in the Soviet ports he saw US vehicles and so forth entering the country to help in the fight against the Germans. As they came in and were unloaded, labels were stuck on them which said, "Gift to the United States from the Soviet Union." When the crewman got back to England he mentioned that to various people and he was pooh-poohed. It was said that of course that was not being done because the Soviet Union were our allies.
I have met only two Soviet citizens. One was the Soviet ambassador to the Court of St. James. I met him briefly. The other was an absolutely charming man who, I suspect, was the local KGB man. However, he was very pleasant.
When the Berlin wall came down and there was a feeling of euphoria, I did not believe that the Soviet
1252
Union had suddenly changed. I find it most peculiar that Gorbachev has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. When the Russians invaded Czechoslovakia, we were involved in the Suez crisis. Whenever there is trouble in the world and the eyes of the world are elsewhere, the Soviet Union uses that as an excuse to hold its own invasions. It has taken that action now in Lithuania and the other Baltic states.
I do not believe that I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, speak before. I know that he was born in Lithuania. It was very moving to hear him speak about his country of birth, its traditions and history, which is not normally taught in this country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned the amount of money which the Soviet Union is spending. I have read that it is now spending more money on armaments than before the so-called relaxation. The Soviet Union was saying that it would get rid of 200, 300 or 1,000 tanks and that the West should make similar reductions. I said to people at the time that that sounded wonderful but that so many of its tanks were old, worn out and out of date that it was merely ridding itself of the dead wood and would end up with the most up-to-date tanks. I believe that that has happened, not merely as regards tanks but as regards all types of weapons, including tactical nuclear weapons.
I stress that that is my own personal view. I do not believe that the Soviet Union will ever change without violent internal disruption. If you put yourself in the position of the Soviet leaders, would you want to change a system in which you had a dacha and a chauffeur driven car and were able to buy any food you wanted in special shops and have it delivered to your home where you had servants and so on? Why would those Russians who are lucky enough to have that kind of life be willing to give it up? That does not stand to reason. I am a human being like everybody else. If I were in that situation in the Soviet Union, it may be that in my heart I would think it wrong that I was living the life of Riley, while the average Russian had to queue all day in the hope of buying a loaf of bread and an egg. However, would I give up that wonderful fat life? Quite honestly, I do not believe that I would, and I do not believe the Soviet leaders will.
We know that Gorbachev came up through the ranks of the KGB. I should love to know what is the real situation. Is he still running the country or, as is perfectly possible, is he now merely a figurehead with the army and the KGB pulling the strings? Is it a situation where he has no choice, where he wishes to stay where he is and he does as he is told?
We saw the pictures of a Soviet tank running over a Lithuanian. According to the Russians, that was Western propaganda. It was immediately claimed that the unrest in the Baltic states was inspired by the wicked Americans. It is very useful to have something like the United States of America. Whenever there is a shortage, whatever it is, it can be blamed on the "wicked Americans".
I saw recently on television, as perhaps did other noble Lords, that a number of Soviet troops had Asiatic faces. They were dealing in their own

1253
particular nasty way with the citizens of the Baltic states. I read not too long ago that in the United States of America the Hispanics are becoming the major party and that more people today speak Spanish in the United States of America than speak American. I believe the same could be happening in the Soviet Union. The Russian Russians are slowly becoming a minority who cannot trust their eastern brothers because many of them have a different religion.
I may perhaps be too pessimistic. I believe the outlook in the Soviet Union to be bleak. I regret to say, especially to the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, that it will be many years before the Baltic states can achieve the independence that they once had and which they undoubtedly deserve.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for this debate. I particularly congratulate her because the question we are debating separates the Baltic states from the Soviet Union. I am sure that that is how it should be.
I suggested on another occasion that events in the Soviet Union and the Baltic states should convince us of one of only two real possibilities. The first is that Mr. Gorbachev never was the reformer the Soviets fooled most people in the West into trusting him to be; the second is that Mr. Gorbachev has become the puppet of the regime that he was trying to overthrow.
Those still suffering from Gorby-mania, despite all the evidence, will claim that there is a third possibility; that Mr. Gorbachev is still the hero they thought he was, but that he is just passing through a rough patch with the KGB and the military, of which, I might add, he is the supreme commander. These naive Gorby-maniacs—if I may so call them—would therefore urge us to continue supporting him and his regime, as we have done in the past. I hope to show some reasons why that might be very foolish.
Perhaps it does not matter much whether the Soviets have been fooling us all along or whether a well-meaning Gorbachev has lost control to the old regime. The KGB is returning to power in the Soviet Union and therefore does it matter how it got back there? I fear it may matter, at least from the perspective of how we should deal with the Soviets in future. It is therefore worth examining the more sinister of the two possibilities, that the Soviets have been fooling us all along.
A good starting point could be a book written in the time of Brezhnev by the high ranking Soviet defector Anatoly Golitsyn. It was called, New Lies for Old. Many people criticised Golitsyn for crediting the KGB with too much visionary cunning, and for believing too much in the alleged Sino-Soviet pact. There may be some accuracy in those criticisms. But Golitsyn certainly knew how the Kremlin was capable of thinking; he had been part of it. He knew how long-range Kremlin thinking could afford to be, partly because its leaders do not suffer re-election every few years.
Some of what Golitsyn wrote in 1982 makes disturbing reading today. He considered how the
1254
Kremlin might behave if it became convinced that the decrepit Soviet economy could no longer afford to compete in the arms race, and particularly to compete with the United States on the strategic defence initiative. He said that the Kremlin would buy time from the West while it regathered its forces within the Soviet Union. He forecast that,
"Brezhnev's successor may well appear to be a kind of Soviet Dubcek".
He forecast that under this new leader the Soviet Union would withdraw from Afghanistan; would release its Warsaw Pact allies; would tolerate the demolition of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany. He forecast that some form of market economy would appear to be tolerated for quite some time. He even forecast that Sakharov, who had then been exiled in Gorki for two years since 1980, would be invited to join the government. All this was to be part of a liberalisation campaign which would be spectacular and impressive, but which would be aimed solely at deceiving the West. Golitsyn warned that it might be difficult for Nato to survive for long under such apparent liberalisation in the Soviet Union. Finally, he warned that the KGB would merely have remained in the background and would have been able to retake possession of the Soviet Union at any time. Whatever one may think of Golitsyn, the fact is that he got all that right, and so he can no longer be dismissed entirely as an over-excited conspiracy theorist.
Perhaps his forecast which concerns us most in this debate is that the KGB would have been able to repossess the Soviet Union at any time. That is certainly happening now. We have heard examples from my noble friend Lady Cox and from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and others, of what is happening in the Soviet Union in that regard at the moment. I do not think that I need trouble noble Lords with repetition. I would like to join my noble friend Lady Cox and others in asking my noble friend the Minister for his views on the fact that the Soviet military machine continues its massive build-up, as indeed it did throughout the glasnost era.
The Gorbymaniacs used to excuse their hero for this fact by saying that he was doing his best, but of course he could not be expected to stop the huge Soviet war machine overnight. Now that the KGB's day has dawned again, his chances must be even slimmer, assuming that he ever intended to take them, which must be doubtful. Soviet deception about their military strategy was in fact nicely confirmed on 16th November 1990 in a published interview with an official Soviet economist, Mr. Victor Belkin. Part of what he said is worth quoting. He said:
"The Soviet military sector has always devoured the strength of our economy. Military expenses in our country absorb one-third of the national income and one-fourth of the gross national product—and if one takes into account the priority given to this sector and the quality of the production, it will be even more. Sixty per cent. of our machine production is taken up by the military sector (as opposed to 5 per cent. for consumer goods). You have to remember that all our good quality resources and all the capital of talent and intelligence which we have are entirely turned over to the military sector. In contradiction with all our pacifist declarations the peak of military spending was in 1989—a full 'perestroika' year. The

1255
planned cuts of our armed forces and the military industry are very small; there has been much talk about conversion of military industries into civilian ones but this is happening only sporadically and in homeopathic doses, and not a single industry has actually been taken out of the military sector: simply they are ordered to turn over part of their production for civilian needs. It is clear that non-military production is considered second rate and nobody is interested in it".
I repeat that that is what an official Soviet economist said last November.
So it really does seem that Golitsyn may have been right, and that it was only President Reagan's refusal to abandon the strategic defence initiative programme which brought the Soviet Union to its knees economically and which led to the massive deceptions of glasnost and perestroika. One of the odd things, as my noble friend Lord Beloff has pointed out, is that Gorbachev himself has never really denied this. He has always declared himself to be a good Leninist. Perestroika was always about restructuring and improving the existing communist system. Indeed, in GorbLchev's first western interview with Time magazine he quite openly asked the West to cut its arms programme so that the Soviet Union:
"could have a breathing space and catch up".
Everyone in the West assumed that he wanted to catch up with production of the needs of his population which now must seem doubtful. Sakharov himself was always convinced that Gorbachev's main reason for releasing him from Gorki was that he, Sakharov, was genuirnely against the strategic defence initiative, both Soviet and American, and that he would speak against it, as indeed he did when released.
These are all perhaps separate bits of a puzzle, but I am afraid it is not much of a puzzle any more. What if anything should we try to do about it? I have three humble suggestions for Her Majesty's Government. First, we should be very careful about continuing to plan for any military reductions which assume that the cold war is over. It may be starting again. Secondly, we should not send aid of any sort to the Soviet Union as such. We should send it to the separate republics, all of which have set up agencies which make sure that the aid will get where it is intended to go. If it is sent through official Soviet channels it will either replenish the Soviet strategic reserves or it will be highjacked by the KGB and the nomenclatura.
Thirdly, I join my noble friend Lady Cox in suggesting that we should boycott the Helsinki Round of the Human Rights Conference which the Soviets plan to hold in Moscow in September and October this year. I was very shocked to hear from the Foreign Office only this morning that, because of what the Foreign Office calls "the marked improvement in human rights in the Soviet Union", it is more than likely that Britain will attend that conference. The decision will be reviewed in the summer, but at the moment we plan to go.
That cannot be right. If the Government want to support human rights in the Soviet Union I suggest that they support another conference, one which Mrs. Sakharov is attempting to organise to commemorate what would have been her husband's seventieth birthday on 21st May. Mrs. Sakharov hopes that this
1256
conference will discuss human rights, nuclear energy and the transition by the Soviet totalitarian state to democracy and the rule of law. I believe that if we support Mrs. Sakharov's conference and boycott the official Soviet conference, which can only be a charade of the most cynical kind, we would at least be sending the right message to the devious strategists in the Kremlin.
9.32 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have been offered the opportunity before the winding up speeches to say a few words. The important things about this issue have been said, and said admirably by many noble Lords, especially by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I am speaking only because there cannot be too many of us speaking as strongly as we can in order to keep what is going on in the Baltic states before the eyes of the world.
I perfectly understand, as I think we all do, that the Government are doing what they can hut, in plain terms, they must think very carefully before jeopardising the delicate balance between us and the Soviet Union on the issue of the Gulf. The Russians could indeed do great damage to the at present solid and united position of the coalition in the United Nations. They know that and we know it. But we must not send wrong signals. Nothing should prevent us in this House from expressing what I believe to be a fairly widely held view in the country that the actions of President Gorbachev and his government in the Baltic states in the past year, and especially in the past five weeks, are a mockery of glasnost and of the whole concept of liberty for which Mr. Gorbachev has purported to stand. Perhaps I may say at this juncture that I entirely agree with the interpretations on this issue of the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Pearson of Rannoch. We should not allow our own policy to relate to the supposed personality of Mr. Gorbachev alone. We are dealing with a party which has not changed.
I should like to see a concerted move by all those who are at present engaged in whatever degree in sending help and giving support to the USSR—I do not only mean official aid, I mean the universities and the cultural and voluntary organisations—to pause and to distinguish between, for instance, the Baltic states and the central government and to give their support with discrimination. It always struck me as a bitter joke that, as we were told, the KGB would be in charge of the distribution of food aid. One wondered whether they would set aside some of it for their own particular parish in the USSR, the camps which still exist in the Gulag Archipelago. It is not too late—nor is it a waste of time—to say again loudly and clearly that we are deeply concerned and that not even our natural preoccupation with the situation in the Gulf will prevent us from drawing conclusions from Soviet behaviour in the Baltic states, which must have adverse long-term consequences for their international objectives.
Let us not forget that the liberals in the USSR are themselves protesting. They are looking to us, not for irresponsible support and encouragement to take

1257
action where we cannot help them, but to keep the issue before the eyes of the world and to remember them when we deal with the USSR. The question is whether the Helsinki agreement was a serious Soviet commitment rather than a cosmetic exercise. That does not seem to me to be an unreasonable question to continue to pose. It is right that we should not be silent now and that we should remember that the Russians are, after all, pragmatic. They recognise the fact that they too need us to some extent. However, they must be made to understand that our support in the areas where they need us will not be blind or unconditional.
Finally, perhaps I may say—and not for the first time—that any efforts we make to influence events will be successful only in proportion to our strength. We cannot afford to reduce that strength. As I have indicated on other occasions, the leopard has not changed its spots. However, that does not wholly rule out all hope that we can influence events if we are tough, calm and pragmatic. Where we have bargaining power, we must use it.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this extremely important and difficult problem. I am especially grateful for what I have learned from listening to the speeches which have been made this evening, especially those of the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton and Lord Bridges.
I truly wish that I was as confident about anything as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is about what is happening in the Soviet Union. I found his analysis neat but hardly convincing. I cannot pretend that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that the Soviet Union is going back to, "a hardline repressive communism"; nor can I believe that Mr. Gorbachev has complete power. My picture of what is happening in the Soviet Union is rather different: it is one of incoherence and confusion. The changes in the Baltic states and the changes in Soviet policy towards those states seem to me to be examples of both that confusion and that incoherence. There is also the difficulty of discovering who in fact is making policy in the Soviet Union and who is in control.
If there is the danger of a dictatorship in the Soviet Union —which is indeed a possibility that may emerge from the chaos—I believe that it is unlikely to be communist. In my view it may be a military dictatorship or, alternatively, it may be a kind of authoritarian regime; that is, a Christian orthodox regime such as Solzhenitsyn would love and such as I should abhor. It would be a regime dominated by the Easterners within the Soviet Union and the kind of regime which Mr. Sakharov would have found repellent. That is a genuine prospect and it is one at which we should look with some apprehension. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, wishes to intervene. I am happy for him to do so.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I feel that I must put a word in here on behalf of Alexander Solzhenitsyn who I happen to know fairly well. I can assure noble Lords that the kind of regime which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter holds out as being one which would be favoured by Alexander Solzhenitsyn is not at all what he would favour.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. However, I happen to have read Solzhenitsyn's manifesto. I have also published many of his books and read all of them. Moreover, I have read in Mr. Sakharov's memoirs, about the differences between both their political and their ideological beliefs. Therefore, I shall not move from the position I stated.
However, having said that, I turn to the comments which have been made about Mr. Gorbachev. In my view, the prospect of getting anyone much better than him is extremely remote, whereas the prospect of getting someone much worse than him is extremely likely. A person like Yeltsin would be a change very much for the worse. Having recently been talking to the leaders of certain Baltic states and having discussed that possibility with them, I can tell noble Lords that they strongly share that view.
It must be admitted that those who pretend that nothing has happened over the past five years are really talking nonsense. Indeed, a great deal has happened which cannot be reversed. The withdrawal from Central and Eastern Europe is a matter of the utmost significance. The possibility of independence for the Baltic states—even the degree of independence that they have enjoyed during the past few years—would have been inconceivable 10 years ago. The fact that we are discussing it now as we are indicates that something important has happened. Having said that, that is not to deny that Soviet policy and its ambitions are difficult to read.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, pointed out, the Soviet Union's policy swings in one direction then another in a totally unpredictable manner. We have the shootings in Vilnius; then the Baker-Bessmertnykh talks; then a slight softening and 120 troops are withdrawn—that is nothing, given the number of troops there—then there is the promise of delegations to the three states; and then yesterday we had the statement by Mr. Gorbachev that the poll is illegal, and we have his proposal for a referendum which is phrased in a ludicrous way and in which the army in those states can vote.
I do not pretend that all this is not a puzzle. What I am saying is that few of us can read the significance of that puzzle. That is something which we should accept. We should not seek to find in the evidence what we want to find. That seems to me to happen all too frequently when we discuss the Soviet Union and its policies. When we look at this situation, the relevant question is: what, in these confusing, difficult circumstances, can we do that is of any assistance? In that respect, I was interested in the approach suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, as to how we should discuss the matter with the Soviet Union.

1259
In the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said: that we in this country have some standing in the eyes of the Soviet Union, the words that we express, as many noble Lords have said, and the way in which we express them are of significance. In that respect, despite this country's rather shabby record in respect of the status of the Baltic states, it is useful to emphasise to the Soviet Union their special status; the history which sets them apart as semi-autonomous under the old regime; as independent and democratic in the 1920s and 1930s; and as having been absorbed by Stalin in 1940—an event with which, as I said the other day, the only analogy I can think of is the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. We should say that, because that is a moral position which is of some significance. When we think of how we can help, I believe that we have only two weapons at our disposal. They are, first, discussion and moral persuasion; and, secondly, economic pressure.
The USSR is anxious to be well regarded in the West. It is anxious for economic aid. In both areas we have cards which we can play, cards which we should play and cards which we should not hesitate to play. What is required on both is a common European attitude; but, in developing that attitude, there is one rule by which we should abide rigorously—that is, we should not raise false hopes. The great danger is that we shall raise false hopes that we cannot fulfil. That is the ultimate irresponsibility.
The approach from the European angle is extremely important. Mr. Gorbachev has said that he wants a common European home. If he is to have a common European home, Europe can say what kind of home that must be. I believe that this is a matter of importance. He is anxious for economic aid, trade and knowhow. The European Community is a source of that aid, of trade and of knowhow. If that is what we say to the Soviet Union, we must also say to the Baltic states, "Look, all we can try to do is to get the Soviet Union to the negotiating table. We cannot do more than that under present circumstances. All we say to you is that you must be ready to negotiate". That is how we should use our leverage.
The Foreign Ministers of the European Community met in Brussels on 4th February. During their meeting they discussed the Baltic position at length. I tried to find out what conclusions they came to and the only one I could find yesterday or today was this statement:
"The European Community and its member states welcome the decision to hold a referendum in each of the Baltic States and express the hope that this will favour the opening of a meaningful and constructive dialogue between the central authorities of the USSR and the Baltic States.
"They consider such a decision is in conformity with the spirit of the Paris charter for a new Europe".
I must confess that I regard this as a rather inadequate conclusion to a meeting which, I gather, discussed the matter at considerable length. I hope that in his reply the noble Earl will be able to expand on the statement and tell us what slightly more positive thoughts emerged from the conference.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Foreign Secretary gave a long and interesting statement to the press about the general tenor of the discussions. In it
1260
he stressed the need for greater unity within Europe in its response to what he called "the problems". He pointed out that this was particularly important in relation to Central and Eastern Europe, of which the Baltic states are a part. He quite rightly said that in the years to come many problems would arise there. He then proceeded—in my view, rather unfortunately—to pour cold water on developing new machinery to co-ordinate that common response. He was talking about the development of a common security and foreign policy.
I must point out that no one who advocates moves in that direction suggests that such policies should extend to all areas of security. They would only have to cover specific areas. Nor do I think that advocates of that view suggest that disagreements can be abolished by changes of machinery, as the Foreign Secretary suggested.
We say that the machinery for political co-operation within the Community—the procedures—can and should be improved and it is important that they be improved in order to find better means of reaching more promptly the agreements which will be required in the situations which will arise in post-Gulf Europe. That is what we must consider. Europe after the Gulf war will be part of the world, a community which will have crucial importance for this country because there can be no doubt that after the Gulf, the United States will pursue its withdrawal from Europe. Europe will have to assume greater responsibility for its own political and defence postures and, whether it is the Baltic states or something else, the post-Gulf world will demand a European response. The Community will be an important institution, indeed the chief institution through which the policies appropriate for the defence of the interests of this country can be effectively pursued. In discussing the Baltic states I do not believe that we should forget that aspect of our policy.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I believe I can speak relatively briefly. This is a repeat act so to speak on the part of the noble Earl and myself. We played this role earlier today in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I believe I accused the noble Lord earlier of being eloquently pessimistic. Having listened to him in this debate, I should say that rather than being pessimistic he was positively melancholic. Not only was the noble Lord melancholic; his recipe for government activity verged on the comatose. The "when in doubt do nothing" principle may be legitimate on some occasions in one's personal affairs, but it is hardly a guiding rule which a government can pursue in the reactive world in which we live.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for introducing the debate. However, I do not share many of her views on the situation. Nor do I share those of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. I certainly do not share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I found his certainty breathtaking. It verged almost on zealotry. If he can seriously contend that in the past six years what the Soviet Union has done is merely to fool us all the way

1261
along the line, I can only say that a little more foolery in that respect might do for the Baltic states what that foolery has done for Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany and the other formerly subject peoples of Europe.
It is right that we should have this debate tonight. We cannot but strongly deplore the violent actions of the Soviet authorities and the so-called salvation committees in the Baltic republics. We are all appalled at the shootings and the attacks on unarmed civilian protesters in Lithuania and Latvia. We are also concerned at the threat posed to the continuation of democratically elected parliaments in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and the more general moves towards greater powers for the military and the KGB throughout the Soviet Union.
I believe that most of us accept that any further use of force would gravely jeopardise both the development of democracy and human rights in the Soviet Union and international relations. It would consequently seriously reduce the prospects for building the common European home which is so often called for by President Gorbachev.
What has emerged in relation to the Baltic states from this debate is that we all seem to be agreed that the only acceptable way forward by which the issue of the relationship between the Baltic states and the Soviet Union can be resolved, and should be resolved, is by returning to dialogue and negotiation. This is a rare debate, as far as I am concerned, for one other reason. It is rare that one sits in a debate where one learns something factual that one did not know before. I, and I am sure others, will emerge from this debate tonight more knowledgeable about the history of Lithuania. For that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Kagan who made a moving, perceptive and thoughtful contribution to our proceedings.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I did not know about the expedition to St. Petersburg at the time of the Crimean War. That is one of those little vignettes of British history which so often escape us, but which in a sense indicate the real nature of the government at that time.
The break-up of the Soviet empire will cause immense economic, social, political and perhaps even military difficulties. I hope there will be no military difficulties. What we are observing at the moment is an exercise in managing change. In judging whether or not the changes that are taking place can be managed in what we would consider to be a sensible and rational way, we must not forget how recently the Soviet empire was established. People tend sometimes to regard it as a great monolith that has been there for many years. That is not the case. The incorporation of the central Asian republics into Russia, and subsequently into the Soviet Union, took place barely a century ago. The Baltics only go back some 50 years. The transcaucasian republics were only relatively recently incorporated into the Soviet Union. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, remarked, the British of all people should be prepared to
1262
recognise the problems which are caused by the abandonment of the imperial role. I am not sure that I follow the noble Lord in his suggestion that we should tell the Soviet Union how to manage their relaxation and abandonment of the imperial role.
Nevertheless there are certain possible analogies. The first and most obvious one is that the time of greatest danger for any authoritarian rule is when it is in the process of being relaxed. That is the time when all sorts of movements, all sorts of ideas, all sorts of political parties, may emerge from the deprivation that they have been suffering for some time past. I venture to suggest that this is what we are faced with in the Soviet Union at the moment.
How the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, can say that nothing has happened, when what we are observing are the difficulties caused by something that has happened—namely, the relaxation of the regime inside the Soviet Union and the abandonment of the imperial role of the Soviet Union—I find difficult to understand.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I did not say that nothing had happened. I am fairly close to the events in Poland and Czechoslovakia. What I suggested was that the Soviet Union had released its grip on those Warsaw Pact countries because of the extreme failure of its economic system thanks to the pressure from the United States, particularly on the strategic defence initiative. I would also point out that life in the Soviet Union has not improved all that much, and that what we may be looking at is a return to precisely the dictatorship that we saw before.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord. What he said, among other things, was that the Soviets have been fooling us all along. If he is talking about illusory change rather than real change, that may fit in with the rest of his speech. But I do not see how anybody, looking at what has happened in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe over the last five or six years, can doubt that the changes have been immense.
Of course, the Soviet Union has to recognise that the nationalities' problem can only be resolved by patience and by negotiation over a long period of time. But we must recognise on our side that Mr. Gorbachev's achievements in his six years in power have been immense and they are continuing. The country, Europe and indeed world politics have been transformed in that time.
I give two or three examples so far as the Soviet Union is concerned. Can one doubt that press and media freedom, the freedom to talk and communicate, is infinitely greater than before Mr. Gorbachev came into power? Can one doubt that there has been a reform of political institutions in the Soviet Union which gives far freer rein to genuine popular feeling and opinion? Can one doubt that there is a reform in the relationship between the centre and the individual republics? Can one conceive that, in the Brezhnev era, Mr. Yeltsin would have been capable of trying to take

1263
the republic of Russia out of the Soviet Union? Merely to state what has happened in the Soviet Union almost proves the proposition.
I am bound to say, though it may not meet with much favour from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that I find Mr. Gorbachev's leadership over the past six years to have been courageous and vigorous. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, I do not see any real alternative to our continuing to support that leadership and indeed to giving it our backing.
I see two alternatives. The first, is that we continue with Mr. Gorbachev; the second is that we may well be faced with something worse. I am wary of the dangers that lie ahead, particularly the possibility of a right wing backlash inside the Soviet Union. I hope that I have never fallen prey to that illness about which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, talked so much, namely, Gorby-mania. I have tried to look at the problems inside the Soviet Union and to approach them with as analytical and careful a mind as one can.
If one wants further indication of how much change there has been, there was very recently a debate in the Council of Europe on the issue of the Baltic states. One delegate, Mr. Soell, said that we have no divisions of troops, but we have something which the Soviet leadership permanently lacks—our firm faith in the moral principles. We must approach the events in the Baltic states according to those principles. First, we must resolutely condemn the brutal use of military force against the civilian population. Secondly, we must reinforce our commitment and engagement to the principles of freedom, independence, human rights and the right to self-determination in correlation with the Baltic situation.
Thirdly, we must approach the parties with a view to starting immediate talks and re-establishing the nation al sovereignty of the Baltic states.
That was a delegate speaking at the Council of Europe. If one wishes evidence of the change which has taken place over the last six years in the right direction, I merely tell your Lordships that the speaker was Hungarian.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government welcome today's debate, introduced so ably by my noble friend Lady Cox, and I thank all your Lordships for having taken part. An enormous wealth of experience and knowledge has been expressed and I, for one, have certainly learnt a great deal from tonight's discussion. Recent events in the Baltic states and developments in the Soviet Union more widely have, quite rightly, caused profound concern. The war in the Gulf must not prevent us from taking account also or the importance of what is happening in the Soviet Union and its implications for the future of Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, reminded the House of some of the events that have happened in the past five or six years. The process of reform initiated by President Gorbachev brought an end to the cold war; led to a new, co-operative spirit in international relations (exemplified by the coalition against the Iraqi
1264
invasion of Kuwait); gave back to the countries of eastern Europe the independence which they had lost in the 1940s; and opened the way to the Soviet Union becoming a more open and liberal society.
Our welcome for these changes was strong and unequivocal. They were good for Britain and the West; good for eastern Europe; and good for the Soviet people. We believed that, by making the state the servant of the citizen rather than the reverse, it would he possible to exploit fully the enormous human and natural resources of the Soviet Union. Freed from the constraints of a discredited and inefficient system, the Soviet people would begin to enjoy the prosperity which their country had always been capable of providing. Democratic institutions would give people at every level the power to decide their own destiny. In response, we held out the prospect of an increasingly close and productive relationship with the western world: a co-operation agreement with the Community; association with the international financial institutions; a totally new relationship with NATO.
These are all gains which we must seek to protect, in so far as we are able. The West should reiterate, not withdraw, its support for reform in the Soviet Union. We would like to build on the network of co-operation already established; but we shall not be able to extend co-operation with the Soviet authorities if those same authorities are taking the Soviet Union backwards. Co-operation needs the right political climate. The recent tragic events in the Baltic states have affected that climate and cast a cloud over East-West relations.
As this House knows well, the British Government believe the Baltic states to be a special case and have never recognised de jure the forcible incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union. We have repeatedly underlined the need for the Baltic people to be able freely to decide what their own future should be. Very substantial progress has been made in this direction in the past two years. For the first time since 1940 the Baltic people had democratically elected representatives. They were gradually establishing greater economic independence and political autonomy. They were pursuing their legitimate aims without using threats or force. While important differences with Moscow remained, the divide was not unbridgeable. We looked forward to the day when the Baltic states could take their place beside the other nations of Europe in the CSCE.
Against that background we totally condemn the arbitrary use of force to repress the Baltic peoples. We deplore the tragic loss of life in Lithuania and Latvia. Whatever the exact sequence of events, there can be no question but that ultimate responsibility for what happened must rest with the central authorities.
We have made the strength of our concern crystal clear to the Soviet authorities, most recently when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State saw the Soviet Ambassador on 31st January. I can tell my noble friend Lady Cox that we have underlined the incompatibility of repression in the Baltic states with Soviet CSCE commitments contained in the Helsinki Final Act and the Paris Charter.

1265
In close consultation with our partners and allies, we have taken a series of measures designed to bring hope to the Soviet leadership—including President Gorbachev personally—that our support for reform is not unconditional; that the rewards of East-West co-operation cannot continue if there is a return to old-style repression.
Perhaps I may identify some of the measures taken. The bulk of the United States 1.6 billion dollar package agreed at the Rome European Council has been suspended; the EC/USSR Joint Commission has been postponed sine die; we have invoked the human dimension mechanism, which gives CSCE states the right to demand an explanation of apparent human rights abuses; we are keeping our bilateral co-operation under close review.
At this point perhaps I should explain a little more fully about the aid programme, because I believe there to be some misunderstanding of the true position. The Community has decided, as I have just said, to suspend implementation of most of the package agreed at the December European Council, with the exception of humanitarian assistance. Food aid will be provided only where there is a clear need and where we are sure it will reach its rightful recipients. There is no British Government-to-government aid. We are keeping the know-how fund under review, but this is designed to assist reform directly and help the move to a market economy, not to prop up existing structures.
The Russians can be in no doubt about the deep disappointment felt in Parliament and more widely in this country. It is essential that the Soviet authorities should, without delay, remove their troops from the streets and begin serious and peaceful negotiations with the democratically elected representatives of the Baltic peoples. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, should, I hope, be reassured that it is our firm belief that it is only through such negotiations that a lasting settlement, acceptable to all involved, can he achieved. This is our clear and unambiguous message to Moscow and to the Baltic leaders.
There are other causes for anxiety. Market-oriented economic reform is stalled. We have seen the resignation of many leading liberals, most notably Mr. Shevardnadze; the introduction of new joint army-military patrols on 1st February; and the wide-ranging powers given to the KGB to counter so-called economic crimes.
The Soviet Government has said publicly and repeatedly that perestroika is not being abandoned and that it is seeking to resolve its problems by political means, not force. Soviet leaders have appealed for greater Western understanding. Of course we understand President Gorbachev's desire to prevent growing disorder in the Soviet Union. We are under no illusions about the enormous scale of the task that he is undertaking. He is seeking to introduce changes in many ways more revolutionary than those of 1917.
The noble Lord, Lord Kagan, used the analogy of the man in the diving hell. We have always been clear that it would be a matter of decades, not months or years, for these to take root. Our support too has been
1266
for the long haul. But it is support for reform, for democratisation, for civil and political rights, for self-determination, for the freedom of the individual, and for the principles of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
My noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, warned the Government about what they believe are the true motives of the Russian authorities. We believe that it is still too early to draw firm conclusions about the Soviet Union's future direction from recent events. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, the evidence is conflicting, and in places confusing. There are, I admit, many worrying signs, but the attempt to supplant the elected authorities in the Baltic states has not—at least as yet—been followed through.
Moscow's decision to send delegations to the three Baltic states is a welcome step in the right direction. Parts of the Soviet media continue to cover events honestly and to criticise the authorities trenchantly. In the republican parliaments genuine debate continues. After five years of gradual liberalisation, it is increasingly difficult to see how the genie can be put back in the bottle. This must provide some grounds for hope that we may be witnessing a serious hiatus in the process of reform, not its total abandonment. We very much hope so. We are not a fair-weather friend. Our commitment to working for mutually beneficial long-term co-operation is unshaken. Fundamental reform in the Soviet Union is in our interest as well as theirs. The benefits of more co-operative East-West relations are apparent in the Middle East, southern Africa and South-East Asia—not just Europe. And, as the barriers of distrust and misunderstanding have been broken down, there has been unprecedented progress on arms control.
At this stage I should like to respond to some of the specific points raised in the debate, although I am clearly conscious that I shall not be able to respond to them all. My noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about our representation outside Moscow. We are looking to expand our representation outside Moscow, whether through consulates or British Council offices, but we have no immediate plans to open offices in the Baltic states. However, I reassure my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton that we are in regular contact with elected Baltic leaders. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister saw the Latvian foreign minister, Mr. Jurkans, on 23rd January. Our embassy in Moscow keeps in close touch with the Baltic representatives there.
In reply to my noble friends Lord Pearson and Lady Cox, who asked specifically about the human rights conference later this year, we shall only attend the planned human rights conference in Moscow this autumn if the Soviet authorities return to the path of reform and consolidate the very considerable progress made in recent years. We urge the Soviet authorities to negotiate peacefully, not to threaten or use force and to stand by their commitments which they accepted at the highest levels in the Paris Charter and other instruments.

1267
We remain concerned by the continuing level of Soviet military output, as mentioned by some noble Lords this evening. We have consistently urged the Soviet authorities to cut their defence expenditure, both to help reduce tension and to allow resources to he used more productively elsewhere in the economy. Without a major shift from military to civil expenditure we see little prospect of economic reform succeeding.
Let me say to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch that full Soviet compliance with CFE and other arms control agreements is essential. We have underlined to the Russians our concern on a number of aspects of CFE implementation.
In conclusion, I stress that we are determined to do everything possible to prevent the barriers of the past being rebuilt. We are supporting an upsurge of direct contacts between individuals and institutions. We are actively looking for ways to help not the central Soviet authorities but those who are actively implementing reform on the ground, at republican and lower levels. In the Baltic states alone we have already supported the development of management training programmes, provided advice on the creation of a small farm sector and offered help with port privatisation. We are providing an English language training support project in Estonia, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will be pleased to hear. As long as there are effective ways to help real reform we are in no doubt that Britain should continue to offer carefully targeted assistance.
1268
However, if it became clear that the Soviet authorities were determined to attempt a return to full-blooded authoritarianism, there might no longer be any reform for us to support. They say that that is not their intention, and it would indeed be a sad day for the West and a tragic one for the Soviet people if it were. There is no doubt that reform must eventually come if the aspirations of the Soviet people are to be met. The only questions are when and how. The right answer is as quickly as possible, through a peaceful and democratic process involving all the people of the Soviet Union. That is the only way to resolve the differences between Moscow and the Baltic states and the only way to build a new Soviet Union based on consent and not coercion.

Statutory Sick Pay Bill
Returned from the Commons on Tuesday, 5th February with one of the Lords amendments disagreed to, with a reason for such disagreement; with another Lords amendment agreed to with amendments; and with the remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at a quarter past ten o'clock.

  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  AUNG SAN SUU KYI: REPRESENTATIONS
  AUNG SAN SUU KYI: REPRESENTATIONS
  BALTIC STATES: INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
  BALTIC STATES: INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
  LITHUANIA: ALLEGED ATTACKS
  LITHUANIA: ALLEGED ATTACKS
  LITHUANIA: THEFT FROM BRITISH JOURNALISTS
  LITHUANIA: THEFT FROM BRITISH JOURNALISTS
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL: UNANIMOUS VOTES
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL: UNANIMOUS VOTES
  ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP
  ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP
  NORTH KOREA
  NORTH KOREA
  NORTHERN IRELAND: REMAND PRISONERS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: REMAND PRISONERS
  JUVENILES ON REMAND
  JUVENILES ON REMAND
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CUSTODY
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CUSTODY
  PRISONS: CERTIFIED NORMAL ACCOMMODATION
  PRISONS: CERTIFIED NORMAL ACCOMMODATION
  PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS: RPM
  PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS: RPM
  EXPORT CREDITS: USSR
  EXPORT CREDITS: USSR
  BALTIC STATES AND GATT
  BALTIC STATES AND GATT
  ABORTION STATISTICS
  ABORTION STATISTICS